PM ACC Clips Report - March 22, 2019

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) ICCA Report Highlights Chemical Industry’s Contribution to Global Economy

   Mar 22, 2019 | International Institute for Sustainable Development

   By Cherelle Jackson
   
   
   11 March 2019: The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) has released a report that reviews the chemical industry’s contributions to the global economy. The report titled, ‘The Global Chemical Industry: Catalyzing...
2. (ACC Mentioned) PVC, PET Resin Prices Up; PP down in February

   Mar 22, 2019 | Plastic News

   By Frank Esposito
   
   
   North American commodity resins squeezed some action into the short month of February, with prices for PVC and PET bottle resin both going up, while polypropylene prices declined. Regional PVC prices moved up an average of 2...
3. (ACC Mentioned) US Existing Home Sales Surge in February

   Mar 22, 2019 | ICIS

   US sales of existing homes rose by nearly 12% in February from January, following three straight months of declines, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) said on Friday. “A powerful combination of lower mortgage rates, more...
4. (ACC Mentioned) Matmos Makes Plastic Music for the 21st Century

   Mar 22, 2019 | Plastics News

   By Frank Esposito
   
   
   An album titled "Plastic Anniversary" — with songs like "Fanfare for Polyethylene Waste Containers" and "Thermoplastic Riot Shield" — was never at risk of being easy listening. "Plastic Anniversary" is the name of the new...
5. EPA’s ‘Secret Science’ Proposal Being Used by Big Oil to Undermine Clean Water Rules

   Mar 22, 2019 | Think Progress

   By Kyla Mandel
   
   
   Internal emails reveal two major fossil fuel trade groups are lobbying to stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from updating a decades-old list of toxic chemicals found in petroleum wastewater — and they’re using the...
6. DC’s Plastic Straw Ban Stirs up Feelings on Capitol Hill

   Mar 22, 2019 | Roll Call

   By Katherine Tully-McManus
   
   
   If your warm-weather routine calls for a switch from hot coffee to iced, prepare yourself. Spring is officially here, and the plastic exodus is underway, according to Roll Call’s audit of straws on Capitol Hill. Many staffers first felt the shift...
7. Second Court Dismisses EPA Science Advisor Policy Suit

   Mar 22, 2019 | Inside EPA

   Another federal district judge has dismissed a suit from environmentalists over the Trump EPA's policy barring scientists who are receiving EPA research grants from serving on any of its advisory committees, this time finding that...

TSCA News

8. EPA Releases List Of High-Priority And Low-Priority Chemicals

   Mar 22, 2019 | JD Supra

   By Lynn L. Bergeson
   
   
   On March 21, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was releasing a list of 40 chemicals to begin the prioritization process required by the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 84 Fed. Reg...

Chemical Management News

9. (ACC Mentioned) Could PFAs Concerns Sway The Democratic Presidential Contest?

   Mar 22, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Timothy Cama
   
   
   The plight of communities with PFAS contamination in their drinking water is getting an attention boost from the 2020 presidential campaign. Democrats in the crowded field of more than a dozen candidates are calling for more action...
10. Air Force Seeks To Preserve Federal Test Case On State's PFAS Enforcement

    Mar 22, 2019 | Inside EPA

    By Suzanne Yohannan
    
    
    The Air Force is urging a federal judge to reject calls from New Mexico officials to remove its challenge to a waste permit governing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to a state court, an effort aimed at preserving a suit that
11. Minnesota Legislators Consider Trichloroethylene Ban

    Mar 22, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    Bills have been introduced in both chambers of the Minnesota legislature to ban the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) in products and manufacturing processes. The legislation (HF 2276 / SF 2075) would prohibit from 1 January 2020 the...
12. Bipartisan Letter Probes Interagency PFAs Fight

    Mar 22, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Energy Whiteboard

    By Annie Snider
    
    
    Bipartisan leaders of the Senate's top oversight committee are probing the White House about the fight between the Defense Department, EPA and the CDC that has stalled the release of cleanup guidelines for a pair of toxic chemicals in...
13. EU Prepares to Review Controversial Herbicide Glyphosate—Again

    Mar 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Stephen Gardner
    
    
    The European Union is preparing to once again assess the safety of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide. The active ingredient in a range of pesticides, glyphosate is currently authorized in the EU until Dec. 15...

Energy News

14. Expect Offshore Drilling to Play Role in Next Week’s Interior Secretary Confirmation

    Mar 21, 2019 | Roll Call

    By Jacob Holzman
    
    
    Democrats are pressuring acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to release the department’s updated plan for opening the Atlantic Ocean to offshore drilling, foreshadowing an increased focus on a proposal opposed by...
15. Proposition 112 Was Defeated, But That is Not the End

    Mar 22, 2019 | National Law Review

    By Melissa J. Lyon
    
    
    Colorado’s Proposition 112, which gained national notoriety this fall, the full text of which can be found here, was a ballot initiative that proposed the nation’s strictest setback – a blanket 2,500 feet setback for new wells. Luckily, the...
16. With State Legislation Pending, Colorado County Temporarily Suspends New Drilling

    Mar 22, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Richard Nemec
    
    
    Calling it a glimpse of the future under proposed energy regulatory reform now moving through the Colorado legislature, industry representatives are blasting a decision by the Adams County’s elected Board of Commissioners to establish a...
17. The Billion-Dollar Rebrand: How Big Oil Is Trying to Change Its Image

    Mar 22, 2019 | Grist

    By Zoya Teirstein
    
    
    To the untrained eye, it looks like the major oil companies that helped get us into this whole climate mess — conglomerates like ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell — are starting to envision a world beyond fossil fuels. A few of them...
18. A Missed Opportunity in Virginia to Embrace Renewable Energy

    Mar 22, 2019 | Washington Post

    By Joe Rinzel
    
    
    Sustainability and profitability are not mutually exclusive. More and more American companies are demanding renewable energy options to power their businesses. You can be sure that these demands are motivated by economics...

Chemical Security News

19. Chemical Safety Board To Investigate Texas Fire

    Mar 22, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Courtney Columbus
    
    
    The U.S. Chemical Safety Board yesterday said it will investigate a fire at a petrochemicals storage site in Deer Park, Texas, that burned for several days before it could be extinguished. CSB is a federal agency tasked with doing root...
20. Residents Fret About Chemical Plant Fire, Despite Assurances

    Mar 22, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)

    By Juan A. Lozano and David Warren
    
    
    Kristin Crump and her two kids put damp cloths over their mouths yesterday for the short walk from their suburban Houston front door to their car, defying an order to remain inside because of dangerous fumes coming from burned-out...
21. Green Groups Sue EPA Over Lack Of Spill Regs

    Mar 22, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Courtney Columbus
    
    
    The Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups sued EPA yesterday over its failure to issue regulations on chemical facilities' plans for spills of hazardous substances. In 1990, the amended Clean Water Act...

Transportation and Infrastructure News

22. Report: FBI Allowed Suspected Terrorists to Hold TWIC Cards

    Mar 22, 2019 | The Maritime Executive

    The U.S. Department of Justice's internal watchdog has faulted the Federal Bureau of Investigation for allowing individuals on the federal terrorist watch list to obtain Transportation Worker Identification Credential cards, better...

