ACC AM 19/03/19

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Maryland Edges Closer to Polystyrene Ban

   Mar 18, 2019 | Environmental Leader

   By Jennifer Hermes
   
   
   Maryland’s House of Delegates has passed a bill that would ban restaurants from using polystyrene foam containers and cups; if Republican Gov. Larry Hogan signs the bill, Maryland would become the first state to enact such a ban.
2. Chemical Industry Stumbles Out of the Gate

   Mar 18, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News

   By Alexander H. Tullo
   
   
   Early warnings from manufacturers and stock analysts are flashing on the chemical industry’s radar screen, indicating that 2019 may be off to a slow start.
3. Hawaii Weighs First-in-Nation Plastic Bans at Restaurants

   Mar 19, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)

   By Audrey McAvoy
   
   
   Hawaii would be the first state in the U.S. to ban most plastics at restaurants under legislation that aims to cut down on waste that pollutes the ocean.

TSCA News

4. Democrats Eye New Scrutiny Of EPA’s TSCA Adoption To Protect Workers

   Mar 19, 2019 | Inside EPA

   By Arianna Figueroa
   
   
   House Democrats appear likely to step up their oversight of EPA’s implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) after the agency sidestepped their calls to ban workplace uses of methylene chloride in paint strippers, an action they said would not protect workers.
5. US EPA Seeks Comments on Workplace Programme for Methylene Chloride

   Mar 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin
   
   
   Industry feedback has led the US EPA to pursue preserving commercial uses of paint removers containing methylene chloride, despite vocal protests from NGOs.
6. US EPA Releases Mercury Reporting Tools

   Mar 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   The US EPA has released guidance materials to help companies, organisations and individuals to comply with the agency’s mercury inventory reporting rule.

Chemical Management News

7. (ACC Mentioned) With Agenda Set, IRIS Relaunches Cr6 Assessment

   Mar 18, 2019 | Inside EPA

   EPA's influential Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is relaunching its assessment of hexavalent chromium (Cr6) with the release of a protocol document, the first sign of action from the program since Administrator Andrew Wheeler and other top officials scaled back its agenda late last year, a step that drew charges of political interference.
8. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Bans Consumer Sales of Paint Stripper Linked to Deaths | AP Business

   Mar 18, 2019 | sbDirtySouthSoccer

   By Vicki Mclaughlin
   
   
   The Environmental Protection Agency is banning consumer sales of a paint stripper after personal appeals by families of men who died while using the product.
9. Senate Environmental Committee Sets PFAS Hearing for Next Week

   Mar 18, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

   By Annie Snider
   
   
   The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing next week that's likely to shine a spotlight on the behind-the-scenes battle between the Defense Department, EPA and the Centers for Disease Control over how strictly to regulate PFAS chemicals.
10. Trump Budget Undercuts Wheeler, Chops Funds for PFAS, Lead

    Mar 18, 2019 | E&E News PM

    By Corbin Hiar
    
    
    The Trump administration today sent a spending request to Congress that would make it harder for researchers and communities to combat toxic pollutants in drinking water.
11. Enviros, Dems Slam EPA Plan For Toxic Paint Stripper

    Mar 18, 2019 | Law 360

    By Juan Carlos Rodriguez
    
    
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday bowed to public pressure and banned methylene chloride in all paint removers for consumer use, but environmental groups criticized the agency for leaving the door open to commercial use of the toxic chemical.
12. Feature: Miami Beach is Fourth Tourist Spot to Consider Sunscreen Ban

    Mar 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    By Caroline Byrne
    
    
    Miami Beach is rethinking its approach to oxybenzone and octinoxate, the chemicals used in sunscreens like Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat to deflect ultraviolet rays.
13. Sunscreen Bans Aimed at Protecting Coral Reefs Spark Debate — Among Scientists

    Mar 18, 2019 | The Washington Post

    By Rebecca Beitsch
    
    
    Environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers increasingly are working to bar the sale of sunscreens that may damage coral reefs, but the bans are dividing a surprising group: coral scientists.
14. How Pollution Can Affect Your Hormones, According To Science

    Mar 18, 2019 | Bustle

    By JR Thorpe
    
    
    It seems as if there's a new story every day about the impact of environmental pollutants on our bodies, from pollution in the air to stuff found in plastic bottles and couches.

Energy News

15. Oil and Gas Regulators Get Penalty Power Under New Mexico Bill

    Mar 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Brenna Goth
    
    
    New Mexico oil and gas regulators will be able to sanction companies for violating state law for the first time in a decade if a bill the Legislature passed March 15 is signed into law.
16. North Dakota Natural Gas Production Starts Year with New Record

    Mar 18, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Richard Nemec
    
    
    In another sign that the Bakken Shale's best oil producing areas continue to be gassier than other shale plays, North Dakota officials saw natural gas production set an all-time record in January, averaging more than 2.7 Bcf/d for the month.
17. DC Moves Closer to Climate Lawsuit Against Exxon

    Mar 18, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Miranda Green
    
    
    The D.C. government is beefing up its legal team ahead of an anticipated legal challenge against Exxon.
18. Clock Starts for Suits Over EPA’s Decision to Retain SO2 NAAQS

    Mar 18, 2019 | Inside EPA

    EPA is promulgating in the March 18 Federal Register its decision to leave federal air quality standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2) unchanged, starting a 60-day window for potential litigants to sue over the rule.
19. Trump Wants to Gut Clean Energy Spending — Budget Documents

    Mar 18, 2019 | E&E News PM

    By Jeremy Dillon
    
    
    The Trump administration is proposing to cancel some $287 million in current unobligated balances at the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy to close out the program by 2022, according to additional fiscal 2020 budget request documents released today.
20. New Governor Touts Passage of Oil and Gas Reform, Ethics Bills

    Mar 19, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Mike Lee
    
    
    New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who was elected after promising to wean the state off its reliance on fossil fuels, saw many but not all of her priorities pass the Legislature.
21. Court OKs Antitrust claim Against Chesapeake, Anadarko

    Mar 19, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Pamela King
    
    
    A Pennsylvania court found that the state may pursue an anti-gaming challenge against two of the biggest natural gas developers in the Marcellus Shale.
22. 3.0 Magnitude Earthquake Shakes State

    Mar 19, 2019 | AP (In E&E Energywire)

    No injuries have been reported following a 3.0 magnitude earthquake that shook parts of central Oklahoma.
23. Refineries Pay $3.8M Vt. Settlement Over Fuel Additive

    Mar 19, 2019 | AP (In E&E Energywire)

    The Vermont attorney general's office says more than two dozen of the country's biggest gasoline refiners, including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Shell Oil Co., are paying a $3.8 million settlement over the use of the gasoline additive that the state alleged caused widespread groundwater pollution.

Chemical Security News

24. Houston Chemical Fires to Rage for Two Days Until Fuel Burns Out

    Mar 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Kevin Crowley, Jack Kaskey and Barbara Powell
    
    
    Petrochemical tank fires that covered the Houston skyline in thick, black smoke will likely burn for two more days or until the fuel runs out, first responders said.

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

Environment News

25. Trump Keeps Funding Alive for UN Body Overseeing Climate Accord

    Mar 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Dean Scott
    
    
    President Donald Trump is still bent on withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, but will keep funding the United Nations body that oversees its implementation, a senior administration official told Bloomberg Environment March 18.
26. Tonko Poised To Unveil 'Principles' For Comprehensive Climate Legislation

    Mar 18, 2019 | Inside EPA

    By Doug Obey
    
    
    House Democrats are poised to further flesh out their climate change agenda this week when Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce environment and climate subcommittee, unveils a set of “principles” for a comprehensive national plan to address climate change.
27. Food Giants to Urge Congress to Tackle Climate Change

    Mar 19, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Catherine Boudreau
    
    
    Four major food companies are planning to lobby Congress to press for strong action to address climate change, a top Mars official said today.
28. Flooded U.S. Air Force Base Underscores Climate Risk to Security: Experts

    Mar 18, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

    By Timothy Gardner
    
    
    Flooding at a U.S. Air Force base in Nebraska that damaged buildings and forced the removal of a plane integral to the nation's nuclear attack response highlight the risks climate change poses to national security, experts said on Monday.
29. EPA FY20 Budget Increases States’ Duties While Cutting Assistance Funds

    Mar 18, 2019 | Inside EPA

    By David LaRoss
    
    
    EPA’s just-released justification to Congress for its fiscal year 2020 budget details an aggressive plan for shifting significant environmental oversight to states either through delegated authority or slashing programs that complement states’ work, but it also seeks deep cuts to funds that could help states pay for the increased workload.
30. Riverkeeper Can’t Force EPA Action on New York Water Standards

    Mar 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Peter Hayes
    
    
    The Environmental Protection Agency won dismissal of a Clean Water Act citizen suit seeking to require the agency to publish New York water quality standards.
31. Bipartisan Group of Senators Ask EPA to Leave MATS Rule Alone

    Mar 18, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Eric Wolff
    
    
    A bipartisan group of senators is urging EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to drop the plan to alter the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule.
32. EPA Declines to Tighten More Air Toxics Rules

    Mar 18, 2019 | Inside EPA

    EPA in a combined rulemaking has left largely unchanged air toxics rules for three coating industry sectors, continuing a pattern of declining to tighten emissions limits following Clean Air Act-mandated reviews.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Maryland Edges Closer to Polystyrene Ban

   Mar 18, 2019 | Environmental Leader

   By Jennifer Hermes

   Maryland’s House of Delegates has passed a bill that would ban restaurants from using polystyrene foam containers and cups; if Republican Gov. Larry Hogan signs the bill, Maryland would become the first state to enact such a ban.

   The Republican governor says he has not yet taken a position on whether he’ll sign the bill, but many Republicans have raised concerns that a foam-container ban would increase costs for small businesses and farmers. American Chemistry Council lobbyist Josh Young, who opposed the bill at a recent hearing, says not only are foam alternatives more pricey, but that they won’t break down in landfills (via the Baltimore Sun).

   “You are forcing establishments to switch to a more expensive product that will do nothing to clean up the environment and in fact increase litter and greenhouse gases,” Young says.

   The ban would not include products packaged outside of Maryland or foam products used to package meat. Offenders could receive fines of up to $250.

   Polystyrene containers are difficult and costly to recycle and, though no states have yet put bans into place, more than 100 cities and counties in the US have enacted such bans, Mark Marinozzi, vice president of PR and marketing at World Centric, told Environmental Leader.

   But switching from foam is not an easy process, especially for restaurants, which tend to look at costs down to the penny. Compared to many alternatives, foam offers better insulating capacity and costs less, says Bryan Buffalo, senior vice president of the fast-casual chain Nature’s Table, which has around 75 locations nationwide. Foam also tends to weigh less, meaning lower freight costs, he told Environmental Leader.

   For a more in-depth look at polystyrene issue, see Restaurant Industry Faces Challenges with Plant-Based Packaging Shift.

   The 4th Annual Environmental Leader & Energy Manager Conference takes place May 13 – 15, 2019 in Denver. Learn more here.

   https://www.environmentalleader.com/2019/03/maryland-edges-closer-to-polystyrene-ban/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. Chemical Industry Stumbles Out of the Gate

   Mar 18, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News

   By Alexander H. Tullo

   Early warnings from manufacturers and stock analysts are flashing on the chemical industry’s radar screen, indicating that 2019 may be off to a slow start.

   Eastman Chemical says it will implement “a modest and targeted reduction” in its global workforce. It is also delaying salary increases, except for plant operators and mechanics.

   The Tennessee-based company attributes the actions to a business environment that is more difficult than it had earlier hoped. “The ongoing U.S.-China trade dispute and the associated economic slowdown in China and Europe have created tremendous uncertainty, which has resulted in reduced demand for our products,” Eastman says.

   Huntsman announced that it expects a 10% decline in its earnings before taxes in the first quarter of 2019 compared to the fourth quarter of 2018. It also expects to see a 5% to 7% decline in full-year 2019 profits versus 2018.

   Sign up for C&EN's must-read weekly newsletterSubscribe »

   Contact us to opt out anytime

   The company is seeing improved polyurethane demand in China, but this gain is being offset by slower demand in North American construction and automotive markets as well as soft demand across major European markets. Huntsman’s performance chemical business is experiencing sluggish demand for agricultural and oilfield chemicals.

   The firm’s advanced material business is having trouble in construction and coatings markets. And its textile effects business is experiencing “lingering challenges” in China.

   Financial analysts, meanwhile, are tempering their outlook for some major firms. Laurence Alexander, a stock analyst with the investment firm Jefferies, just lowered his 2019 earnings estimate for BASF. In a report to clients, he said the action reflects “further destocking in some downstream chains in Europe and North America.” He also noted “softness in particular in automotive value chains.”

   And in a report on the approaching launch of the independent Dow, Morgan Stanley stock analyst Vincent Andrews pointed to the risk of economic slowdown. “While discussions in 2018 were largely focused on supply, we see demand playing an increasingly important role in 2019,” he wrote, “particularly in light of geopolitical concerns, recession fears, trade uncertainty, and the sharp correction in commodity prices we saw in 4Q18.”

   https://cen.acs.org/business/economy/Chemical-industry-stumbles-gate/97/web/2019/03
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. Hawaii Weighs First-in-Nation Plastic Bans at Restaurants

   Mar 19, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)

   By Audrey McAvoy

   Hawaii would be the first state in the U.S. to ban most plastics at restaurants under legislation that aims to cut down on waste that pollutes the ocean.

   Dozens of cities across the country have banned plastic foam containers, but Hawaii’s measure would make it the first to do so statewide. The liberal state has a history of prioritizing the environment — it’s mandated renewable energy use and prohibited sunscreen ingredients that harm coral.

   A second, more ambitious proposal would go even further and prohibit fast-food and full-service restaurants from distributing and using plastic drink bottles, utensils, stirring sticks, bags and straws.

   The Hawaii efforts would be stricter than in California, which last year became the first state to ban full-service restaurants from automatically giving out plastic straws, and broader than in Seattle, San Francisco and other cities that have banned some single-use plastics.

   Activists believe the foam container measure has a better chance of passing in Hawaii.

   “We have this reputation of setting the example for the world to follow, and that’s what we’re trying to do here,” state Sen. Mike Gabbard, lead author of the more ambitious measure, said to the Senate. “Our state can once again take the lead in protecting our environment.”

   Gabbard, father of Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, said 95 percent of plastic packaging worldwide is thrown out after being used once. In the U.S., 500 million plastic straws are used and thrown out every day, he said.

   Discarded, slow-to-degrade plastic is showing up at sea, as in a massive gyre northeast of the Hawaiian islands, and on beaches.

   Plastics also contribute to climate change because oil is used to make them, said Stuart Coleman, Hawaii manager for the Surfrider Foundation.

   Eric S.S. Wong, co-owner of two fast-food establishments on Oahu, said not being able to serve food in plastic foam containers would drive up his costs at a time when he faces rising health insurance charges for his employees and a possible minimum wage hike that lawmakers also are considering.

   He said he’ll have to raise prices.

   “Now all of the sudden, your family’s $30 dining experience became $37 or $38,” Wong said.

   His Wiki Wiki Drive Inn takeout counter in Honolulu sells sandwiches, breakfast meals and Hawaii favorites like Loco Moco, which features white rice topped with a hamburger patty, fried egg and gravy.

   A package of 200 foam boxes costs him $23, while the same number of biodegradable boxes would cost $57, he said.

   Chris Yankowski of the Hawaii Restaurant Association, which represents 3,500 restaurants, said lawmakers are trying to do “too much too fast.”

   Yankowski, who is also president of Triple F Distributors, argued that good alternatives to plastic products are not yet available. Hawaii’s cities and counties also don’t provide composting facilities, so there is no organized place to dispose of compostable containers that lawmakers say restaurants should use instead, he added.

   “It’s almost like we want to do great things for the environment, but we’re not ready to handle it when we change it over,” Yankowski said.

   The Hawaii Food Industry Association, which counts the state’s biggest supermarkets and convenience stores as members, initially opposed the foam container ban but now supports it.

   The group said in written testimony that it’s encountered difficulties coping with varied local regulations and it wants the state to create a consistent standard. Two main counties — Hawaii and Maui — have already adopted plastic foam bans. Maui’s took effect on Dec. 31, while Hawaii’s takes effect on July 1.

   The association still opposes the broader measure, which also would ban plastic garbage bags.

   The president of Island Plastic Bags, a Hawaii company that makes plastic bags, said the legislation would prohibit his company from selling trash bags to nursing homes and hospitals as well as restaurants and hotels.

   Grocery stores wouldn’t be able to sell trash can liners, Adrian Hong said in written testimony. It would create a “public health crisis,” he said.

   Gabbard said his proposal was in the early stages so lawmakers have time to address such concerns.

   The state Senate has passed both bills. They still must get through several House committees and the full House before heading to the governor.

   Cindy McMillan, a spokeswoman for Gov. David Ige, said he hasn’t stated a position on the measures yet.

   Justin Macia, a pharmacist in Honolulu, said he would like people to use less plastic and stop using plastic foam entirely because of how long it takes to degrade. Cardboard containers would be a great alternative, he said.

   “It’s definitely something that’s got to go,” he said, after eating a sandwich from a foam takeout box.

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/hawaii-weighs-first-in-nation-plastic-bans-at-restaurants/2019/03/19/be93d282-4a05-11e9-8cfc-2c5d0999c21e_story.html?utm_term=.c58d837d0db5
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

4. Democrats Eye New Scrutiny Of EPA’s TSCA Adoption To Protect Workers

   Mar 19, 2019 | Inside EPA

   By Arianna Figueroa

   House Democrats appear likely to step up their oversight of EPA’s implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) after the agency sidestepped their calls to ban workplace uses of methylene chloride in paint strippers, an action they said would not protect workers.

   “Methylene chloride has killed dozens of people already, at least four of whom died since the draft rule was first published in January 2017. How many more need to die before this agency will do its job and protect workers from unreasonable risks?” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce’s environment and climate subcommittee wrote in a March 15 twitter post.

   Prior to the final rule’s issuance, Tonko had warned after a hearing on EPA’s “failure to protect workers,” he told Inside EPA that he and other Democrats would step up their oversight if the agency continues to sidestep bipartisan calls to protect workers and follow what the Democrats say is the “letter and spirit” of the law.

   “We’ll again review what the language [is] as they address . . . the situation. A lot of it, I think, is taking the letter [and] spirit of the law and respecting it and applying it,” Tonko told Inside EPA after a March 13 hearing.

   “If we find that it’s not done and there’s the need to take or have additional scrutiny we’ll go forward. But we want workers respected because that was the nature, I think, of our bipartisan message."

   The March 13 hearing was intended to highlight concerns from Democrats, environmentalists and labor groups who charge that EPA’s implementation of TSCA is not adequately protecting workers, previewing criticisms that the methylene chloride and other rules were not adequately protective.

   When EPA issued the methylene chloride measure March 15, it appeared to underscore the critics’ concerns as the agency rejected their calls to ban commercial uses of the chemicals in paint strippers.

   Instead, the agency issued a final rule barring consumer uses of methylene chloride in paint strippers as well as a pre-rule that seeks to create an enforceable worker training program to help limit potentially harmful exposures.

   EPA toxics chief Alexandra Dunn, on a conference call, left the door open to further regulating workers’ risks though she declined to commit to the ban on workplace uses that Tonko and others originally sought.

    If EPA finds that methylene chloride is “unreasonably dangerous for workers,” then the agency “will make a legal finding” under the revised TSCA to “take steps to mitigate those [concerns],” Dunn said.

   EPA-OSHA Coordination

   While Republicans appeared to agree with Democrats’ calls to protect workers, especially firefighters who are exposed to asbestos and perfluorinated chemicals, the lawmakers and their witnesses questioned whether OSHA or EPA was the appropriate agency to protect workers from exposure to industrial chemicals.

   Rep. Earl “Buddy” Carter (R-GA) expressed frustration at not fully understanding Congress’s role in the matter, the difference between the two sections of TSCA at issue -- section 5 governing new chemicals and section 6 for existing chemicals -- and how the subcommittee could ensure that firefighters were protected.

   “Tell me what we can do for OSHA and EPA to make sure that we’ve got the safest working environment that we can have for our community,” Carter said. “Help me understand."

   Mark Duvall, a principal at Beveridge & Diamond PC who advises chemical industry clients, says that EPA does prioritize worker safety with its TSCA program and that better communication between EPA and OSHA is needed to improve safety.

   “I’d say that one of the most important things that can be done is to fully fund both agencies,” he says, adding, “EPA should work more closely with OSHA to get the best worker protection measures that are appropriate.”

   In Duvall’s opening statement, he says that based on EPA’s statutes, it’s “required to redress risks to workers that it determines are unreasonable or may be unreasonable."

   “This obligation is risk-based,” he says. “It does not require EPA to protect workers without regard to the particular conditions of use…on the basis of hazard alone. Instead, every risk determination must consider risk in light of the applicable ‘conditions of use.’”

   But another witness, Patrick Morrison a retired fire fighter, echoed Tonko’s concerns that the EPA was not implementing TSCA reform as Congress intended. He particularly singled out the agency’s decision to sidestep assessing and regulating some chemical uses, such as legacy uses and those regulated by other agencies and other EPA programs, saying it is harming fire fighters who can encounter legacy asbestos and other harmful chemicals like per- and polyfluoroakyl substances (PFAS), which is found in foam used for fighting fires, in their line of duty.

   “Our members face significant chemical exposures on the job due to the vast quantity of chemicals added to building materials, consumer products and the equipment our members use every day,” says Morrison, the assistant to the general president for Occupational Health, Safety and Medicine of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF).

   “Fire fighters, like other Americans, have put our trust in the EPA to regulate these toxic chemicals, but unfortunately, have witnessed only modest efforts by the current Administration to protect the health and well-being of workers exposed to such chemicals,” he says.

   Morrison criticized EPA for not fully understanding what fire fighters deal with on the job and suggested that OSHA become more involved in providing regulations for first responders. For example, Morrison says OSHA could set up regulations for safe air quality levels when first responders are putting out fires and there is a possibility that the building has asbestos.

   And Adam Finkel, a clinical professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and a former EPA advisor and OSHA official, agrees, but says the problem arises when it comes to which agency should be responsible for protecting workers.

   Finkel says that either OSHA or EPA should be responsible for setting standards.

   “There should be one national agency dealing with chemicals that go out of the workplace and into the environment, whether it’s EPA or OSHA I don’t care, but the separation is the problem,” he says.

   https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democrats-eye-new-scrutiny-epa%E2%80%99s-tsca-adoption-protect-workers
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. US EPA Seeks Comments on Workplace Programme for Methylene Chloride

   Mar 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin

   Industry feedback has led the US EPA to pursue preserving commercial uses of paint removers containing methylene chloride, despite vocal protests from NGOs.

   Late last week, the agency announced a final rule to prohibit methylene chloride in consumer paint strippers. But rather than extend that prohibition to commercial uses, as it had originally proposed in early 2017, the agency has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for "training, certification, and limited access requirements".

   The news was quickly met with pushback from an array of NGOs and democrats who had sought a full ban on the products.

   But the agency says such a programme could allow access only by commercial users who have been trained and certified "to engage in use practices that ensure that the chemical use does not present any such unreasonable risks."

   In the ANPRM, the EPA credits its change of course to feedback it received during the rulemaking process, including during a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel. These included such comments as:a white paper from the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) encouraging the agency to adopt a training and certification programme similar to one enacted in the United Kingdom;the Department of Defense proposing that the EPA adopt a risk management approach requiring the use of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and hazard communication;feedback from a workshop on furniture refinishing with methylene chloride, during which some stakeholders said that a prohibition on the substance "would severely affect their ability to do business in this sector"; anda small business representative suggesting the EPA adopt a programme similar to its lead renovation, repair and painting (RRP) rule.

   Given these comments, the EPA said it is interested in soliciting additional public input on such an approach.

   The ANPRM acknowledges that the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) indicated "strong opposition" to such a proposal. The NGO cited challenges with the EPA’s implementation of the RRP rule, and the higher cost of a training programme relative to a prohibition for commercial uses.

   But the agency says it has "a suite of regulatory tools to address unreasonable risks from chemical substances, including authority to regulate the distribution in commerce for a particular use and to regulate any manner or method of commercial use, to the extent necessary".

   And with respect to commercial uses of methylene chloride, the EPA says it "has not finalised the proposed determination of unreasonable risk" that it floated in 2017.

   "EPA would finalise any determination of unreasonable risk as part of a final regulation," it added.

   Comments on the proposal will be accepted for 60 days from when it is formally published.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/75142/us-epa-seeks-comments-on-workplace-programme-for-methylene-chloride
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. US EPA Releases Mercury Reporting Tools

   Mar 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   The US EPA has released guidance materials to help companies, organisations and individuals to comply with the agency’s mercury inventory reporting rule.

   Reporting must be completed through the online Mercury Electronic Reporting (MER) application, housed under the Central Data Exchange (CDX). To assist companies in fulfilling their obligations, the agency has issued tools including: frequently asked questions;a compliance guide; anda MER application guide to help users determine if they are subject to the mercury inventory requirements.

   The reporting deadline for all 2018 activities is 1 July.

   The EPA plans to use the information collected to develop a second mercury inventory, with an anticipated 2020 release.

   The agency also will recommend manufacturing processes and products that can reduce mercury use.