Environment News

23. BGOV Bill Summary: S. J. Res. 8, Green New Deal

    Mar 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Adam M. Taylor
    
    
    The U.S. would achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years under S. J. Res 8. The measure, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), outlines the “Green New Deal,” a reference to climate change and...
24. The Energy 202: Senate Democrats Look For Unity On Eve Of Green New Deal Vote

    Mar 22, 2019 | Washington Post

    By Dino Grandoni
    
    
    Faced with the choice of voting up or down on their Green New Deal, Democrats look like they're going to rally around a third option. Originally presented as a nonbinding resolution, the ambitious outline for addressing climate change...
25. Ewire: Senators Jockey Ahead Of Green New Deal Vote

    Mar 22, 2019 | Inside EPA

    Senators are rhetorically sparring ahead of a vote early next week on the Green New Deal (GND) resolution, which majority Republicans are bringing to the floor in an effort to highlight a policy they believe is extreme and fracture the...

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) ICCA Report Highlights Chemical Industry’s Contribution to Global Economy

   Mar 22, 2019 | International Institute for Sustainable Development

   By Cherelle Jackson

   11 March 2019: The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) has released a report that reviews the chemical industry’s contributions to the global economy. The report titled, ‘The Global Chemical Industry: Catalyzing Growth and Addressing Our World’s Sustainability Challenges,’ examines the economic footprint of the chemical industry’s direct and indirect activities and services in sectors involved in the supply chain of chemical products.

   The report finds that, in 2017, the chemical industry contributed USD 5.7 trillion to gross domestic product (GDP), an equivalent of 7% of the world’s GDP, and supported 120 million jobs. Other findings include:The chemical industry directly added USD 1.1 trillion to world GDP, and employed 15 million people, making it the fifth-largest global manufacturing sector;For every dollar generated by the chemical industry, a further USD 4.20 is generated elsewhere in the global economy; andOver the course of 2017, the global chemical industry invested an estimated USD 51 billion in research and development (R&D), supporting 1.7 million jobs and USD 92 billion in economic activity.

   The chemical industry is a source of skilled employment opportunities.

   The report estimates that over 95% of all manufactured goods rely on some form of industrial chemical process. Most industry sectors make use of chemical products, from energy generation and transportation, to information and communication technology (ICT) and construction.

   The publication highlights the chemical industry’s commitment to the sound management of chemical substances through the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) and activities under SDG 12 (sustainable consumption and production). Calvin Dooley, ICCA Council Secretary and President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), noted that the report “makes clear that the chemical industry is an irreplaceable contributor to global GDP, a source of skilled employment opportunities and a major enabler of progress” on the SDGs and the environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainable development.

   The report was produced by ICCA in partnership with Oxford Economics, and released in conjunction with the fourth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-4), taking place in Nairobi, Kenya, from 11-15 March 2019. ICCA is a trade association of the global chemical industry, representing chemical manufacturers and producers around the world.

   http://sdg.iisd.org/news/icca-report-highlights-chemical-industrys-contribution-to-global-economy/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) PVC, PET Resin Prices Up; PP down in February

   Mar 22, 2019 | Plastic News

   By Frank Esposito

   North American commodity resins squeezed some action into the short month of February, with prices for PVC and PET bottle resin both going up, while polypropylene prices declined.

   Regional PVC prices moved up an average of 2 cents per pound for the month, while PET ticked up 1 cent and PP slid 1.5 cents. Prices for all grades of polyethylene and solid polystyrene in the region were flat for the month.

   The 2-cent PVC hike was the result of higher prices in the export market, one market source told Plastics News. Higher demand from the construction market and low resin inventories also played a role in the increase.

   The February hike ended a streak of nine consecutive months of flat pricing for North American PVC. Market prices hadn't moved since April, with supply and demand being closely balanced. Regional PVC prices were up a net of 3 cents in 2018.

   U.S. and Canadian PVC sales were solid in 2018, climbing 3 percent vs. the previous year, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic PVC sales were flat, but the overall growth rate was bolstered by a jump of 10 percent in export sales.

   PET's 1-cent increase for February came after prices had declined by that same amount the previous month. Prices for the material also had dipped 4 cents per pound in December. Market watchers said the 1-cent hike was largely feedstock driven, with some help from higher oil prices.

   PET demand typically moves upward in the spring months, as processors prepare for higher sales of bottled water and carbonated soft drinks when temperatures rise across most of the U.S.

   The 1.5-cent PP decline marked the fourth straight monthly dip — including a 2-cent January move — with those decreases now totaling an eye-catching 21.5 cents. The February downturn came as resin prices once again followed those of polymer-grade propylene monomer feedstock.

   Market analyst Scott Newell said further price decreases for both propylene and for PP resin could be on the way for March.

   "The question is, 'Where is the bottom?'" he added in an email. "There's so much inventory of monomer, and polymer [resin] that prices are dropping in search of demand.

   "In the process, the market will likely find price points that will curb supply as well," said Newell, who is with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas. "Only then will the market begin to balance."

   Full-year 2018 North American PP sales were down 0.5 percent, according to ACC, with a plunge of more than 30 percent in export sales canceling out an increase of less than 0.5 percent in domestic sales.

   But market watchers said regional PP production issues caused a large amount of the resin to be imported into North America during 2018. As a result, true North American PP consumption likely grew 3-4 percent for the year.

   PE prices were flat for the second consecutive month in February as buyers again were able to fend off a 6-cent increase that had been announced by suppliers for Jan. 1. Some market watchers thought that half of the 6 cents might stick in February, but prices rolled over to March instead.

   Regional PE prices had slid downward by 3 cents in both November and December. Market watchers cited lower oil prices and lower global demand for PE, especially from the packaging market, as reasons for those drops. Oil prices affect global resin markets, even though most North American PE is based on natural gas.

   U.S. and Canadian high and linear low density PE sales reported major growth in 2018, resulting from larger amounts of new capacity being sold into the export markets as well as domestic sales that have grown at strong rates.

   HDPE sales in the region were up 12 percent for the year, according to ACC, with domestic growth of more than 5 percent amplified by export sales growth of more than 42 percent. Regional sales of LDPE grew at lower rates in 2018, rising a little more than 7 percent. Flat domestic LDPE sales were boosted by a gain of more than 26 percent in exports.

   In LLDPE, 11-month sales soared more than 24 percent, with domestic sales up almost 5 percent and export sales exploding almost 96 percent.

   Regional solid PS prices were flat in January after slipping an average of 2 cents per pound in January. Prices for benzene feedstock, which is used to make styrene monomer, declined in February, but not enough to bring resin prices down as well.

   North American solid PS sales struggled in 2018, dropping almost 5 percent through November. Exports have provided a bright spot, growing more than 13 percent and reducing the impact of a 5.5 percent drop in domestic sales.

   At the macro-feedstock level, West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices began February at $55.50 per barrel and increased slightly to $56 by the end of the month, a gain of almost 1 percent. Regional prices for natural gas moved up from $2.70 per million British thermal units to $2.85 in the same comparison, for an increase of almost 6 percent.

   https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190322/NEWS/190327645/pvc-pet-resin-prices-up-pp-down-in-february
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. (ACC Mentioned) US Existing Home Sales Surge in February

   Mar 22, 2019 | ICIS

   US sales of existing homes rose by nearly 12% in February from January, following three straight months of declines, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) said on Friday.

   “A powerful combination of lower mortgage rates, more inventory, rising income and higher consumer confidence is driving the sales rebound,” said Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the NAR.

   “It is very welcoming to see more inventory showing up in the market. Consumer foot traffic consequently is rising as measured by the opening rate of SentriLockÒ key boxes.”