   The EPA is required by 2016 amendments to TSCA to publish an inventory every three years. The first inventory was published in 2017.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/75140/us-epa-releases-mercury-reporting-tools
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

7. (ACC Mentioned) With Agenda Set, IRIS Relaunches Cr6 Assessment

   Mar 18, 2019 | Inside EPA

   EPA's influential Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is relaunching its assessment of hexavalent chromium (Cr6) with the release of a protocol document, the first sign of action from the program since Administrator Andrew Wheeler and other top officials scaled back its agenda late last year, a step that drew charges of political interference.

   The protocol document, released March 15, is among a handful of early public documents released under IRIS' new systematic review approach to performing the assessments, an approach that IRIS has sought to adopt since the National Academy of Sciences recommended that it do so in a critical 2011 report.

   The document provides scoping information for the assessment, describes the literature deemed relevant to the review, and how the assessment will be conducted.

   The document marks a rare announcement from EPA's IRIS program, which has largely been sidelined by the Trump EPA as they worked to prioritize pending assessments. IRIS staff were blocked from releasing any documents for several months last summer and fall while Trump EPA officials reviewed its agenda of chemicals for assessment.

   But a recent report from the Government Accountability Office raised questions about political appointees' role in the prioritization process, which provided no explanation for a series of dropped assessments, including that of formaldehyde.

   The finding prompted Democratic lawmakers to ask EPA's administrator and scientific integrity officer to “investigate whether the Agency’s efforts to prevent the completion of the formaldehyde health assessment constituted a violation of the agency’s scientific integrity policy, and determine whether [David Dunlap, the top political appointee in EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)], violated the terms of his recusal agreement by participating in efforts related to the IRIS formaldehyde health assessment.”

   The agenda IRIS released last December contained slightly more than half the number of chemicals that had previously been on schedule, GAO's report says. While formaldehyde disappeared from the list without explanation, it still contained a number of long-running assessments of controversial chemicals, including arsenic and Cr6.

   EPA has been struggling to update its existing 1998 assessment of Cr6 for years, following the release of a National Toxicology Program study indicating a previously unknown cancer risk from ingesting Cr6. EPA's 1998 assessment only addresses cancer risk from inhalation exposure.

   The Cr6 assessment has been years in the making. A stringent 2010 draft assessment drew the ire of regulated industry, and the American Chemistry Council funded new research into Cr6's biological mode of action -- which can be used to argue that an EPA risk assessment should be conducted in a less stringent way with non-linear modeling if a non-mutagenic mode of action can be demonstrated with sufficient evidence.

   The peer review panel that reviewed the assessment recommended that EPA delay the assessment to wait for the research to be completed -- though some months later, environmental groups claimed that some members of the peer review panel had conflicts of interest and should not have served.

   EPA agreed to delay the assessment, and eventually agreed to essentially restart it. During a meeting of EPA's science advisors last June, IRIS' Director Kris Thayer acknowledged that the Cr6 document is “very mature."

   Thayer explained there are two reasons for re-formulating it through the systematic review process she brought to the IRIS program in 2017: first, staff worked to ensure that the assessment is still a priority to the requesting program office; second, to create a document trail like those of newer assessments that started using the systematic review techniques. She also anticipated that the protocol would be released in time for a public meeting last August.

   The new scoping document indicates that an IRIS assessment of Cr6 remains a priority for EPA's Superfund and water offices, as well as all 10 regional offices.

   The document also notes that “For the oral [cancer risk] assessment, both linear and nonlinear approaches will be presented for Cr(VI) carcinogenicity to provide insights into uncertainties related to model choice and mechanisms."

   EPA released the document for public comment, with an April 29 deadline. EPA also announced that it is planning a public science webinar on the document, scheduled for April 24.

   https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/agenda-set-iris-relaunches-cr6-assessment
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Bans Consumer Sales of Paint Stripper Linked to Deaths | AP Business

   Mar 18, 2019 | sbDirtySouthSoccer

   By Vicki Mclaughlin

   The Environmental Protection Agency is banning consumer sales of a paint stripper after personal appeals by families of men who died while using the product.

   Families of people who have died after inhaling paint strippers that contain methylene chloride and chemical safety advocates have called for the products to be banned because of the risks. After all, our Mind the Store campaign to convince retailers like Lowe's and The Home Depot to stop selling these products to both consumers and professional contractors regardless of whether EPA acts deserves some credit for getting EPA Administrator Wheeler to even take this step. The EPA says it expects retailers to implement it sooner.

   A go-to product for do-it-yourselfers that state officials say have caused at least five USA deaths since 2014 is being banned for consumer use.

   The EPA says exposure to the chemical's fumes can rapidly cause dizziness, loss of consciousness, and death due to the nervous system slowing down.

   The dead include a 21-year-old worker, Kevin Hartley, who had had training in use of the product, and Drew Wynne, a 31-year-old SC man who was cleaning the floor of his start-up coffee company. Both died in 2017.

   Families of victims had met with Trump administration officials and lawmakers urging the ban. And in this climate, a win is nearly impossible, " said Wynne, who along with his parents, brother, wife, and son joined EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler for the signing of the rule.

   The rule doesn't affect commercial uses.

   "Based on the over 150,000 public comments that we received we made the decision that we made today, to take the ban on the consumer use and then to further reflect very expeditiously on the workplace uses".

   The American Chemistry Council said it supported the EPA's ban and consideration of "a federally-enforceable training, certification and limited access program".

   Liz Hitchcock, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said in a statement that it is "absolutely unacceptable" for the EPA to finalize a rule that does not protect "thousands of workers". EWG attorney Melanie Benesh accused the administration of "catering to the wishes of the chemical industry".

   "We answered the call from many affected families to ensure that no other family experiences the death of someone close to them, from this chemical", Dunn said.

   The EPA under the Trump administration has been among the most active agencies in carrying out President Donald Trump's mission of rolling back regulations it sees as burdensome to business.

   Lindsay McCormick, the chemical and health project manager at environmental advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund also said the ban fell short.

   http://sbdirtysouthsoccer.com/2019/03/18/epa-bans-consumer-sales-of-paint-stripper-linked-to-deaths/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Senate Environmental Committee Sets PFAS Hearing for Next Week

   Mar 18, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

   By Annie Snider

   The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing next week that's likely to shine a spotlight on the behind-the-scenes battle between the Defense Department, EPA and the Centers for Disease Control over how strictly to regulate PFAS chemicals.

   The March 28 hearing will include top officials working on the chemicals from the three agencies, as well as the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

   It comes after Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) the top Democrat on the committee, accused the Defense Department last week of seeking to weaken EPA guidance for cleaning up groundwater contaminated by the chemicals. POLITICO previously reported that EPA had proposed setting a cleanup standard of 70 parts per trillion for the chemicals PFOA and PFOS — the same level that the agency has said is safe in drinking water. Carper said he has been told that the Defense Department is seeking a limit nearly six times higher.

   It also follows the release of EPA's PFAS Action Plan last month, which some state and community leaders have criticized as insufficient.

   Witnesses at next week's hearing will include: Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Patrick Breysse, director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; David Ross, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Water; and Maureen Sullivan, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for environment.

   https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Trump Budget Undercuts Wheeler, Chops Funds for PFAS, Lead

    Mar 18, 2019 | E&E News PM

    By Corbin Hiar

    The Trump administration today sent a spending request to Congress that would make it harder for researchers and communities to combat toxic pollutants in drinking water.

    President Trump's detailed budget calls for steep cuts to several research programs focused on a class of cancer-linked nonstick chemicals known as PFAS and the neurotoxin lead. While it also seeks to provide some new funding for polluted communities, that money would be offset by other spending cuts and could restrict their potential for future federal support.

    The proposal has little chance of getting past congressional appropriators, but it's nevertheless a clear statement of administration priorities — one that seems to contrast with its other public statements on lead and PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

    "EPA continues to take concrete steps, in cooperation with our federal and state partners, to address PFAS and ensure all Americans have access to clean and safe drinking water," EPA chief Andrew Wheeler told senators earlier this year (E&E News PM, Jan. 29).

    But EPA's budget request would slash nearly $220.6 million from four research programs that work on PFAS and, in some cases, lead. It would also zero out a $14 million lead remediation grant program.

    At the same time, it would create a $50 million "healthy schools" grant that aims to reduce pests, asthma triggers, and exposure to lead and other toxic chemicals in schools.

    The Defense Department, meanwhile, would set aside $20 million to provide to communities with water polluted by the use of two kinds of PFAS-containing firefighting foams at Air National Guard bases.

    But the money would be available only to water systems that already requested cleanup dollars, and "the local water authority or state, as the case may be, must waive all claims" for additional treatment assistance if EPA finds those PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are more harmful than it previously believed, the president's detailed budget says.

    The Air Force didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the PFAS provision.

    The hardest-hit EPA PFAS effort would be the Sustainable and Healthy Communities program, which the administration wants to slash by 60 percent, or over $80 million, to $53.6 million.

    The program is currently researching "end-of-life management of PFAS-containing materials (e.g., industrial waste, household waste) to ensure that PFAS from these materials do not impact the environment," EPA says in its budget justification. It also supports "states, tribes, and local communities on issues pertaining to ecological and human health risk assessment, and site engineering challenges related to PFAS."

    EPA's request calls for other PFAS-related research programs to see major cuts:Air and Energy would be slashed by nearly 67 percent, or $63.2 million of its current $94.9 million budget.Chemical Safety and Sustainability efforts would lose almost $40.4 million, or 31 percent, of the program's $126.9 million budget.Safe and Sustainable Water Resources would have to work with nearly $36.3 million less, about a 34 percent reduction from the group's $106.3 million budget.

    The water resources research program also focuses on developing new models and techniques for lead exposure and testing.

    "The overall impact of this research will be providing information and tools that EPA's Office of Water and regions, as well as states, tribes, utilities, and communities can use to minimize or eliminate lead exposure in drinking water," the agency told appropriators.

    EPA didn't respond to a request for comment on the difference between its public statements on the need to fight drinking water contamination and its budget, which would make it harder to do that.

    But in a press release about the new schools grant, Wheeler this afternoon said that "protecting children's health is a top priority for EPA." The program could "help schools, especially those in underserved communities, reduce exposures to environmental hazards, create healthier learning environments, and ensure children can reach their fullest potential."

    https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/18/stories/1060127565
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Enviros, Dems Slam EPA Plan For Toxic Paint Stripper

    Mar 18, 2019 | Law 360

    By Juan Carlos Rodriguez

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday bowed to public pressure and banned methylene chloride in all paint removers for consumer use, but environmental groups criticized the agency for leaving the door open to commercial use of the toxic chemical.

    According to the EPA, the risks posed by the chemical are unreasonable for consumers to be exposed to. The agency said short-term exposure can lead to dizziness, loss of consciousness, and death due to nervous system depression. Several deaths from inhalation have been reported, and the EPA said there are less harmful substitutes available.

    "This rule answers calls from many affected families to effectively remove these products from retail shelves and retail distribution channels, providing protection for the American public," said Alexandra Dunn, the agency's assistant administrator for chemical safety.

    Under the EPA's final rule addressing consumer products, any paint stripping products containing methylene chloride will be banned for any consumer sales 180 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register.

    But green groups took the agency to task for also releasing an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that could allow commercial use of methylene chloride.

    "While it is an important step to bar consumer use of methylene chloride-based paint strippers, EDF is alarmed that EPA has abandoned its earlier proposal to protect those most at risk — the many workers, including owners and employees of small businesses, who are exposed to these deadly products on the job," Lindsay McCormick, chemicals and health project manager at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement.

    McCormick said most reported deaths from products that contain methylene chloride are of workers.

    Several members of Congress, including Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., also said they oppose continued use of the chemical in commercial products.

    "EPA's action ... is a watered-down protection that apparently values industry profits at the expense of public health and safety — particularly for the hardworking people who will still be risking their lives with exposure to these deadly products," Udall said in a statement Friday.

    In 2016 the EPA placed methylene chloride on the list of the first 10 chemicals it would evaluate for potential risks to human health and the environment under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act.

    Under the TSCA amendments, dubbed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, for each risk evaluation that the EPA completes, the agency must begin another. By the end of 2019, the EPA is supposed to have at least 20 chemical risk evaluations ongoing at any given time.

    Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1139911/enviros-dems-slam-epa-plan-for-toxic-paint-stripper?copied=1

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Feature: Miami Beach is Fourth Tourist Spot to Consider Sunscreen Ban

    Mar 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    By Caroline Byrne

    Miami Beach is rethinking its approach to oxybenzone and octinoxate, the chemicals used in sunscreens like Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat to deflect ultraviolet rays.

    It is the fourth tourist destination to consider banning sunblock containing oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) and octinoxate (octyl methoxycinnamate) for environmental reasons. Key West, a city at Florida’s southern tip, and the US state of Hawaii have already voted to ban the products by 2021, and the Pacific archipelago nation of Palau will prohibit their sale starting in January 2020.

    Florida, the so-called ‘Sunshine State’, is keen to protect hundreds of miles of shallow coral reefs which create specialised breeding sites for plants and animals, and draw millions of divers, snorkelers and sun worshippers to the southern US each year.

    "We have one reef," Key West Mayor Teri Johnston told the city commission before February’s vote. "And we have an opportunity to do one small thing to protect that."

    Not everyone agrees on the best approach, however. Miami Beach considered a ban similar to Key West’s last week but the issue was deferred until April so commissioners can question experts and study the scientific research. Away from the spotlight, there is much debate about the science underpinning the bans.Coral bleaching

    'There are chemicals, in particular, benzophenones and oxycinnamates, found in common commercial sunscreens, that have dire effects on marine organisms such as corals and sea-urchins'

    "More than ten years ago, we were part of a team that carried out experiments showing that there are chemicals, in particular, benzophenones and oxycinnamates, found in common commercial sunscreens, that have dire effects on marine organisms such as corals and sea-urchins even at very low doses (micrograms and noanograms per litre water)," Professor Ariel Kushmaro, senior lecturer in the Department of Biotechnology Engineering at Israel’s Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, told Chemical Watch.

    "In these controlled laboratory studies, we showed that for the model coral Stylophora pistillata, oxybenzone (also known as benzophenone) is a photo-toxicant and that adverse effects are exacerbated in the light. Whether in darkness or light, oxybenzone transformed planulae from a motile state to a deformed, sessile condition."

    The issue heated up in 2016 when Craig Downs, a Virginia, US-based forensic ecotoxicologist, and his team published research from Hawaii and the Virgin Islands in the Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology. They reported that as much as 14,000 tonnes of lotion ends up in coral reefs every year, and that oxybenzone can bleach coral and cause genetic damage to organisms including adult male fish, sea urchins and sea turtles.

    When Hawaii voted to ban the sale or distribution of sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate in 2018, the rift in the academic community widened.

    "In our opinion, there is little definitive scientific research supporting the associated concerns and that before this evidence exists, given the benefits of oxybenzone-containing sunscreens in skin cancer prevention, this (Hawaii’s) ban is premature," Rachel S Mirsky et al, wrote in the December 2018 publication Skin, the journal of cutaneous medicine.Environmental concerns

    Terry Hughes, an authority on coral reef science and professor of marine biology at Australia’s James Cook University, waded into the debate in February with an article in The conversation entitled: "There’s insufficient evidence your sunscreen harms coral reefs."

    Australians are keen to protect the Great Barrier Reef, the world’s largest coral reef, but Dr Hughes argues that a ban on sunscreens isn’t the answer.'There is actually no direct evidence to demonstrate that bleaching due to global heating is exacerbated by sunscreen pollutants'

    "There is actually no direct evidence to demonstrate that bleaching due to global heating is exacerbated by sunscreen pollutants," Dr Hughes says. "Similarly, there is no evidence that recovery from thermal bleaching is impaired by sunscreens, or that sunscreens cause coral bleaching in the wild."

    But Cheryl M Woodley, a scientist at the US government’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science in South Carolina, argues that research documenting the toxicity of oxybenzone on corals is already "extensive", and there is enough evidence showing oxybenzone is toxic to coral and threatens overall coral reef health.

    In response to questions from Chemical Watch, Dr Woodley’s office sent a copy of her letter to Hawaiian legislators in 2017.
    
    "The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that oxybenzone is toxic to coral and threatens overall coral reef health by inducing coral bleaching; harming or killing coral larvae by inducing gross deformities, DNA damage, and bleaching; acting as an endocrine disruptor; and bioaccumulating in coral tissue," Dr Woodley writes.

    "Managing exposure of corals to oxybenzone is a key step in threat‐reduction, and is a critical aspect in improving coral reef health now and for the future," she concludes.The human factor

    In light of Key West’s decision to ban the sunscreens, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA) and the Personal Care Products Council urged commissioners to do more research to understand the "real causes" of coral decline, such as global warming, pollution, over-fishing and agricultural runoff.

    The environment isn’t the only concern. Skin cancer prevention is an important part of the debate, sparking disagreements between scientists, NGOs, dermatologists, public health officials, company representatives and politicians. Some fear the bans will push sun-seekers to forgo skin protection altogether.

    "This irresponsible action will make it more difficult for families to protect themselves against the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays," the CHPA said.

    The US NGO Environmental Working Group (EWG), which has published an annual sunscreen guide for the past 12 years, says oxybenzone is a potential hazard to both the environment and human health.

    Two-thirds of the 650 beach and sport sunscreens examined for EWG’s latest report offered "inferior sun protection or contain worrisome ingredients like oxybenzone, a hormone disruptor, or retinyl palmitate, a form of vitamin A that may harm skin. And despite scant evidence, the government still allows most sunscreens to claim they help prevent skin cancer."

    'Americans shouldn’t be used as guinea pigs to show that chemicals are harmful'

    "Americans shouldn’t be used as guinea pigs to show that chemicals are harmful, and they need to be taken off the market," Nneka Leiba, director of EWG’s healthy living science programme, said in an emailed statement to Chemical Watch. "Rather, manufacturers should first prove that the ingredients in their products are safe."

    But Edgewell Personal Care, the Missouri-based company that manufactures Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic sunscreens among other products, says the company complies with all relevant regulations and produces sunscreen products free of oxybenzone and octinoxate so consumers have a choice.

    "While the science around coral reefs is evolving, at Edgewell Personal Care we respect the need to protect the environment. We always work with experts to evaluate the ingredients we use and are proud that we have introduced products with simplified formulas to meet consumers’ interest," Edgewell says.

    The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website recommends consumers choose sun protection with a combination of chemical agents, including oxybenzone, to provide broad-spectrum protection against UVA and UVB rays: "For UVA protection, look for the following active ingredients: zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, avobenzone, ecamsule, oxybenzone, dioxybenzone, or sulisobenzone."

    Henry W Lim, chair emeritus of the dermatology department at Detroit’s Henry Ford Health System, said in a 2018 study in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology: "While there is emerging evidence that chemical sunscreen ingredients could enter the water supply and affect marine life, including fish and coral reefs, more research will be necessary to draw any firm conclusions, and there have been no demonstrable harmful effects in humans."Palua’s day in the sun

    The World Wildlife Federation says reefs form the nurseries for about a quarter of the ocean's fish. As a result, sunscreen bans are not only being discussed in the US.
    
    The Pacific Ocean holiday destination of Palau, population 25,000, was catapulted into the headlines worldwide when it announced plans to ban products that contain any of ten designated chemicals in skincare products including oxybenzone and octinoxate.

    The legislation was passed after a study on Palau’s Jellyfish Lake, a Unesco World Heritage site, involving the accumulation of sunscreen in the endemic golden jellyfish and lake water. It found oxybenzone in the water, sediment and jellyfish samples.  

    Retailers and others who breach the ban face fines of $1,000 (£760) when the law comes into effect in 2020.

    'These provisions walk a smart balance between educating tourists and scaring them away'

    "These provisions walk a smart balance between educating tourists and scaring them away," Palau's president Tommy Remengesau said in a statement.The 'Sunshine state'

    Miami Beach’s Sustainability and Resiliency Committee, which deals with environmental issues, is now studying the scientific literature and potential impacts on health and the environment. If its proposed law is passed, Miami Beach is considering fines ranging from $250 to $1,000 with the ban taking effect from 1 January 2021.

    Miami Beach is not alone. Surfside, a town just north of the city, is debating a separate sunscreen law. Meanwhile, Florida senator Linda Stewart, an Orlando Democrat, has filed Senate Bill 708 calling for a state-wide ban on sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate without a prescription.

    If Ms Stewart has her way, Florida could prohibit the sale or distribution of the skin care products as early as 1 July, at the height of the tourist season.Proactive and precautionary approaches

    The sunscreen debate has divided researchers, trade associations and consumers for more than a decade. Here are a selection of comments on all sides of the debate:"Claims that sunscreen ingredients currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration are toxic to the environment or a hazard to human health have not been proven," – American Academy of Dermatology Association statement May 2018 following the announcement of Hawaii’s ban."While additional research may incrementally add to our understanding of its impacts to additional coral reef species, additional research on the impacts of oxybenzone should not be a prerequisite to management action," – Cheryl M Woodley, a scientist at the US government’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science in South Carolina."Considering the many stresses already faced by reefs and current concerns about the toxicity of certain components of sunscreens to corals, a proactive and precautionary approach to dealing with this issue may be required," – ICRI Forum 2018 report examining the impact of sunscreen on corals."We see this as a public health issue ... Whether you vote for the ordinance or vote it down, you’re not going to see coral thrive in Key West unfortunately," – Carlos Gutiérrez of the US Consumer Healthcare Products Association.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/75134/feature-miami-beach-is-fourth-tourist-spot-to-consider-sunscreen-ban
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Sunscreen Bans Aimed at Protecting Coral Reefs Spark Debate — Among Scientists

    Mar 18, 2019 | The Washington Post

    By Rebecca Beitsch

    Environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers increasingly are working to bar the sale of sunscreens that may damage coral reefs, but the bans are dividing a surprising group: coral scientists.

    Hawaii last year became the first state to ban sales of sunscreens with oxybenzone and octinoxate, chemicals that are found in as much as three-quarters of sunscreens on the U.S. market. Key West, Fla., followed suit last month, making it the first city to ban sales of such sunscreens. Florida and California are considering similar bans.

    The bans are a response to a decline in coral health. Corals around the world have been stressed to the point of turning white, or “bleaching,” which happens when they expel the energy-supplying algae that live within them.

    Scientists often cite warming oceans because of climate change as the main culprit, but initial research shows sun-blocking chemicals oxybenzone and octinoxate also might be damaging corals, spurring bleaching.

    Scientists disagree, however, on whether the evidence merits banning sales of sunscreen with the substances. Last month, many scientists and professors who specialize in corals, toxicology and chemistry flooded the Coral-List, an Internet mailing list run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with comments for and against such bans.

    Even among a group of people with a strong interest in protecting coral health, the discussion was divisive, with some accusing the sunscreen industry of ignoring the dangers of its products.

    Others mused that they were facing a situation similar to the early days of climate change awareness, in which scientists risk being too passive, cautious of advocating action on a growing problem until there is broad evidence.

    Scientists agree that the major culprit in coral degradation is climate change. C. Mark Eakin, an oceanographer and the coordinator for NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch program, described sunscreen damage to corals as death by a thousand cuts. “Climate change,” he added, “has been like a nuclear blast.”

    “If we don’t deal with climate change,” he said by email, “it won’t matter what we do about sunscreens.”

    Some scientists say it is too early to know how damaging sunscreen is to corals because the studies are limited. About a half-dozen studies examine the effects of oxybenzone on corals, and some researchers have questioned the methods behind the studies.

    But other scientists — often those favoring a ban — say those studies are a small part of a growing body of research that documents the negative effect of oxybenzone and octinoxate on corals and other species with an endocrine system, including humans and animals.

    Meanwhile, some dermatologists and sunscreen makers oppose the bans, saying they will lead to fewer people protecting themselves from sun exposure and increase the risk of skin cancer.

    Prohibiting certain sunscreens is a small action in the larger fight against global warming, but local officials are calling it a start.

    “If it’s something we can do to minimize damage to reefs,” said Key West Mayor Teri Johnston, “it’s one small step we’re going to take.”

    As in Hawaii, sales of sunscreen with oxybenzone and octinoxate will be prohibited in Key West starting in 2021.

    Those laws were spurred in part by a 2015 study led by Craig Downs, a forensic ecotoxicologist and the executive director of the Virginia-based nonprofit Haereticus Environmental Laboratory, which researches how to conserve and restore habitat.

    The study, published in the Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, was one of the first to find oxybezone can harm corals.

    Downs told Stateline oxybenzone is an “ecologically threatening chemical” that, when compounded by other local problems such as sewage pollution and erosion of dirt into the ocean, can damage corals beyond repair, ending a cycle in which corals are able to bounce back from a bleaching event over the course of five to 10 years.

    Supporters of Hawaii’s ban cited a 2017 letter to legislators from Cheryl Woodley, a NOAA coral scientist, that said existing research was enough to spark action.

    “While additional research may incrementally add to our understanding of its impacts to additional coral reef species,” the letter said, “additional research on the impacts of oxybenzone should not be a prerequisite to management action.”

    Many Key West residents supported the ban — people wearing coral-colored shirts that read “oxybenzone free” filled city hall during debate on the measure.

    Nicole Crane, a coral reef biologist and professor at Cabrillo College in California, said corals are dying off because of multiple stressors — warming ocean temperatures, pollution and chemicals. Still, she joined the Coral-List conversation in recent weeks to support banning sunscreens with oxybenzone and octinoxate.

    “There are so many things about coral reefs that are a problem, and not many of them are easily tackled, whereas the sunscreen is easily tackled,” Crane told Stateline. “I think we should be grabbing at anything we can in getting the public involved in trying to protect these habitats.”