   NAR’s SentriLockÒ data, for key access to unlock a home, was measurably higher in January and February compared to the second half of 2018.

   “For sustained growth, significant construction of moderately priced-homes is still needed,” Yun said. “More construction will help boost local economies and more home sales will help lessen wealth inequality as more households can enjoy in housing wealth gains.”

   The housing market is a key consumer of chemicals, driving demand for a wide variety of chemicals, resins and derivative products such as plastic pipe, insulation, paints and coatings, adhesives and synthetic fibres, among many others.

   The American Chemistry Council (ACC) estimates each new home built represents some $15,000 worth of chemicals and derivatives used in the structure or in the production of component materials.

   https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/03/22/10338245/us-existing-home-sales-surge-in-february/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. (ACC Mentioned) Matmos Makes Plastic Music for the 21st Century

   Mar 22, 2019 | Plastics News

   By Frank Esposito

   An album titled "Plastic Anniversary" — with songs like "Fanfare for Polyethylene Waste Containers" and "Thermoplastic Riot Shield" — was never at risk of being easy listening.

   "Plastic Anniversary" is the name of the new album from U.S.-based electronic music duo Matmos. It clocks in at just over 40 minutes of music with 11 tracks. In addition to the above two, other tracks include "Silicone Gel Implant" and "Plastisphere."

   It's an instrumental album played without instruments. For a better description, let's turn to a news release from record label Thrill Jockey, which released the album earlier this month:

   "Comprised entirely of sounds derived from plastic objects — everything from PVC panpipes and billiard balls to silicone gel breast implants and synthetic human flesh — the album was crafted as a celebration of Matmos' Drew Daniel and M.C. Schmidt's own anniversary as a couple."

   Well, that's kind of touching. What else?

   "It also explores our (possibly unhealthy) relationship to a material whose durability, portability and longevity, while heralded by its makers, are the very qualities that make it a force of environmental devastation."

   Yeah, so there's that too.

   "Plastic Anniversary" is Matmos' 11th album in a career that spans more than 20 years. The closest they've come to the mainstream is working with Icelandic singer Bjork, who's released multiple highly acclaimed albums.

   The title track to the album uses poker chips, a PVC pan flute, plastic ocarina, plastic trumpet and trombones, and a plastic fish fashioned into a jock strap. Daniel was wearing the fish while working as a go-go dancer when he first met Schmidt in San Francisco.

   The previous sentence is one that doesn't appear in most plastics-related news releases.

   How has "Plastic Anniversary" been received? Critics seem to like it. Here's Mark Richardson at website Pitchfork:

   "We already know that plastic has a sound," Richardson writes. "On the one hand, 'plastic' means 'fake,' and music described as such is thought to be cheap, artificial. And yet creative uses of plastic are everywhere. The sound of plastic makes me think of a familiar sound of the city — kids on the street who play drums on buckets."

   "I think of Ornette Coleman, who played a plastic saxophone throughout his rise in the 1950s and '60s, at first because it was more affordable, and later because he came to prefer its harsher tone, which he felt made it sound closer to the human voice. Plastic leaves space for ingenuity, because it's constantly being repurposed, and it's constantly being repurposed because it never goes away. Plastic objects will retain their structural integrity long after our bodies have withered into dust."

   That's a nice sentiment that's also fair to plastics. Richardson adds that "the sound of plastic is wider than you might have imagined." On "Fanfare for Polyethylene Waste Containers" — which is pretty catchy in spite of its bulky title — Richardson says that Matmos enlisted the drumline from Montana's Whitefish High School Marching Band for a rolling beat on garbage cans, with a cast of musicians playing an ominous descending theme on plastic horns.

   Spyros Stasis at the Popmatters website describes the album as "an anthem to one of the leading causes of pollution to the planet in all its various forms."

   "So here come the PVC pipelines, the bubble wrap and the Styrofoam," Stasis writes. "All these 'instruments' make up the structure of our reality."

   "Plastic Anniversary" isn't exactly a love letter to the plastics industry, but it isn't exactly a diatribe either. Its instrumental songs might not pop up in commercials made by the Plastics Industry Association or the American Chemistry Council.

   But if it makes some people think a little bit more about the material, it's worth a listen.

   Matmos talks about how they got music from plastic parts.

   https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190322/BLOG07/190327644/matmos-makes-plastic-music-for-the-21st-century
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. EPA’s ‘Secret Science’ Proposal Being Used by Big Oil to Undermine Clean Water Rules

   Mar 22, 2019 | Think Progress

   By Kyla Mandel

   Internal emails reveal two major fossil fuel trade groups are lobbying to stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from updating a decades-old list of toxic chemicals found in petroleum wastewater — and they’re using the Trump administration’s controversial “secret science” proposal to make their case. 

   The EPA currently monitors for 16 types of chemicals in wastewater, or effluent, released by petroleum refineries under the Clean Water Act. However, in the more than 40 years since the list was developed, scientific understanding around the number of chemicals and their toxicity levels has grown. As a result, the EPA is in the early stages of determining whether the priority list of chemicals needs to be updated.

   But according to emails released to the Sierra Club and reviewed by ThinkProgress, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) are lobbying to limit the scope of the EPA’s study.

   The fossil fuel trade groups want to ensure that two categories of chemicals known to be toxic to aquatic life, and potentially harmful to humans, are excluded from the study: alkylated polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (alkylated-PAHs) and naphthenic acids (NAs). The industry even goes so far as to state that including these in a study would risk “legal challenges.”

   These two sets of chemicals are not currently on the EPA’s priority list. There are hundreds of different variations of PAH chemicals and levels of toxicity (alkylated-PAHs, for instance, are a derivative of the main “parent” PAH compounds). Burning coal and oil is the main source for these chemicals.

   Yet, according to Jan Andersson, a chemistry professor at the University of Münster in Germany who has studied the EPA’s list, roughly 97 percent of the PAH chemical compounds found in crude oil are alkylated chemicals, making any lobbying against their inclusion quite significant. Meanwhile, NAs are found primarily in the byproduct of tar sands oil; the non-biodegradable compounds are stored in giant tailings ponds.

   Excluding these types of chemicals from the EPA study would therefore serve to preemptively limit the scope of any potential rule changes in the future.

   “They’re trying to cook the books at the very earliest stages of a study for petroleum refinery and ignoring the considerable data that’s out there that alkylated-PAHs are absolutely at least as toxic, if not more toxic, than the ones everybody monitors for right now,” Betsy Southerland, former director of the EPA’s Office of Water’s Office of Science and Technology, told ThinkProgress. Southerland worked for the EPA for 30 years before resigning in 2017 in response to the change in leadership.

   At high or prolonged exposure, PAH chemicals can cause tumors in aquatic life and birds as well as impact their reproduction, development, and immunity. Studies show that NAs have similar impacts, along with causing liver and heart damage in mice. Some known health effects to humans from PAH exposure include eye and skin irritation, nausea, and diarrhea, as well as longer-term impacts such as kidney or liver damage and asthma-like symptoms.

   Scientists are still studying how the various chemicals impact humans; a range of PAH chemicals are classified as suspected or possibly carcinogenic to humans. What is known though, is that alkylated-PAHs are likely more toxic than other types of PAHs. They also take a longer time to biodegrade in the environment.