    Douglas Fenner, a coral scientist in American Samoa and a consultant for Conservation International and NOAA, said he is normally sympathetic to the idea of taking a precautionary approach to chemicals and conservation efforts. But in an email to the Coral-List, he called banning oxybenzone and octinoxate a “feel good” exercise and a waste of time.

    A number of studies show the chemicals can be dangerous, Fenner told Stateline, but they are still very low on the list of threats to corals, while skin cancer remains a high risk to human health. Melanoma rates in the United States have nearly doubled since 1999, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Some dermatologists and sunscreen companies likewise say they’re concerned about skin cancer rates if people switch to a sunscreen that doesn’t offer as broad a protection, or even skip sunscreen.

    Kurt Reynertson, a biologist with Johnson & Johnson, which produces many skin-care products using oxybenzone and octinoxate, said audience members hissed at him when he testified against the ban in Key West.

    Reynertson heads the company’s regulatory and stewardship policy division, analyzing how certain chemicals affect human and environmental health. Normally, the job involves telling the company not to use certain chemicals, he said, but he doesn’t think there is enough data to support banning oxybenzone and octinoxate.

    “What I know is that climate change is killing [corals], and that I don’t have enough evidence to ban oxybenzone,” he said. “Taking something out of the arsenal of what you could truly call a lifesaving drug is a big decision. You don’t base global public health decisions on a couple studies.”

    The Skin Cancer Foundation, an education and research nonprofit group supported in part by skin-care and cosmetics companies, said in a statement last year that the Hawaii ban was “cause for concern.”

    “By removing access to a significant number of products, this ban will give people another excuse to skip sun protection, putting them at greater risk for skin cancer,” the foundation said in its statement. The American Academy of Dermatology declined to take a position on the sunscreen bans.

    The bans in Hawaii and Key West don’t stop visitors from bringing any sunscreen they choose, but locals will need a prescription before buying those with oxybenzone or octinoxate. Otherwise, shoppers will be limited to mineral sunscreens that rely on components such as zinc oxide to block the sun or a smaller selection of sunscreens without the offending chemicals.

    Reynertson said the public often perceives mineral sunscreens, which Johnson & Johnson also makes, as being better for the environment, but he is concerned that if they become widely used, the high dosage of substances may be just as damaging to corals.

    But Downs said the mineral particles are too big to be absorbed by wildlife.

    Sunscreen manufacturers and some environmentalists have been lobbying the Food and Drug Administration to expand its list of approved ingredients for sunscreen, which hasn’t been modified since the late 1990s.

    They point to Europe, which has a longer list, hopeful that a diversity of ingredients would help reduce the impact of any one substance. The Skin Care Foundation supports expanding the list.

    The FDA recently announced it would ask sunscreen makers to turn over more data about the active ingredients in their products, including oxybenzone and octinoxate.

    Laura Friedman (D), a member of the California State Assembly who sponsored legislation to ban sales in her state, said sunscreen producers have told her they could create less toxic products. “But with what they have approved now,” she said, “they don’t have an alternative that works as well that’s not toxic.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/sunscreen-bans-aimed-at-protecting-coral-reefs-spark-debate--among-scientists/2019/03/15/b35d4030-4512-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html?utm_term=.66d6b7252cac
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. How Pollution Can Affect Your Hormones, According To Science

    Mar 18, 2019 | Bustle

    By JR Thorpe

    It seems as if there's a new story every day about the impact of environmental pollutants on our bodies, from pollution in the air to stuff found in plastic bottles and couches. Pollution is a global problem without a readily apparent solution, though taking steps to avoid exposure can help. On top of its environmental effects, pollution can affect your hormones in some surprising ways.

    Studies have discovered that various substances might be associated with disruption of hormones in all sorts of ways, from the way we have babies to the way we cope with stress. While a lot of the science is associative — in other words, it just shows that pollution and hormone issues are linked, not that there's cause and effect — it's still worth knowing about.

    Hormones in the body are produced and regulated by the endocrine system, which is very complex and involves multiple different organs and hormones. The study of the relationship between the world around us and our hormones is called environmental endocrinology; Professor Sean Lema wrote in 2017 for Oxford University Press that it's "the study of how the environmental conditions experienced by an organism affect the endocrine system." And environmental endocrinology has a lot of lessons for us about how various things in the environment might be affecting our hormones. Here are six ways pollution can impact your hormones.1Bisphenol A In Plastics Is Linked To Hormone IssuesSolona Armstrong@solonaarmstrong

    "When a chemical affects your hormones, it's called an endocrine disruptor. And it turns out that many of the compounds used to make plastic soft and flexible (like phthalates) or to make them harder and stronger (like Bisphenol A, or BPA)..." https://www.gq.com/story/sperm-count-zero … #EDC411:08 PM - Sep 7, 2018Twitter Ads info and privacyWhat Happens If We Hit Sperm Count Zero?

    A strange thing has happened to men over the past few decades: We've become increasingly infertile, so much so that within a generation we may lose the ability to reproduce entirely.gq.comSee Solona Armstrong's other Tweets

    One of the most worrying substances when it comes to hormone disruption in pollution is bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical that is used to harden plastics. The Environmental Working Group told LiveScience that BPA is in a lot of products we use regularly, particularly plastics and canned food. The problem, as Nature explained in 2018, is in how BPA is shaped; it's what's known as a "hormone mimic," in that it can look and act like a hormone, specifically the sex hormone estrogen.

    "BPA’s structure enables it to mimic or block the action of hormones. This allows the molecule to interfere with the function of the body’s endocrine system — the complex network of glands, hormones and receptors that link the brain to reproduction and metabolism," Nature noted.

    This mimicking could lead to problems, though the details aren't quite clear right now. The Guardian reported in 2018 that BPA exposure has been linked to a wide range of conditions involving hormones, from male fertility issues to breast cancer. Reducing your BPA levels can be difficult because it's pretty ubiquitous, but avoiding canned food and not microwaving plastic food containers are both thought to help.2Air Pollution May Cause Hormonal Issues In Both Men & WomenView image on TwittermyRepública✔@RepublicaNepal

    A study suggests air pollution is also responsible for irregular menstruation cycle. Stay safe and healthy. | https://goo.gl/yFBERL #menstruation #airpollution #responsiblefactor37:41 AM - Feb 2, 2018See myRepública's other TweetsTwitter Ads info and privacy

    A number of studies over decades have found that air pollution can have serious hormonal effects. "Many environmental pollutant chemicals have been shown to possess the ability to interfere in the functioning of the endocrine system and have been termed endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). These compounds exist in air as volatile or semi-volatile compounds in the gas phase or attached to particulate matter," explained a study in the International Journal of General Medicine in 2018.

    And the EDCs in air can have potent effects. They've been linked to reductions in sperm quality, irregular menstrual cycles in teenagers, and fertility issues in female-bodied people in general.3Air Pollution Can Increase Stress HormonesView image on TwitterReuters Top News✔@Reuters

    Air pollution ups stress hormones, alters metabolism http://reut.rs/2w7Ko5Y 598:10 PM - Aug 15, 201792 people are talking about thisTwitter Ads info and privacy

    Hormones aren't just about the reproductive system. They're also an important part of our stress response, in which we send hormones like adrenaline coursing through the body to help us react to stressful events. However, polluted air seems to make us produce stress hormones in large quantities, according to numerous studies.

    Research from heavily polluted cities reveals that exposure to polluted air over a long period can make metabolic stress hormones spike, which isn't healthy long-term. "Increases in circulating adrenal-derived stress hormones [...] contribute to lung injury/inflammation and metabolic effects in the liver, pancreas, adipose, and muscle tissues," according to an air pollution study published in Toxicological Sciences in 2018.4Lead Pollution Is Linked To Hormonal DisruptionChris Kassotis@cdkassotis

    Study reports Nigerian men working with electronic waste (high exposure to #heavymetals such as #mercury #lead, arsenic, & cadmium) have lower levels of multiple #hormones: #testosterone, #estrogen, #progesterone, #prolactin, LH, and FSH. #EDCs #healthhttp://www.ehn.org/nigeria-electronic-waste-decreases-male-hormones-2564994277.html …1011:26 PM - May 4, 2018Twitter Ads info and privacyE-waste linked to decreased fertility hormones in Nigerian men

    Hormones vital for reproduction are "significantly lower" in men who work with toxic-filled electronic wasteehn.orgSee Chris Kassotis's other Tweets

    You're far less likely to be exposed to lead than you once were — it's a lot more tightly regulated now than it was in the 19th and early 20th centuries — but lead exposure can impact hormones. A study published in The Journal of Endocrinological Investigation in 2009 revealed that lead accumulates in virtually every organ in the endocrine system over time.

    But science is still discovering new things. A study published in Nature: Scientific Reports in 2016, for instance, found that blood lead levels were associated with reproductive hormone levels in postmenopausal women and young men, in various ways. Long-term lead exposure seems to be the determining factor in these studies, so people who've worked with lead a lot are the most vulnerable.5Certain Pesticides Are Linked To Hormones TooView image on Twitterfrancesco cara@frakara

    #climatechange + global major #extinction of #animals & #plants + #human #population at 10 billion + #land #degradation + #AirPollution & #plasticpollution + #Pesticides & #hormones #changing #Chemicals in #water Global Environment Outlook 6 https://bit.ly/2TMPgJ7  @UNEnvironment8:25 PM - Mar 14, 2019See francesco cara's other TweetsTwitter Ads info and privacy

    Pesticides may act as pollutants too. Studies of organophosphate pesticides have revealed that they may be linked to problems with the thyroid in particular. Various studies, for example, have found that exposure to those pesticides could be linked with thyroid issues in pregnant women.

    The effects are particularly pronounced in countries where these pesticides are used widely, and in people who work with them directly; a study on workers in flower fields published in 2010 found that exposure to these pesticides seems to be linked to thyroid hormone issues, while a review of science in 2018 found that there are links between high exposure and sperm production in men. Another study in 2002 found that women married to farmers in Iowa and North Carolina who used particular pesticides were also prone to thyroid disease. Buying organic produce is a good way to try and avoid exposure.6Old Toxins Are Still In The Environment Causing IssuesView image on TwitterSteve Ritter@sritterz

    This week in @cenmag we are still learning about the persistence of perfluorinated compounds, here a bismuth catalyst shows some promise in cleaning up contaminated water https://bit.ly/2Ndx9JZ 107:01 PM - Sep 13, 2018See Steve Ritter's other TweetsTwitter Ads info and privacy

    Two classes of chemical, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and perfluorinated compounds (PFC), have been linked to hormone issues. And there's an additional issue. As a study published in Journal of the Air & Waste Management Associationin 2010 explained, while PCBs, which were once widely used in industry, are now rarely produced worldwide, neither chemical breaks down easily, which means they both "have a strong tendency to accumulate in the environment." In other words, they're pollutants that last for ages. PFCs are still popular for helping make non-stick cookware, and — importantly — they both seem to be linked to our hormones.

    The study laid out that PFC and PCB exposure seem to affect our production of "steroid hormones," like estrogen, testosterone, and cortisol. We've known about PCB's effects on hormones for a while; a study published back in 2002 showed how it negatively effects the thyroid. However, evidence has also been building about PFCs; a study in 2013 found that they interfere with steroid hormone production too, while research in 2017 explained their links with thyroid hormone levels.

    Reducing exposure to environmental pollutants can be tricky; the earth is, after all, awash with them. Making informed choices can go a long way, though. Buying organic produce and thoroughly washing conventional produce, seeking out BPA-free plastics, and going back to the science can help. And, of course, contacting your representatives to put measures in place to curb pollution can make a major difference.

    https://www.bustle.com/p/how-pollution-can-affect-your-hormones-according-to-science-16956025
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

15. Oil and Gas Regulators Get Penalty Power Under New Mexico Bill

    Mar 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Brenna Goth

    New Mexico oil and gas regulators will be able to sanction companies for violating state law for the first time in a decade if a bill the Legislature passed March 15 is signed into law.

    The bill, which also outlines how the state will handle an industry byproduct known as produced water, now heads to Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham for consideration. Lujan Grisham, who took office this year, campaigned on protecting the environment and holding businesses accountable.

    Lawmakers approved returning power to New Mexico’s Oil Conservation Division. A 2009 state Supreme Court decision had said it didn’t have the authority to penalize companies. That decision instead left enforcement to the attorney general.

    Environmental groups are split on whether they approve of the produced water changes, which some touted as reforms for the oil and gas industry.

    Produced water is the fluid brought up during the extraction of oil and natural gas. It can include formation water, injection water, and any chemicals added in a well or borehole or released from the formation.
    Penalty Power Restored

    Under the approved legislation, oil and gas regulators could issue notices of violations and levy civil penalties for industry actions that endanger people or the environment.

    Civil penalties could reach up to $2,500 a day per violation for most types of noncompliance, though those fines could increase in more serious or prolonged cases. Penalties would be capped at $200,000 outside of court.

    The New Mexico Oil & Gas Association, which represents the industry in the state, supported the penalty provisions of the bill that included the limit, spokesman Robert McEntyre told Bloomberg Environment.

    The nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund preferred no cap on penalties, but called the legislation a “critical accomplishment,” Jon Goldstein, the group’s director of regulatory and legislative affairs for energy, said in a statement.
    Produced Water Regulation

    The bill also aims to address who is in charge of a growing volume of mineral-heavy water resulting from booming oil and gas production in the state, which is the third-largest oil producer in the U.S. Each barrel of oil comes with five to seven barrels of produced water, according to the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department.

    The bill clarifies that oil and gas well operators are responsible for a well’s produced water and have the right to sell or treat it and keep any profits. The Oil Conservation Division and water quality regulators will regulate produced water under the legislation.

    Produced water isn’t easily reused without treatment because of the minerals it contains, including high levels of salt. The state wants to encourage reuse, but recycling is costly, the state energy department noted in comments on the legislation.

    The Environmental Defense Fund said the provisions will improve produced water oversight. But nonprofit WildEarth Guardians opposed the bill, arguing that it rolls back clean water regulations and favors the oil and gas industry.

    The legislation removes “middle water managers,” leaving produced water regulation to the oil division responsible for permitting, said Rebecca Sobel, climate and energy senior campaigner for WildEarth Guardians.

    The bill moved too quickly for a meaningful look at the consequences, she added.

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/oil-and-gas-regulators-get-penalty-power-under-new-mexico-bill
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. North Dakota Natural Gas Production Starts Year with New Record

    Mar 18, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Richard Nemec

    In another sign that the Bakken Shale's best oil producing areas continue to be gassier than other shale plays, North Dakota officials saw natural gas production set an all-time record in January, averaging more than 2.7 Bcf/d for the month.

    "Again, we're seeing the situation where gas is increasing much faster than crude oil," said regulator Lynn Helms, who directs the Department of Mineral Resources. The production increases make it more important than ever to build additional natural gas gathering and processing infrastructure, he said.

    "We're off to a good strong start for the year," with oil production in a "photo finish" with record December 2018 totals, though just slightly lower, he said.

    In January, natural gas production reached 2.72 Bcf/d, compared to 2.65 Bcf/d in December. Oil production in January was essentially flat compared with the previous month at 1.4 million b/d.

    Helms offered mostly positive indicators, with oil prices up sharply, producing wells hitting an all-time high and production from the Fort Berthold Reservation (FBR) showing signs of stabilizing. Rig counts and natural gas capture rates stayed fairly steady, too. The only negative, which Helms said could stick around for awhile, was a continuing uptick in the number of uncompleted wells.

    "It really has been month-to-month uncertainty with changes in rig counts on the reservation swinging back and forth by four or five rigs, mostly on the trust lands," where more than two-thirds of FBR production originates. "Production has been up and down, but I think that is going to stabilize as we move forward," Helms said.

    FBR has nearly 300,000 b/d of production, including 192,000 b/d on trust land, with more than 2,000 active wells and another 4,400 potential new wells. Except on the reservation, gas capture improved overall, decreasing month-over-month by 9 MMcf/d to 507 MMcf/d, and statewide Bakken capture hitting 82%. Without FBR, which had 71% capture, the statewide rate would have totaled 84%.

    Helms said the price for Bakken sweet crude was up to $48/bbl last Friday, an increase of $25 since December. The rig count hit 65 on Friday, compared to 64 in February and 66 in January.

    "The wells waiting on completion are rising, so even though the rig count is flat or stable, hydraulic fracturing crews were let go," Helms said. "So completion activity is down, and we're going to see the noncompleted wells grow over the rest of the winter and probably until road restrictions are lifted, which could be quite late this year."

    https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117749-north-dakota-natural-gas-production-starts-year-with-new-record
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. DC Moves Closer to Climate Lawsuit Against Exxon

    Mar 18, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Miranda Green

    The D.C. government is beefing up its legal team ahead of an anticipated legal challenge against Exxon.

    Attorney General Karl Racine on Friday tweeted a link to a webpage that included a link about a job posting for outside counsel “passionate about protecting our environment” to join the city government's legal team.ADVERTISEMENT

    The tweet linked to a contract that explained the position would be involved in providing legal services in support of the attorney general's "investigation and potential litigation against ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon).”

    According to the contract, the legal challenge would aim to see if Exxon is responsible for potential violations of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act by failing to alert consumers of the known environmental effects — including climate change — that stem from burning Exxon’s fossil fuels.

    “Since at least the 1970s, Exxon has been aware that its fossil fuel products were significantly contributing to climate change, and that climate change would accelerate and lead to significant harms to the environment in the twenty-first century,” the contract says. “However, despite this knowledge, in connection with selling gasoline to D.C. consumers and others, Exxon has failed to inform consumers about the effects of its fossil fuel products on climate change.”

    The job posting is for several positions: a senior climate lawyer, a junior lawyer and paralegal.

    Racine was one of more than a dozen state attorneys general who in 2016 joined a coalition to aggressively push the climate agenda established under the Obama administration. That included holding the fossil fuel industry accountable for its greenhouse gas emissions.

    “Our office has a mandate to protect the public interest, and this includes ensuring that our community is not negatively affected by preventable climate change. We welcome this crucial state-to-state cooperation to ensure that we do everything we can to fight the causes of climate change regardless of whether the federal government continues to partner with us in these efforts or not,” Racine said at the time.

    If D.C. moves forward with a lawsuit against Exxon, it will be joining a handful of other states and municipalities looking into how the oil and gas giant may have failed to publicize science it had linking emissions to global warming.

    The attorneys general of New York, Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands first launched investigations into Exxon in 2015 and 2016.

    New York sued Exxon in October for allegedly engaging in "a longstanding fraudulent scheme." An Exxon spokesman told The Hill at the time that there "is no evidence to support these allegations."

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/434590-dc-building-team-for-exxon-climate-challenge
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Clock Starts for Suits Over EPA’s Decision to Retain SO2 NAAQS

    Mar 18, 2019 | Inside EPA

    EPA is promulgating in the March 18 Federal Register its decision to leave federal air quality standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2) unchanged, starting a 60-day window for potential litigants to sue over the rule.

    In its final rule released Feb. 26, EPA leaves unchanged the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for SO2 at 75 parts per billion (ppb) averaged over one hour, the level set in 2010 by the Obama administration. The rule retains the novel one-hour averaging time to protect against short-term spikes in SO2 air pollution from facilities such as power plants and refineries that the Obama EPA first adopted in its 2010 rulemaking.

    EPA rejected calls from the oil industry to weaken the NAAQS by raising its level or altering its “form” now based on maximum hourly levels in the 99th-percentile, in order to allow higher SO2 levels without triggering a violation of the NAAQS. The American Petroleum Institute in comments on EPA’s proposed version of the rule called for EPA to set the standard no lower than 150 ppb should it keep the existing form.

    The agency also spurned environmentalists’ arguments to make the rule tougher. The American Lung Association and Sierra Club called for EPA to tighten the standard down to 50 ppb, using the existing form, in order to protect vulnerable groups such as children and asthmatics.

    Any lawsuits will be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has largely deferred to the agency’s scientific decisions in prior suits over NAAQS.

    https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/clock-starts-suits-over-epa%E2%80%99s-decision-retain-so2-naaqs
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. Trump Wants to Gut Clean Energy Spending — Budget Documents

    Mar 18, 2019 | E&E News PM

    By Jeremy Dillon

    The Trump administration is proposing to cancel some $287 million in current unobligated balances at the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy to close out the program by 2022, according to additional fiscal 2020 budget request documents released today.

    That amount would represent 78 percent of ARPA-E's $366 million appropriated by Congress in fiscal 2019. The fiscal 2020 request includes no new funding for the program.

    The proposed spending cut is one of a few budget line items the Trump administration has looked to hide the severity of for the upcoming fiscal year by using prior-year funds to ease the dramatic reduction in clean energy research and development spending.

    The effect of the proposals could mean cuts not only for fiscal 2020 but for current-year spending as well.

    But according to the Office of Management and Budget, ARPA-E — which funds high-risk but potentially transformational projects deemed too costly for private-sector investment — offers similar objectives to other DOE research programs and may cause "duplication."

    "It makes little strategic sense that ARPA-E still exists independent of DOE's main applied research programs, especially when the research they fund is similar," the White House said in its "Major Savings and Reforms" justification document.

    "This proposed elimination promotes more effective and efficient use of taxpayer funds, reduces duplication within DOE and positions DOE to incorporate elements of ARPA-E into the existing Applied Energy Offices to support a more integrated energy Research and Development (R&D) strategy," the document adds.

    The proposal would reduce full-time employment at ARPA-E from 60 to 45 in fiscal 2020, with an eye toward shuttering the program by 2022.

    The Trump administration has proposed axing ARPA-E in the past three budget requests. Congress has rebuked those attempts, providing record funding for the program for the current fiscal year in response.

    And with increased talk of action on climate change by both parties on Capitol Hill, ARPA-E may be in line for a dramatic increase in funding next year. Some House Democrats suggested it could see funding in the $1 billion range (E&E Daily, March 11).EERE details

    That climate focus may also carry over to DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, though the Trump administration has proposed severe cuts for the R&D activities in that office.

    In total, the White House suggested EERE's fiscal 2020 budget allocate $696 million to clean energy research. That money would include $353 million from unobligated balances at DOE that would appear to undercut some of the $2.3 billion allocated for the program in fiscal 2019.

    The proposal would also come with a 26 percent reduction in full-time employees, bringing EERE's workforce to 461 employees.

    The budget details released today outlined how those cuts would play out, including:Sustainable transportation would be funded at $157 million, a reduction of $533 million or 77.2 percent from fiscal 2019.Solar energy at $67 million, a reduction of $180 million or 72.8 percent.Wind energy at $24 million, a reduction of $68 million or 74.2 percent.Energy efficiency at $146 million, a reduction of $742 million or 83.6 percent.

    The proposal would also call for the elimination of the Weatherization Assistance Program, which received $254 million in current spending.

    DOE argued the shift in EERE focus will gear to "research activities, which industry does not have the technical capability to undertake, or which are too far from market realization to merit sufficient industry focus and critical mass."Carbon capture research slashed

    DOE's proposal would also look to overhaul how the Office of Fossil Energy approaches carbon capture and storage R&D.

    As the current framework exists, carbon capture research is divided across two programs: one for capture research and the other for storage research. The two programs received funding of $101 million and $98 million, respectively, in fiscal 2019.

    For fiscal 2020, DOE suggested combining the two programs into one carbon capture, utilization and storage program, funded at $69 million.

    "This restructure improves the alignment of the budget structure to the research focus areas, repositioning the department to more effectively enable industry to commercialize and deploy advanced technologies necessary to support a secure and reliable power grid," DOE said in its "Budget in Brief" document.

    In total, the Office of Fossil Energy would see $562 million under the administration's request, a reduction of $178 million or 24 percent from fiscal 2019.

    https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/18/stories/1060127569
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. New Governor Touts Passage of Oil and Gas Reform, Ethics Bills

    Mar 19, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Mike Lee

    New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who was elected after promising to wean the state off its reliance on fossil fuels, saw many but not all of her priorities pass the Legislature.

    Lawmakers approved the Democrat's signature "Energy Transition Act" last week. It will require utilities to draw 50 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2030, and all of it by 2045 (Climatewire, March 13).

    A bill to restore enforcement authority for the state's oil and gas regulator passed, after lawmakers compromised on some of its provisions. And the Legislature voted to create a state ethics commission, a move that could limit the influence of oil and gas companies, along with other industries.

    "After eight years of stagnation, and after sixty days of hard work, sixty days of agreement & disagreement alike, we have demonstrable results," Lujan Grisham said in a statement on Facebook over the weekend.

    Lujan Grisham replaced Republican Susana Martinez, who was widely viewed as friendly with the oil and gas industry. At the same time, Democrats held onto their lead in the state Senate and widened their control of the state House.

    On the downside, Lujan Grisham asked lawmakers to increase early childhood education funding by dipping into a trust fund that's backed by oil and gas revenue on state land. Lawmakers turned down the idea.

    And a bill that would have raised royalties for oil and gas production on state-owned land died in committee.

    Still, Lujan Grisham's supporters said the reforms are significant because New Mexico is the country's third-biggest oil-producing state, and its production is expected to grow as drilling ramps up in the Permian Basin field.

    New Mexico's Oil Conservation Division hasn't been able to issue fines since a 2009 court decision. Previous efforts to restore the agency's authority failed in 2015 and 2017 (Energywire, Jan. 29).

    Sponsors of this year's reform bill, state Rep. Matthew McQueen (D) and state Sen. Richard Martinez (D), had sought to raise the maximum penalty for oil and gas pollution from $1,000 to $15,000. The final version, which passed as part of an amendment to a bill on oil field wastewater, set the penalty OCD can assess at $10,000 a day, and set a cap on the total fines at $200,000. Anything higher than that has to be imposed by a court.