   The ‘secret science’ argument

   Issued by the EPA in 1976, the list of 16 types of PAH chemicals is used to determine which chemicals must be monitored for risks to drinking water and human health. Under the Clean Water Act, petroleum wastewater effluent guidelines establish a national floor — a baseline limit — for these chemicals. So, if there is a discharge of waste such as the release of industrial wastewater, stormwater runoff, or oil spills, only these 16 chemicals are tested to determine the level of toxicity.

   The simplicity of the list has made the process easily applicable and cost-effective, and other countries have also turned to it as a resource. The list hasn’t just been used to monitor wastewater, either — environmental studies frequently use it as a basis for research. However, as a 2015 article co-authored by Andersson and published in the academic journal Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds notes, the list leaves out three large groups of these chemical compounds, including alkylated-PAHs. As the paper states, crude oil and coal are “rich” in alkyl compounds.

   Despite the potential impact on human health and the environment, the levels of these chemicals currently found in petroleum wastewater is unknown; that’s one thing the EPA’s study would determine. PAH concentrations can vary from site-to-site and by the source of the crude oil. The findings would then help guide any necessary changes to the list of chemicals that should be regulated.

   As part of its argument against the EPA measuring these chemicals, the trade groups are using the EPA’s proposed “secret science” rule to argue against disclosure of NAs because that would constitute a risk to companies’ proprietary data.

   The proposed rule, also known as the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule, was introduced last April by former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt. The rule has been supported by climate science deniers and effectively aims to restrict the use of scientific evidence in the rule-making process. The plan has been stalled under Administrator Andrew Wheeler, but if adopted, it would require the EPA to rely only on scientific studies where the underlying data used by the researchers is made public. Critics argue the bill would severely limit the kind of science the EPA could use in justifying regulations (excluding public health data, for instance) and would place a number of unnecessary burdens on EPA scientists.

   Some in the chemical and fossil fuel industries, both of which maintain close ties with the Trump administration, have also warned that the rule would expose confidential corporate information. In a June 8, 2018 letter attached to an email to Brian d’Amico, branch chief at the EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, API and AFPM wrote that using the industry’s own proprietary method of analyzing naphthenic acids would be a “clear contradiction” to the EPA’s proposed secret science rule.

   “Independent validation is clearly not possible when a proprietary analytical method is used to generate the data,” the organizations argued. “In the interest of transparency, per its own proposed rule, EPA should abandon the use of this proprietary method in the Detailed Study.”

   “Data derived from these methods could result in the EPA facing substantial scientific and legal challenge,” API and AFPM warned.

   In other words, under the hypothetical scenario where the EPA decides to update its chemicals list at a time when the secret science rule is officially adopted, it would require the results of the EPA’s effluent study be made public, as that would be considered underlying data used to introduce the new chemicals rule. But doing so would, in the eyes of the fossil fuel industry, violate their proprietary methods used to analyze the chemical and so the chemicals should instead be simply excluded from the very beginning to avoid such a scenario.

   “Quoting a rule that has not even gone final yet for the reason why [the EPA] shouldn’t be allowed to monitor it is pretty outrageous,” said Southerland.

   The EPA did not respond to a request for comment from ThinkProgress about whether or not it will be studying the two types of chemicals the fossil fuel industry has been lobbying against. The API and AFPM also did not respond to requests for comment.

   ‘Obsolete’ list

   The fossil fuel industry is also arguing that the EPA doesn’t have sufficient data to claim that these two groups of chemicals should be regulated. As Roger E. Claff, senior scientific adviser at API, wrote in a February 2018 email to d’Amico, among the concerns is a “lack of toxicity data for decision-making.”

   But as Southerland explained, that’s precisely why the EPA is initiating its study; growing scientific findings suggest these chemicals are highly toxic and therefore updates might be warranted. Meanwhile, she said, “API is saying ‘hell no.'”

   Andersson made the case for updating the list in his 2015 paper. The 1976 list was created based on what was commercially available at the time, but many more variations of PAH chemicals exist now. Meanwhile, toxicology has improved understanding of the adverse health impacts of a wide range of these chemicals, and “a wealth of new compounds have been added to the inventory of confirmed or suspect carcinogens.”

   “This list of compounds is not suitable,” Andersson told ThinkProgress. “Most of them are pretty innocuous… [there are] many that are much more toxic that don’t appear on this list because in 1976, people didn’t know about them. This list looks pretty obsolete.”

   ‘Collaboration through the years’

   The first meeting between the EPA and the fossil fuel trade groups on this issue occurred in May 2016, under the Obama administration. And as a January 2018 slide show presentation to the Trump administration shows, the industry highlighted its “collaboration through the years” with the EPA.

   Of course, some degree of collaboration is needed in order for the EPA to properly conduct its study and gather the necessary data. However, the internal emails provide insight into the scale of influence the fossil fuel lobby is trying to exert at the very early stages of decision making.
   

   Dalal Aboulhosn, who works on federal water policy for the Sierra Club, said this shows how under the current administration industry “is allowed to come in and pretty much write their wish list.”

   On water specifically she said, there has been a pattern of industry approaching the EPA under both Pruitt and Wheeler with policy ideas before the EPA has actually decided to move on the issue. Shortly after, a change is announced.

   “It’s very blatant and it’s across the board when it comes to issues in the agency, and we’re seeing it very starkly on water issues,” Aboulhosn said.

   Indeed, after arguing last June that “the science and data for the toxicity of NAs and alkylated-PAHs are still a work in progress,” the two trade groups go so far as to suggest that, should the EPA wish to study them, the agency must address these two groups of chemicals “in a project outside of the Study.”

   They argue the EPA should make a new official rule in order to create a new “method” for studying these chemicals. This separate project should undergo “the appropriate public notice and comment period required to gain method approval,” the trade groups’ letter states.

   This, however, would be highly uncommon given public notice and comment periods typically apply to new regulations, or changes to existing regulations (such as repealing the Obama-era Clean Power Plan or introducing the “secret science” rule); it would also serve to delay the process by several years.

   “It sounds like they’re trying to set some new bar to any future detailed studies,” Southerland said, “where no analyses can be done unless there’s a standard method… that would be a bar not just for petroleum refinery but every industry category.”

   It quickly becomes a “chicken and egg” situation, Southerland said; you need a study to determine if a new rule is needed, but the industry is arguing you need a new rule before conducting the study.

   But as the June 2018 industry letter to the EPA reads, “API and AFPM members believe in due diligence and support EPA in developing sound science.”

   https://thinkprogress.org/oil-lobby-groups-epa-secret-science-proposal-clean-water-rules-9de63644deed/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. DC’s Plastic Straw Ban Stirs up Feelings on Capitol Hill

   Mar 22, 2019 | Roll Call

   By Katherine Tully-McManus

   If your warm-weather routine calls for a switch from hot coffee to iced, prepare yourself. Spring is officially here, and the plastic exodus is underway, according to Roll Call’s audit of straws on Capitol Hill.

   Many staffers first felt the shift at the Longworth Dunkin’ Donuts, if all the queries we got in recent weeks are any indication. “What’s the deal with the paper straws at Dunkin’?” was a popular refrain.

   Here’s the deal: D.C. banned plastic straws in restaurants and other businesses effective Jan. 1, and the Hill is getting in line.

   “It lasted through most of my small iced tea,” one congressional reporter said of her paper straw experience.

   Other Longworth regulars were not impressed.

   “The Dunkin in Longworth has made the switch to paper straws and I am not here for it,” tweeted House staffer Natalie Johnson earlier this month, with a photo of the mushy straw.