    Environmental groups opposed the cap on penalties but still applauded the bill.

    "Restoring New Mexico's ability to protect its health and resources from oil and gas pollution is a critical accomplishment," Jon Goldstein, director of regulatory affairs for the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement.

    Likewise, good-government groups have been pushing New Mexico to create an ethics commission for years. Then-Gov. Bill Richardson (D) first proposed the idea in 2006, after the state's treasurer resigned amid allegations of misconduct (Energywire, Nov. 26, 2018).

    The Legislature passed a measure in 2017 calling a statewide referendum on an ethics commission. About three-fourths of voters approved the idea in November, which required the Legislature to create the commission this year.

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/19/stories/1060127597
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. Court OKs Antitrust claim Against Chesapeake, Anadarko

    Mar 19, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Pamela King

    A Pennsylvania court found that the state may pursue an anti-gaming challenge against two of the biggest natural gas developers in the Marcellus Shale.

    The attorney general's office raised at least one viable claim against Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), an en banc panel of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled last week.

    Now that the interim appeal is settled, the trial court can move forward on a lawsuit in which the state contends Chesapeake rigged royalty payments to Pennsylvania landowners and colluded with Anadarko to cap payouts.

    "[W]e hold that the Attorney General was permitted to file a UTPCPL-based lawsuit against Appellants, but can only pursue antitrust claims through the UTPCPL where the so-called 'antitrust' conduct qualifies as 'unfair methods of competition' or 'unfair or deceptive acts or practices,' as those terms have been either statutorily defined in the UTPCPL or by the Attorney General through the administrative rulemaking process," Judge Ellen Ceisler wrote in her Thursday opinion.

    Judge Anne Covey disagreed, finding that Pennsylvania's attorney general failed to raise a legally viable allegation.

    "[T]he majority erroneously interprets the UTPCPL to create a statutory prohibition unapproved by the General Assembly, and wields that unauthorized and un-enacted prohibition to punish consumers under the purported authority of a consumer protection statute," Covey wrote in a heavily emphasized dissent.

    "This is judicial overreach."

    Chesapeake and Anadarko previously objected to Pennsylvania's lawsuit, arguing that the leasing process makes the companies buyers in consumer transactions and not sellers whose actions are subject to scrutiny for unfair conduct.

    Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D) called last week's ruling a victory.

    "The court's decision allows our action to move forward and address the misconduct by these companies against landowners in oil and gas leases under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law," he said in a statement.

    "I'm fighting for landowners who we charge have been ripped off," he said, "and my Office will continue to pursue this case on behalf of Northeast Pennsylvanians."

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/19/stories/1060127589
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. 3.0 Magnitude Earthquake Shakes State

    Mar 19, 2019 | AP (In E&E Energywire)

    No injuries have been reported following a 3.0 magnitude earthquake that shook parts of central Oklahoma.

    The U.S. Geological Survey says the quake was reported at 11:49 p.m. Saturday about 7 miles northwest of the Oklahoma City suburb of Edmond. It was recorded at a depth of about 5 miles.

    There were no immediate reports of damage. Geologists say damage is unlikely in temblors below magnitude 4.0.

    Thousands of earthquakes recorded in Oklahoma in recent years have been linked to the underground injection of wastewater from oil and gas production.

    Geologists say about 200 quakes of magnitude 3.0 or stronger were recorded in Oklahoma last year, down from 302 in 2017 and the third consecutive year of declines since regulators ordered producers to close some wells.

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/19/stories/1060127551
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. Refineries Pay $3.8M Vt. Settlement Over Fuel Additive

    Mar 19, 2019 | AP (In E&E Energywire)

    The Vermont attorney general's office says more than two dozen of the country's biggest gasoline refiners, including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Shell Oil Co., are paying a $3.8 million settlement over the use of the gasoline additive that the state alleged caused widespread groundwater pollution.

    The state had sued in 2014 saying it was still overseeing remediation of past MTBE releases and finding contaminated wells even though the state banned the use of the chemical in 2007.

    About 23 percent of the settlement is going to legal firms that helped with the case. Vermont is receiving more than $2.8 million.

    The attorney general's office said Friday that the state has dismissed remaining claims against the companies.

    Exxon Mobil did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/19/stories/1060127549
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

24. Houston Chemical Fires to Rage for Two Days Until Fuel Burns Out

    Mar 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Kevin Crowley, Jack Kaskey and Barbara Powell

    Petrochemical tank fires that covered the Houston skyline in thick, black smoke will likely burn for two more days or until the fuel runs out, first responders said.

    Firefighters are in “defensive mode” as they seek to contain a blaze that spread to seven tanks storing liquids used to make gasoline in Deer Park, near the city’s shipping channel, said Ray Russell, a spokesman for Channel Industries Mutual Aid, a petrochemical emergency response organization.

    First responders are confident that they can stop the blaze spreading beyond the affected 15-tank unit by using foam and water, he said. The facility is owned by Intercontinental Terminals Company, a division of Tokyo-based Mitsui & Co., and has a total of 242 storage tanks located near the Houston Ship Channel to the east of the city, one of the busiest ports along the Gulf Coast.

    “At this time we are in a defensive mode,” Russell said at a press conference. “It is going to have to burn out in that tank or until we complete draining the tank.”

    Residents have been urged to stay inside and nearby schools and highways were closed as fumes soared up into the sky causing a black haze across the city. However, local officials lifted a “Shelter in Place” order at 5:30 a.m. after air quality was found to be below “action levels.”

    “You can really smell & taste it now,” real-estate agent Jon Gardella said on Twitter, referring to the black smog enveloping Houston on Monday morning.

    Potential health effects of the smoke include coughing, difficulty breathing and irritation to eyes and throat, according to the One Breath Partnership, an organization that works to improve air quality.

    Ships in the area at the time of the incident have been cleared out and they are currently not permitted to enter or depart the area, U.S. Coast Guard Watch Supervisor Alberto Hernandez said by phone Monday morning.

    David Wascome, vice president of terminal operations at ITC, said there were seven tanks on fire, correcting an earlier press release which said eight had caught alight.

    Prices for naphtha on the U.S. Gulf Coast rose 2.45 cents to $1.5002 a gallon Monday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

    “Although the risk of explosion is minimal, we continue to take precautions to further reduce this possibility,” ITC said in a statement.

    The tank farm occupies 265 acres on the Houston Ship Channel east of the city. It can store more than 13 million barrels of chemicals, petroleum, fuel oil and gases. It serves marine, train and trucking transport with five tanker berths and its own rail spur.

    --With assistance from Mike Jeffers and Sheela Tobben.

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/houston-chemical-fires-to-rage-for-two-days-until-fuel-burns-out
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

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

Environment News

25. Trump Keeps Funding Alive for UN Body Overseeing Climate Accord

    Mar 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Dean Scott

    President Donald Trump is still bent on withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, but will keep funding the United Nations body that oversees its implementation, a senior administration official told Bloomberg Environment March 18.

    The White House in its proposed fiscal year 2020 budget calls for contributing $6.4 million to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was set up in 1992 to oversee talks toward a global climate change agreement and coordinate the global response to the issue.

    The UNFCCC secretariat oversaw the 2015 climate summit in Paris that concluded with the first truly global climate deal under which developed and developing nations alike committed to addressing climate change.

    But Trump is once again proposing no U.S. funding for the Green Climate Fund, which was zeroed out during his first year in office, according to the same official. The fund, established within the framework of the UNFCCC, helps developing countries with climate change adaptation and mitigation practices.

    The Obama administration pledged $3 billion over four years to the fund in 2014, but was able to make good on just one-third of its pledge before Trump took office due to congressional opposition.

    Other Programs

    Other international climate funding also doesn’t fare well under the FY 2020 budget plan, according to budget documents released March 18, which include a 1,320-page appendix on spending that elaborates on the bare-bones budget outline the White House released March 11.

    For example, Trump would provide no new dollars for the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank Group’s private-sector investment arm that supports green bonds and other investments in poorer developing nations.

    Launched in the 1950s, the IFC approved $11.6 billion in funding for 366 projects in 74 nations in fiscal 2018, with that spending leading to an additional $11.6 billion from the private sector and other sources, according to the body.

    The Trump administration is also proposing no additional funding for the Global Environment Facility, which since its formation in 1992 has provided more than $17.9 billion in grants to roughly 170 nations for projects on biodiversity, climate change, protection of the ozone layer, and curbing persistent organic pollutants.

    Spillover Funds

    The White House instead will use spillover funds from fiscal 2019 appropriations to make good on any U.S. pledges toward the next four-year pledge cycle for the environment facility. The U.S. and roughly 30 other countries, which together launch what amounts to a global pledge drive every four years to replenish the GEF, vowed in April 2018 to provide a combined $4.1 billion to the next four-year investment cycle, known as GEF-7.

    “No funding is requested for the GEF in 2020,” according to the March 18 budget appendix, “since FY 2019 anticipated appropriations are sufficient to cover the first two payments to GEF-7.”

    The GEF is the main global financial mechanism to aid developing nations’ efforts to comply with the commitments they have made under major environmental treaties and other agreements, including the Minamata Convention on Mercury, signed in 2013.

    Others include the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification.

     https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/trump-keeps-funding-alive-for-un-body-overseeing-climate-accord

    Return to headline | Return to top

26. Tonko Poised To Unveil 'Principles' For Comprehensive Climate Legislation

    Mar 18, 2019 | Inside EPA

    By Doug Obey

    House Democrats are poised to further flesh out their climate change agenda this week when Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce environment and climate subcommittee, unveils a set of “principles” for a comprehensive national plan to address climate change.

    A source familiar with the matter says the upcoming principles document is a step toward issuing a “comprehensive national climate action plan” that Tonko has been pursuing.

    The principles are expected to provide a vehicle for groups to further weigh in on elements that could be part of such a plan. Tonko is planning to issue a much more detailed report on the issue later this year, which could be a prelude to legislation.

    The step is the latest indication that Tonko is preparing to play a major role in the development of Democrats' broad, big-picture climate change agenda, though the strategy also will be shaped by members of House leadership as well as key Democratic senators.

    Even so, Democrats are still in the early stages of figuring out how to use the party's House control to tee up such broad climate policies, as the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis is gearing up to begin an array of hearings meant to inform “recommendations” for new policies as the panel cannot mark up legislation.

    Meanwhile, progressives are pushing a Green New Deal (GND) that couples ambitious efforts to curb greenhouse gases with various other social policies -- an issue that has consumed much of the recent public debate over climate change as Republicans seek to paint the proposal as extreme.

    Observers will be closely scrutinizing whether Tonko's principles document will clash with or complement the GND, including whether it has industry-friendly provisions or aspects that are more granular than the high-level GND resolution.

    The New York lawmaker has been publicly calling for efforts to reach consensus on the climate issue, and has said House Democrats will use a two-track approach to seek out short-term bipartisan wins and while developing more ambitious policies.

    Tonko is slated to float the principles in tandem with March 21 remarks in Baltimore at the annual Climate Leadership Conference. EPA once routinely co-hosted the event to showcase companies' GHG reduction efforts, but the agency in the Trump era has ended its involvement. The event now backed by the Center for Climate & Energy Solutions, Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Climate Registry.

    January 2018 Letter

    Tonko's efforts on climate change bear watching in part because he sits on three separate committees with jurisdiction on climate issues -- Energy and Commerce, Science, and Natural Resources.

    He has been pushing for over a year to sharpen discussion of climate change, including by sending a January 2018 letter to a wide range of groups seeking input on “new climate legislation” that would incorporate information and lessons learned since the failure of House-passed cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.

    That letter embraced EPA's authority to curb GHGs but said new legislation would provide more certainty that could put society on a path for stabilizing the climate.

    And Tonko also included over a dozen questions seeking particular input on possible elements of a cap-and-trade program, while also stating an openness to other possible carbon-related policies.

    Democrats since then have taken control of the House, giving them new power to conduct oversight of Trump administration rollbacks of GHG controls and discuss both incremental and ambitious climate policies -- though there is no clear path to enacting major policies in the current Congress given Republicans' control of the Senate and White House.

    Tonko, now able to convene hearings in his environment subcommittee, has been continuing his efforts and he and other Democrats are preparing to advance smaller-bore climate policies in the near future.

    For instance, he met with utilities March 13 to discuss “incremental” climate policies, according to Politico.

    "The message has stayed constant with every group: science-based, evidence-based. We need to go forward and harvest that low-hanging fruit that we believe can be done in a bipartisan, bicameral way," Tonko told the paper.

    He added he expected the full Energy and Commerce Committee to begin processing climate-related legislation "in the near future, perhaps right after the April break."

    https://insideepa.com/daily-news/tonko-poised-unveil-principles-comprehensive-climate-legislation
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

27. Food Giants to Urge Congress to Tackle Climate Change

    Mar 19, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Catherine Boudreau

    Four major food companies are planning to lobby Congress to press for strong action to address climate change, a top Mars official said today.