   While the Longworth cafeteria and House carryout inside the Capitol have also moved to paper straws, the brand-name food options on the House side are lagging behind.

   In Rayburn, both &pizza and Subway were still using plastic straws as of this week.

   Strawless lids may be in store for &pizza customers as the company bypasses the paper question altogether, according to a spokesperson. The lids, which resemble those of a hot coffee or sippy cup, are already getting a tryout in some shops and are expected to debut in all locations, including Rayburn, before July.

   “This actually reduces total waste and cost, as we will have no need for straws at all (and avoids the wet-paper-straw conundrum),” said Vanessa Rodriguez in an email.
   

   On the Senate side, implementation is similarly patchy. The Dirksen spots, including the coffee shop, cafeteria and buffet, have switched to straws that look a lot like plastic but are fully compostable.

   “Straw Made From Plants ECO-PRODUCTS 100% COMPOSTABLE,” reads the green text on the paper wrapper. Those are in the clear under the D.C. law.

   The beloved Cups & Company in the Russell Senate Office Building is still using plastic straws as of this week, as is the Senate carryout.
   

   The recess hours of the Rayburn cafeteria thwarted Roll Call’s efforts to check out what types of straws are currently on offer there.

   Eateries serving up plastic straws aren’t in violation — yet. The district has granted a grace period until July to give establishments time to make the transition before fines kick in.

   The District’s straw ban actually dates back to 2014, when it passed as part of the same measure that banned styrofoam food containers. But the straw provision of the law was never enforced. That’s changing. The District Department of Energy and Environment has an enforcement team out around the city checking on bars, restaurants and coffee shops.

   The team canvassed Union Station in mid-January, but it’s not clear if it’s made its way into the basement food spots on Capitol Hill.

   This latest flight from plastic joins other get-green efforts in the Capitol. The food outlets on the House side run by Sodexo have in recent years moved to wooden stir sticks for coffee, instead of plastic ones, and compostable “to go” containers.

   http://www.rollcall.com/news/hoh/dc-plastic-straw-ban-capitol-hill
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Second Court Dismisses EPA Science Advisor Policy Suit

   Mar 22, 2019 | Inside EPA

   Another federal district judge has dismissed a suit from environmentalists over the Trump EPA's policy barring scientists who are receiving EPA research grants from serving on any of its advisory committees, this time finding that the plaintiff, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), did not have standing to sue.

   Judge William Pauley, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York March 21 dismissed NRDC v. Wheeler, finding the plaintiffs did not meet the injury prong of the standing test.

   “On balance, the NRDC’s objective of ensuring scientific integrity, which the Directive allegedly harms, is no more than an 'abstract concern with a subject that could be affected by an adjudication [that] does not substitute for the concrete injury required by [Article III],'” Pauley writes, citing the 1976 Supreme Court case Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization.

   Pauley's ruling follows the February dismissal of a similar suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Physicians for Social Responsibility v. Wheeler, where Judge Trevor McFadden found that Physicians for Social Responsibility and co-plaintiffs -- including two former EPA advisors -- had standing but dismissed that suit on the merits.

   The plaintiffs in that case are weighing an appeal.

   A third suit, Union of Concerned Scientists et al v. EPA, pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, also has a co-plaintiff who served as a member of a science advisory board. The federal court in Boston is currently weighing EPA's motion to dismiss.

   At issue is former Administrator Scott Pruitt's policy directive “Strengthening and Improving Membership on EPA Federal Advisory Committees,” that bars scientists that receive EPA grants from serving on agency advisory committees. Once issued, the directive forced several advisers to choose between receiving agency grants or giving up their advisory slots.

   Pruitt and his supporters justified the move, saying it was intended to end conflicts of interest posed by those who receive agency grants, who they charge are biased in favor of regulations. The directive drew widespread concerns and criticisms from agency staff, congressional Democrats and others, as well as lawsuits.

   But the plaintiffs are so far struggling.

   In the latest decision, Pauley rules that NRDC lacks standing because it does not show an “injury in fact,” one of the necessary findings in a three-pronged legal test to demonstrate standing. Plaintiffs must show they have suffered an injury, that it is “traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant,” and that a court ruling could address the harm.

   “NRDC does not allege . . . that it diverted any other resources from its activities (specific or otherwise) because of the Directive,” Pauley writes. “Moreover, it is not evident how the NRDC’s ability to pursue its advocacy and litigation activities would be impaired by the Directive...”

   Further, Pauley concluded that NRDC did not have standing because of an injury to its reputation, writing that “[b]ased on the NRDC’s conclusory allegations as to a generalized, hypothetical harm, this Court is not persuaded that its members have suffered reputational injury of the sort that courts deem cognizable.”

   And Pauley noted an important difference between the case before him and the suit in Washington, DC, where the plaintiffs proved standing. There, two plaintiffs had been removed from EPA advisory committees because they had EPA grants.

   NRDC did not offer such an argument because of a loss of professional opportunity, though Pauley says that “EPA conceded at oral argument that the NRDC’s members have sustained a constitutional injury to the extent they relinquished advisory committee membership or EPA grants.”

   Noting the ruling in the federal court in Washington, DC, Pauley writes that “this Court has an 'independent obligation to consider the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte,'” citing a 2017 ruling by the Second Circuit, In re Tronox Inc.

   “The Supreme Court has reiterated that Article III’s 'cases and controversies' restriction 'requires that the party invoking federal jurisdiction have standing -- the “personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation.”’”

   https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/second-court-dismisses-epa-science-advisor-policy-suit
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

8. EPA Releases List Of High-Priority And Low-Priority Chemicals

   Mar 22, 2019 | JD Supra

   By Lynn L. Bergeson

   On March 21, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was releasing a list of 40 chemicals to begin the prioritization process required by the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  84 Fed. Reg. 10491.  New TSCA requires EPA to designate 20 chemicals as “high-priority” for subsequent risk evaluation and 20 chemicals as “low-priority,” meaning that risk evaluation is not warranted at this time.  The 20 high priority candidate chemicals include: Seven chlorinated solvents; Six phthalates; Four flame retardants; Formaldehyde (which has been studied by EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program for many years); A fragrance additive; and A polymer pre-curser.

   EPA is also currently determining whether to conduct a risk evaluation of two additional phthalates.  The 20 low priority candidate chemicals have been selected from EPA’s Safer Chemicals Ingredients List, which includes chemicals that have been evaluated and determined to meet EPA's safer choice criteria. 

   Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, stated that initiating a chemical for high or low prioritization “does not mean EPA has determined it poses unreasonable risk or no risk to human health or the environment,” however.  EPA states that is it releasing this list “to provide the public an opportunity to submit relevant information such as the uses, hazards, and exposure for these chemicals.”  Comments are due June 19, 2019.  EPA has opened a docket for each of the 40 chemicals; the dockets numbers are listed in the Federal Register notice.  EPA is directed to complete the prioritization process in the next nine to 12 months.

   https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/epa-releases-list-of-high-priority-and-70372/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

9. (ACC Mentioned) Could PFAs Concerns Sway The Democratic Presidential Contest?

   Mar 22, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Timothy Cama

   The plight of communities with PFAS contamination in their drinking water is getting an attention boost from the 2020 presidential campaign.

   Democrats in the crowded field of more than a dozen candidates are calling for more action to clean up per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance pollution, a key concern in some areas of New Hampshire, which holds the first primary of the campaign season.

   PFAS is providing a platform for hopefuls to slam President Trump's environmental agenda as they make their case to voters about who is the best person to take on Trump next year.

   And while New Hampshire, whose primary comes just after the Iowa caucuses, isn't the only state to suffer from PFAS issues, it's helping candidates connect more closely with voters in the Granite State.

   Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has taken the mantle on PFAS, going so far as to call for a complete ban on the family of thousands of man-made chemicals that are used in applications like firefighting foams and nonstick cookware. Environmental advocates call them "forever chemicals" because they can last years before breaking down.

   "I think we have to ban the entire class of chemicals because they will be determined ... as carcinogens," Gillibrand said at a March 15 campaign event in Portsmouth, N.H., that was structured as a forum on water contamination problems, according to Foster's Daily Democrat, a Dover, N.H., newspaper.

   "If the EPA turns a blind eye and is unwilling to do the right thing, then you'll have at least two more years when nothing is done. It's one of the reasons why we must defeat President Trump," Gillibrand said.

   "He is a toxic president to America, that is a fact," said the senator. "He does not care."

   While the White House's fiscal 2020 budget proposal calls for new money to communities affected by PFAS, it would cut research dollars (E&E News PM, March 18).

   The issue is of particular importance to Gillibrand, who used to represent an upstate New York Hudson Valley district while in the House.

   Hoosick Falls, N.Y., has grappled in recent years with drinking water contamination from perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, a substance in the PFAS family that is a suspected carcinogen.

   The pollution has been linked to a plant owned by Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics and formerly operated by a predecessor corporation of Honeywell International.

   'Pretty niche issue'

   Gillibrand's comments came weeks after then-acting EPA head Andrew Wheeler released an action plan for PFAS, which included steps to help clean up contamination and, by the end of the year, make an official determination that would lead to regulations limiting allowable drinking water concentrations of two key PFAS chemicals.

   Wheeler's announcement, however, angered Democrats and health advocates, who argued the plan does not take action quickly enough.

   As an environmental problem, PFAS doesn't pose the same national concerns as something like climate change. But its impact is being felt in places like Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Michigan.

   In New Hampshire, focus has been on the Seacoast area, where PFAS pollution has been found or suspected in Portsmouth, Merrimack, Greenland and elsewhere.

   David Konisky, an environmental policy professor at Indiana University Bloomington, said PFAS could get much more attention in early primary states like New Hampshire and Michigan.

   "PFAS are still a pretty niche issue, so it's hard to imagine them emerging as part of a national political discourse in a presidential election. But that said, in particular states as part of the primary process, I could very easily see candidates trying to use the issue to position themselves with voters in states where it's already been in the headlines," he said.

   On the other hand, if candidates are looking for policy issues that would help them stand out from the rest of the field, they might not want to dwell on PFAS. Other environmental issues, like climate change, could provide for more differentiation, Konisky said.

   "I'm not sure that it would separate them from other candidates, because I imagine they would all take similar stances on the need for the EPA to do more, and for the federal government to provide resources for cleanup of contaminated sites."

   The idea of wide-ranging policies to ban PFAS alarms the chemical industry. The American Chemistry Council is open to certain standards, particularly on older PFAS compounds that have proved harmful, but argues that painting the whole class with broad brushstrokes is wrong.

   "PFAS is a diverse family of chemistries that have differing characteristics, formulations, intended uses, and environmental and health profiles," Rob Simon, vice president for chemical products and technology at the ACC, said in a statement.

   "Because of these significant differences, it is inappropriate to pass one-size-fits-all regulations of PFAS as a class, which is an approach that has been rejected repeatedly by U.S. agencies and other international regulatory bodies over the years," he said.

   Lobbying on PFAS has increased significantly since the issue gained prominence on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers pushing bills and demands to the administration (E&E Daily, Feb. 5).

   How the candidates stack up

   Many presidential hopefuls are indeed targeting the entire category of chemicals. Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney said he visited the Coakley Landfill in New Hampshire in February.

   "I toured the Coakley Landfill in Greenland which is suspected of high levels of PFAS and am aware of how concerned people are on the Seacoast about water contamination," he said in a statement. "I think that it is unacceptable that the Trump EPA is dragging their feet on this."

   In addition to Gillibrand's call for a complete ban on PFAS, she signed on to a bipartisan Senate letter Feb. 1 with 19 colleagues calling on EPA to set hard limits on concentrations of PFOA and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS.

   Two more of those signatories are now running for the Democratic nomination to be president: Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

   Those three senators also signed on to a May demand that the Trump administration release federal research on PFAS consumption limits, following a report that administration officials had tried to hide it.

   Sanders is the lead sponsor of the "Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity and Reliability Act," S. 611, which he introduced in February. It is meant as a comprehensive drinking water plan, including provisions to help water utilities clean up PFAS and assist householders served by them.

   Warren's campaign pointed to legislative amendments she's sponsored that would have mandated a study and a federal register on firefighters' exposure to PFAS.

   She also criticized David Dunlap, a former Koch Industries Inc. official now working in a senior research position, for his alleged role in EPA's PFAS action plan in a letter to Wheeler.

   Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has criticized the Trump administration on Twitter for its actions on PFAS.

   "Everyone has a fundamental right to drink clean water. The EPA's decision to delay setting standards for PFAS, toxic chemicals in drinking water that can have devastating impacts on human health, is completely unacceptable," she tweeted after EPA released its action plan.

   Gillibrand, Harris, Warren and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) are all among the 30 co-sponsors of Sen. Tom Carper's (D-Del.) "PFAS Action Act," S. 638, which would mandate that EPA declare all PFAS chemicals to be hazardous, thus allowing contamination areas to be declared Superfund sites.

   Booker wants PFAS banned from firefighting foams and consumer products immediately, said spokeswoman Sabrina Singh. He also endorses a drinking water standard and a hazardous substance designation for the entire class, to enable Superfund cleanups.

   "EPA's failure to regulate PFAS chemicals is putting the health of millions of Americans at risk. Unfortunately, this is just another example of the Trump EPA failing to protect public health," Singh said.

   Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro largely agreed with his Democratic rivals, saying in a statement to E&E News that the federal government "must set strict standards for the presence of carcinogenic materials, including putting forward enforceable maximum contaminant levels and allocating federal resources to combat unacceptable levels."

   Castro also said the Trump administration "clearly does not prioritize the health and safety of American citizens, as proven by their actions and budget."

   Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) has taken action on the state level to stop PFAS contamination. He signed a bill last year banning certain PFAS chemicals from being added to firefighting foam, and another to ban some PFAS compounds from food packaging.

   https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060128057/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Air Force Seeks To Preserve Federal Test Case On State's PFAS Enforcement

    Mar 22, 2019 | Inside EPA

    By Suzanne Yohannan

    The Air Force is urging a federal judge to reject calls from New Mexico officials to remove its challenge to a waste permit governing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to a state court, an effort aimed at preserving a suit that could become a test case on federal agencies' attempts to limit state regulation of PFAS in the absence of EPA standards.

    In a March 14 brief filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, the federal government in United States v. New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) says the federal district court has jurisdiction to oversee the litigation and should not refrain from exercising that jurisdiction.

    It charges that legal doctrines the state had cited to justify its removal motion governing deferrals to state court do not apply in this case.

    In the litigation, the Air Force is challenging the renewal of a hazardous waste disposal permit that NMED issued to Cannon Air Force Base, located in Curry County, NM, in December.