    Mars, Danone, Unilever and Nestlé — which joined forces to establish the Sustainable Food Policy Alliance last year — are in the final stages of drafting broad principles for how the federal government should tackle climate change, Brad Figel, Mars’ vice president of public affairs, said during an Agri-Pulse food policy summit in Washington.

    The document will inform the Alliance’s advocacy efforts, which Figel said will focus on making the business case for addressing global warming. Mars is concerned about the risk it poses to supply chains, such as for rice, cacao and pet food that contains fish, as droughts intensify and ocean temperatures rise.

    “There was some good work in the farm bill, but more needs to be done,” Figel said of the conservation programs in the 2018 law.

    The document will touch on carbon pricing, although it will not endorse any specific model. It will also address renewable energy, soil management, water management and other strategies for reducing America‘s environmental footprint.

    https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

28. Flooded U.S. Air Force Base Underscores Climate Risk to Security: Experts

    Mar 18, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

    By Timothy Gardner

     Flooding at a U.S. Air Force base in Nebraska that damaged buildings and forced the removal of a plane integral to the nation's nuclear attack response highlight the risks climate change poses to national security, experts said on Monday.

    U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly questioned whether humans cause climate change and has been angered by assessments from his military and intelligence agencies that say the phenomenon poses national security risks.

    Last week's "bomb cyclone" storm flooded about 60 structures including 30 buildings at the Offutt Air Force Base, said Ryan Hansen, a spokesman for the 55th Wing, a unit providing reconnaissance, intelligence and combat support to U.S. leaders.

    Eight planes in the 55th Wing had to leave the base, Hansen said, and workers might not be able to assess damage to hangers and maintenance buildings until the end of the week.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    One of the planes was a Boeing-made E4-B plane, one four the Air Force has that are meant to serve as an aerial command center in case of national emergency or destruction of ground bases, such as in a nuclear attack. Two E4-B's were also damaged by a tornado at Offutt in 2017, CNN reported at the time.

    Francesco Femia, the co-founder of the Center for Climate and Security, said the flooding shows that the White House needs to let the military do its job in assessing the climate threat.

    "This is an example of a vital threat to our national security from a climate-related disaster, and more of this kind of thing is likely in the future," Femia said.

    While flooding from storm surges linked to climate change that could damage sensitive electronics and mechanical equipment have long threatened U.S. Naval bases like Norfolk, Virginia, Offutt is a reminder that climate change also poses risks to bases far from sea.

    Offutt is also home to Strategic Command, which oversees the country's nuclear arsenal. The Strategic Command headquarters, set on a hill, was not affected by the floods, and neither was its new building, expected to open in the spring.

    "Given the president's denial of climate change ... I don’t know if ironic is the word to capture how strange it would be for the results of climate change to adversely impact the president's ability to control U.S. nuclear weapons in a crisis," said Stephen Young, the Washington representative of the global security program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which advocates for investment to protect bases from climate change threats.

    The White House has considered forming a panel to assess the science used in government climate risk reports that could be headed by a retired physics professor who believes greenhouse gas emissions are good for the planet.

    The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

    While climate change can't be blamed for a single storm, the vast majority of scientists say emissions from fossil fuels and the burning of forests are trapping heat in the atmosphere and making storms and floods more intense.

    https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/03/18/us/18reuters-usa-weather-airforce.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

29. EPA FY20 Budget Increases States’ Duties While Cutting Assistance Funds

    Mar 18, 2019 | Inside EPA

    By David LaRoss

    EPA’s just-released justification to Congress for its fiscal year 2020 budget details an aggressive plan for shifting significant environmental oversight to states either through delegated authority or slashing programs that complement states’ work, but it also seeks deep cuts to funds that could help states pay for the increased workload.

    The FY20 congressional justification, which EPA unveiled March 18, supports the White House’s request for lawmakers to cut the agency’s budget down to $6.1 billion in this year’s appropriations legislation from its current funding level of $8.9 billion including infrastructure supplements. The justification outlines how the Trump administration would allocate that reduced funding, including a lengthy list of programs it would either reduce dramatically or end outright.

    While the document also sets out targeted boosts for some efforts considered high-priority, even those increases are often matched against cuts to the same office or pollution-control effort.

    For instance, EPA is seeking $50 million in new spending for a “Healthy Schools Grant Program,” but would balance it with funding and staff cuts at the Office of Children’s Health Protection (OCHP).

    And many of the requested cuts are likely to spur bipartisan objections from state groups, which have long opposed any effort to reduce EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account and other state-assistance spending. Critics say such cuts are an expansion of “unfunded mandates” given that much of that assistance goes toward helping states achieve federal requirements.

    The FY20 request would cut STAG’s categorical grants down from $1 billion in FY19 to $580 million, and state revolving funds that support water infrastructure projects from $2.8 billion down to $1.9 billion.

    Last year, state regulators panned a similar request. For instance, John Linc Stine, commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and a past president of the Environmental Council of the States, said that due to state spending cuts “we look to federal funding for a solid backbone.”

    However, the White House in a separate report on the “major savings and reforms” in the FY20 budget request seems to dismiss any similar objections to this year’s plan. The administration counters that states can cut spending and still achieve the minimum statutory mandates set out in federal laws and EPA rules.

    “The Budget proposes to eliminate or substantially reduce Federal investment in State environmental activities that go beyond EPA's statutory requirements. States could adjust to reduced funding levels by reducing or eliminating additional activities not required under Federal law, prioritizing programs, and seeking other funding sources,” says the White House document.

    Thus, the budget implies that EPA would not support Democratic-led states efforts to strengthen their own rules in response to federal rollbacks.

    Even though many lawmakers -- especially House Democrats -- have already rejected the budget request as a non-starter, the detailed justification could serve as a roadmap for which programs the Trump EPA will consider low-priority in FY20 and beyond.

    Along with the proposed STAG cuts, EPA is seeking to reduce or eliminate all of its geographic programs for reducing pollution and restoring water quality, saying that those “are best handled by local and State entities,” and to drop its budget for enforcement actions including site inspections and prosecuting against violators, which “reflects a recognition that states conduct the vast majority of inspections."

    But at the same time the agency is looking to boost programs that directly support transfers of authority to state regulators, including approval of state implementation plans for air pollution, and delegation of authority under many statutes including the Clean Water Act dredge-and-fill permit program.

    Targeted Increases

    Perhaps most prominently among the limited budget increases in the request, EPA is asking Congress to authorize a new $50 million grant program “for schools to identify, prevent, reduce and resolve environmental hazards” such as lead, asthma triggers, and other toxic chemicals in schools. Recipients could be state or local governments, tribes, or non-profit organizations.

    EPA in a March 18 press release touted the grant program as supporting the federal lead action plan. It does not indicate if the grant program is intended to last beyond 2020.

    Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler calls protecting children’s health “a top priority for EPA” in the press release. But the congressional justification also calls for significant cuts to its small OCHP, which provides expertise to other program and regional offices on children's unique sensitivity to environmental health issues.

    The 2020 budget proposes cutting OCHP by 61 percent from 2019 funding provided by Congress, down $4 million from $6.5 million. The budget also proposes cutting staff by 12.7 full-time employee equivalents (FTE), “due to streamlining activities including: 1) the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units; 2) grants to state or local organizations; 3) IRIS reviews; 4) regionally selected community-based projects addressing local children’s environmental health issues; 5) indicators presented in America’s Children and Environment and America’s Children; Key National Indicators of Well-Being; and 6) other streamlined efforts.”

    The justification, however, indicates that many of OCHP's activities will continue, including its roles in leading the lead action plan and the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children; managing the children's health advisory committee; and providing children's health expertise to other program offices, including the toxics office.

    The justification also provides $546,000 in new money and three new FTE “to support and administer the newly proposed Healthy Schools Grant Program.”

    Beyond the schools program, EPA is also seeking to boost funds for chemical safety assessments by $6 million and 20 FTE, but would cut $12 million and 66 FTE from toxics office by eliminating the Lead Risk Reduction program.

    And a $2.5 million and 15 FTE boost to National Environmental Policy Act permit reviews would accompany a $4 million and 24 FTE cut to that office aimed at setting up “a centralized approach to elevating NEPA issues to the Administrator for resolution and allow the Agency to expedite environmental reviews and approvals of high-priority infrastructure projects.”

    https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-fy20-budget-increases-states%E2%80%99-duties-while-cutting-assistance-funds
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

30. Riverkeeper Can’t Force EPA Action on New York Water Standards

    Mar 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Peter Hayes

    The Environmental Protection Agency won dismissal of a Clean Water Act citizen suit seeking to require the agency to publish New York water quality standards.

    The suit, brought by Riverkeeper Inc., the Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., and several other organizations, can’t proceed because the EPA wasn’t required to act, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said March 15.

    The case fails therefore because a CWA citizen suit is allowed only where there is a non-discretionary duty, the court said.

    The court applied the “date-certain” rule of interpretation, under which a mandatory duty exists only if a statute imposes a “bright-line deadline” to act.

    It is an issue that has divided the federal circuits, with the Third and Second Circuits taking opposite positions.

    The court cited the binding precedent of the Second Circuit, which has applied the date-certain rule in the context of the Clean Air Act, whose citizen suit provision is modeled on the CWA.

    The CWA states that if the EPA disapproves standards and a state fails to take action to update its standards within 90 days, the EPA “shall promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations setting forth a revised or new water quality standard for the navigable waters involved.”

    Because this provision doesn’t include a “bright-line deadline” it does not impose a non-discretionary duty, the court said.

    Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the ruling.

    Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic, Inc. represented the plaintiffs.

    The case is Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Wheeler, S.D.N.Y., No. 17-CV-4916, 3/15/19.

     https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/riverkeeper-cant-force-epa-action-on-new-york-water-standards

    Return to headline | Return to top

31. Bipartisan Group of Senators Ask EPA to Leave MATS Rule Alone

    Mar 18, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Eric Wolff

    A bipartisan group of senators is urging EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to drop the plan to alter the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule.

    In a letter today, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) defended the rule, saying it should not be changed.

    “We write to urge you to withdraw the Environmental Protection Agency‘s Dec. 27, 2018 proposal that finds it is no longer 'appropriate and necessary' to regulate mercury and air toxics from coal and oil fired power plants that could lead to the undoing of the rule," they wrote.

    EPA last year proposed withdrawing the necessary and appropriate finding that said it should regulate the substances, and changing how it calculates the benefits of pollution reductions. The agency held its only public hearing on the proposal today.

    https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

32. EPA Declines to Tighten More Air Toxics Rules

    Mar 18, 2019 | Inside EPA

    EPA in a combined rulemaking has left largely unchanged air toxics rules for three coating industry sectors, continuing a pattern of declining to tighten emissions limits following Clean Air Act-mandated reviews.

    The agency’s latest final risk-and-technology review (RTR) rule, published in the March 15 Federal Register, leaves unchanged the emissions limits under national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) regulations for the surface coating of large appliances; printing, coating, and dyeing of fabrics and other textiles; and surface coating of metal furniture.

    The Clean Air Act requires EPA to conduct RTRs eight years after it first promulgates a NESHAP. If the agency finds remaining risks to human health, or that new and cost-effective control technology is available, or both, it can tighten the standards. The agency has fallen years behind schedule in issuing the RTR rules, and is under judicial deadlines to issue dozens of them in the next few years.

    Some of those deadlines fall after the 2020 presidential election, meaning the outcome of that vote will have implications for whether a second-term Trump administration continues to leave the rules in place or a potential Democratic president’s EPA decides to tighten them.

    The Trump EPA in its RTR rules has not tightened standards, and has in some cases eased some compliance requirements, such as monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    The agency is also systematically removing regulatory exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction from its rules in order to comply with federal court rulings finding such exemptions unlawful. The three rules follow this trend, and apply to 69 facilities combined.

    EPA proposed RTRs for the sectors in a Sept. 12 Federal Register notice, where it proposed, among other modifications, to require high-efficiency spray technology for surface coating of large appliances and coating of metal furniture in certain circumstances. EPA in the final rule does not require this, finding it unnecessary because most facilities use high-efficiency methods anyway.

    The agency also took comment on whether it should ban the use of ethylene oxide (EtO) in the printing, coating, and dyeing of fabrics and other textiles sector. EPA opts not to ban use of the chemical, finding that although the only facility covered by the NESHAP discontinued its use for cost reasons, this does not represent a control technology development that should apply to all other plants.

    EPA recently upgraded its risk assessment for EtO to find the carcinogenic chemical more harmful than previously thought, but has run into strong industry pushback from companies claiming EPA exaggerates the risks. The chemical is used as an industrial solvent, for example in the sterilization of medical equipment.

    The final NESHAP also introduces electronic reporting requirements for the three sectors.

    https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-declines-tighten-more-air-toxics-rules
    

    Return to headline | Return to top