    While the Air Force is challenging the definition of hazardous waste in that permit, it does not specify how the definition exceeds the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act's (RCRA) sovereign immunity waiver.

    But the state permit, which governs contamination investigation and remediation at the base, defines hazardous waste as including contaminants such as PFAS, munitions constituents, perchlorate and other chemicals.

    The state's permit -- and the Air Force's challenge -- underscores the difficulties state regulators face as they seek to address PFAS contamination in the absence of an EPA standard. While several states have begun to set enforceable regulatory limits, EPA has not, resulting in a patchwork of requirements.

    Moreover, the military services face significant environmental cleanup liability at their bases for PFAS as the chemicals have been used in fire fighting foam they have used in training or fighting fires at military properties across the country. While New Mexico officials have battled the Air Force over PFAS contamination stemming from two bases, in Georgia the Air Force has also declined to address off-site contamination from three bases in part because neither EPA nor the state regulates the substances.

    Marten Law policy adviser Nathan Frey and senior associate Jennifer Hammitt argue in a post last month that the pending litigation may become a test case on federal agencies' attempts to limit state regulation on PFAS. The case “may provide additional insight into the viability of state regulation in the absence of federal rules."

    The United States filed the challenge Jan. 17, asking the federal court for “declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that certain terms of the Permit exceed NMED's authority,” the March 14 brief says.

    The federal government simultaneously filed a protective notice of appeal to challenge the permit in state court, but the United States says it will seek to stay state proceedings pending resolution of the federal litigation.

    New Mexico officials though, in response, last month asked that the federal district court dismiss the case, saying the state court should preside over it. The state asked the federal court to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction and defer to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

    The state also asked for a “more definite statement of the alleged inconsistencies between the permit, RCRA and the [state Hazardous Waste Act (HWA)]."

    'Sufficient Factual Detail'

    But in its March brief, the United States rejects NMED's request that the court dismiss the complaint “for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and alternatively for a more definite statement,” according to the U.S. brief.

    The government says it “included sufficient factual detail to allege a cause of action challenging the definition of hazardous waste in the final permit, and the complaint is sufficiently detailed to allow the defendants to respond."

    Further, it says, “NMED was able to identify in its motion that the United States alleges that the definition of hazardous waste in the issued Permit . . . is inconsistent with the HWA and its implementing regulations and so exceeds the scope of RCRA's sovereign immunity waiver."

    It continues, “The specific arguments regarding how the definition of hazardous waste in the Permit is unlawful and exceed RCRA's sovereign immunity waiver are legal arguments, and NMED will have an opportunity to respond to those arguments later in this litigation.”

    The U.S. government also says that none of the abstention doctrines -- based on the cases Younger v. Harris,. Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. and Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States -- that the state cited in its motion is applicable to this challenge.

    It points to Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, a 2013 Supreme Court ruling that held Younger only applies to ongoing state criminal cases, civil enforcement proceedings akin to criminal proceedings and civil cases that implicate a state court's ability to conduct its judicial functions. The federal government notes that this does not fit either of the first two types of cases, and the third factor does not apply because the Air Force is not asking the district court to enjoin or address an ongoing state proceeding.

    “Under governing Supreme Court precedent, Younger abstention is thus inappropriate here,” the United States says.

    It also says NMED's arguments that the federal court must abstain under Younger for other reasons -- such as if the issue involves significant state interests -- ignore the limits that Sprint put on Younger and that have been recognized by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

    The United States says the state also fails to specify how the Pullman and Colorado River abstention doctrines apply, noting that the former does not apply as there is no constitutional challenge to a state law here. Further, this case “does not implicate the issues of judicial economy relevant to Colorado River abstention,” it says. 

    https://insideepa.com/daily-news/air-force-seeks-preserve-federal-test-case-states-pfas-enforcement 

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Minnesota Legislators Consider Trichloroethylene Ban

    Mar 22, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    Bills have been introduced in both chambers of the Minnesota legislature to ban the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) in products and manufacturing processes.

    The legislation (HF 2276 / SF 2075) would prohibit from 1 January 2020 the manufacture, process or distribution in commerce of any product containing the substance.

    The legislation also looks to block TCE's use as: a vapour degreaser; a refrigerant; an extraction solvent; an intermediate to produce another substance; or any other manufacturing or cleaning process or use.

    Consideration of the legislation comes as an EPA proposal to prohibit the solvent’s use in vapour degreasing and as an aerosol degreaser and spot cleaner in dry cleaning appear to have been abandoned. Those and other uses of the substance are instead being assessed under an ongoing TSCA risk evaluation, which – along with nine other initial assessments under the reformed law – are due to be finalised by December.

    If that assessment determines the substance poses unreasonable risk, the EPA is required to impose risk management provisions to address those concerns.

    The TCE measures are among several bills focused on chemicals in products being heard in the Minnesota legislature this session. Others include:bills (HF 2595 / SF 2088) banning the manufacture, sale or distribution of food packaging containing intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs);legislation (HF 359 / SF 321) to ban certain flame retardants in upholstered furniture and children’s products; andcompanion bills (HF 1898 / SF 1920) aimed at increasing public awareness on the dangers associated with illegal skin lightening creams that contain mercury.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/75353/minnesota-legislators-consider-trichloroethylene-ban
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Bipartisan Letter Probes Interagency PFAs Fight

    Mar 22, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Energy Whiteboard

    By Annie Snider

    Bipartisan leaders of the Senate's top oversight committee are probing the White House about the fight between the Defense Department, EPA and the CDC that has stalled the release of cleanup guidelines for a pair of toxic chemicals in drinking water sources.

    In a letter to White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney sent today, Senate Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) and Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-Mich.) are seeking information about the interagency review of EPA groundwater cleanup guidance for the chemicals PFOA and PFOS.

    The guidance, which has been stalled at the White House since August, would provide a starting point for developing cleanup plans for contaminated sites, including 126 military sites where the Pentagon has said groundwater or drinking water has been contaminated with PFOA or PFOS from firefighting foam.

    "Given the significance of this issue, it is essential that OIRA resolve any remaining interagency conflicts and concludes its review as soon as possible," the senators wrote.

    POLITICO reported in January that EPA proposed a cleanup standard of 70 parts per trillion, combined, for PFOA and PFOS — the same level EPA has advised is a safe limit in drinking water. But Sen. Tom Carper(D-Del.) said last week that the Defense Department is pushing for that to be raised to 400 parts per trillion.

    The senators requested documents related to the interagency review and information about why the review process has taken so long.

    WHAT'S NEXT: Key officials from the Defense Department, EPA and CDC are due to testify about the chemicals at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing next week. Senators have also pressed the Trump administration for documents related to the interagency review.

    https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/2019/03/bipartisan-letter-probes-interagency-pfas-fight-2924473
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. EU Prepares to Review Controversial Herbicide Glyphosate—Again

    Mar 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Stephen Gardner

    The European Union is preparing to once again assess the safety of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide.

    The active ingredient in a range of pesticides, glyphosate is currently authorized in the EU until Dec. 15, 2022, after the bloc granted a short-term reapproval in 2017.

    To get reauthorized to sell the herbicide after 2022, companies must apply by Dec. 15 this year—meaning they, and the regulators who will assess their application, are preparing now.

    The Glyphosate Task Force, which represents a group of companies including Bayer, Nufarm GmbH & Co KG, and Syngenta AG, will submit a glyphosate reauthorization application.

    Glyphosate has been dogged by concerns it causes cancer. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 labeled it a probable carcinogen, and on March 19, Bayer AG lost the first phase of a trial in California over claims the glyphosate-based Roundup weedkiller caused an individual’s cancer.

    But EU regulators have said glyphosate doesn’t present a cancer risk, though a number of EU lawmakers and some countries in the bloc opposed the substance’s 2017 reauthorization.
    

    New Risk Assessment

    The new reauthorization bid will involve a new risk assessment of glyphosate.

    This will proceed in two stages. A group of EU countries—France, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Sweden—will work jointly on an initial assessment before passing the dossier to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

    EFSA will make its own assessment and provide an opinion to the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, which will make the decision based on votes in a committee of EU member country representatives.

    The new assessment could also involve the European Chemicals Agency, which might be asked to carry out a new evaluation of the classification of glyphosate, EFSA spokesman Flavio Fergnani told Bloomberg Environment in an email.

    Glyphosate is currently classified in the EU as toxic to aquatic life and potentially causing serious eye damage, but not as a carcinogen, a classification confirmed by the European Chemicals Agency in 2017.
    

    Companies Confident

    The new assessment of glyphosate by a group of countries will also depart from standard EU procedure. Normally, a single country is appointed to be the “rapporteur” for an application to authorize a pesticide. The rapporteur, which may be chosen by the applicant, is the country that checks and initially assesses an application before passing it on to food safety agency.

    Assessment of the application by a group of countries would be welcome, though “any proposed change to the EU regulatory assessment procedure should aim to strengthen the scientific nature of the process and the independence of its regulatory authorities,” the Glyphosate Task Force said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment.

    Assessment of an application by a group of countries requires a minor change to EU law, which is expected to be approved at a regulatory committee meeting May 21-22, said Euopean Commission spokeswoman Anca Paduraru.

    https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/eu-prepares-to-review-controversial-herbicide-glyphosate-again
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

14. Expect Offshore Drilling to Play Role in Next Week’s Interior Secretary Confirmation

    Mar 21, 2019 | Roll Call

    By Jacob Holzman

    Democrats are pressuring acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to release the department’s updated plan for opening the Atlantic Ocean to offshore drilling, foreshadowing an increased focus on a proposal opposed by lawmakers of both parties.

    In a letter sent Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, of New York, and 16 other Democratic senators asked Bernhardt to release details about the department’s draft five-year oil and gas leasing program for the Outer Continental Shelf, including which states will be included in the next version of the proposal.

    The line of inquiry all but assures the plan will be a focus for Democrats during Bernhardt’s confirmation hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee next Thursday.

    “Your decisions on this matter will significantly impact our nation’s coastal economy and ecosystems,” they wrote of the offshore drilling plan. “The American people deserve to know your plan for the Outer Continental Shelf before the Senate votes on your nomination.”
    

    In 2018 the department proposed opening more than 90 percent of federal waters to fossil fuel exploration and extraction. The department’s second draft of the proposal may be released “in the coming weeks,” said Walter Cruickshank, acting director of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, at a March 6 House Natural Resources hearing.

    Which areas are open to drilling could affect the chance that Bernhardt will get the majority needed for confirmation if the Democratic caucus holds firm against his nomination, as a number of Republican senators facing tough re-election races in 2020 are from states that could see the oil and gas industry setting up off their coasts.

    One Republican senator, Maine’s Susan Collins, voted against the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, a vote similarly contentious for environmentalists. Collins has also supported federal bans on drilling off Maine’s shore.
    

    Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, and David Perdue, of Georgia, could face pressure on the Bernhardt vote if Interior proposes opening their states’ coasts to drilling. The governors of South Carolina and Georgia, both Republicans, oppose the department doing so. North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, also expected to run for re-election in 2020, could face similar pressures from another coastal state.
    

    There is also Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott. During his 2018 run for the Senate, Scott opposed opening his state’s coasts to offshore drilling. And when Interior first proposed opening its waters to extraction, the secretary at the time, Ryan Zinke, tweeted that Florida would be exempted from the program, which he said was at Scott's request.

    Zinke has since resigned, and Florida lawmakers appear to no longer believe they will be exempted. Last month the entire Florida House delegation, including Trump ally Rep. Matt Gaetz, wrote to Bernhardt urging him to “take formal action” to exempt the state from its offshore oil and gas leasing program.

    “We urge you to exempt Florida’s coasts from any offshore drilling plans,” they wrote.

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/expect-offshore-drilling-to-play-role-in-interior-secretary-confirmation
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Proposition 112 Was Defeated, But That is Not the End

    Mar 22, 2019 | National Law Review

    By Melissa J. Lyon

    Colorado’s Proposition 112, which gained national notoriety this fall, the full text of which can be found here, was a ballot initiative that proposed the nation’s strictest setback – a blanket 2,500 feet setback for new wells.  Luckily, the highly publicized Proposition 112 was defeated at the polls this November, as it could have had significant negative impacts on not only the industry as a whole, but on the lives of many Coloradans.  The extreme and controversial measure was even discussed in The New York Times article entitled, In Colorado, a Bitter Battle Over Oil, Gas and the Environment Comes to a Head, shortly before voters hit the polls. 

    Residents of Denver saw people taking to the sidewalks and streets to oppose Proposition 112 and to spread the word of how detrimental the measure would be if passed – industry workers, landmen, executives, engineers, lawyers and the like all sported “Vote ‘No’ on 112” signs.  As a resident of Weld County, I personally did not see any “Vote ‘Yes’ on 112” signs until driving north to Fort Collins or west to Boulder. 

    By way of a summary, Proposition 112 would have had substantial impacts on the oil and gas industry in Colorado, including the following:

    -It would have greatly reduced the available locations for new oil and gas development

    -Colorado’s tax revenue, unemployment rate and overall health of the state economy would have taken a major hit

    -Most notably, the measure would have had major negative impacts that would have rippled throughout Colorado communities – our families would have felt its negative impacts the most. 

    What many forget is that it is not just those families who work in the oil and gas sector who would have suffered – local restaurants, hotels, gas stations, and many others who serve the industry would have lost a significant flow of income.  This also does not include the mineral owners whose asset could have remained undeveloped – they stand to lose the benefit of owning such a resource if it can not be developed.  An excellent summary of the potential impacts of Proposition 112 was put together by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (“COGA”) and can be found here.  

    Proposition 112 was reportedly rejected by a margin of 57% to 42%.   Those in favor of restricting oil and gas operations in Colorado will likely attempt future ballot measures aimed at the same…the takeaway is that the defeat of Proposition 112 will likely not be the end. 

    The roots of this measure started to grow as early as 2010, with local Colorado communities starting to get interested in pushing fracking moratoria.  It is unlikely that this movement toward heavily restricting oil and gas development in Colorado will end any time soon.  Many think that the oil and gas industry is currently poised to educate the public now that it has defeated Proposition 112 and use the opportunity to prevent future misinformation and obstruction of the industry.  Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development is one such effort.

    Stay tuned – we will keep you informed of any new developments and regulations affecting the industry in Colorado. 

    https://www.natlawreview.com/article/proposition-112-was-defeated-not-end
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. With State Legislation Pending, Colorado County Temporarily Suspends New Drilling

    Mar 22, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Richard Nemec

    Calling it a glimpse of the future under proposed energy regulatory reform now moving through the Colorado legislature, industry representatives are blasting a decision by the Adams County’s elected Board of Commissioners to establish a temporary moratorium on new drilling.

    Subscription required for full text.

    https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117802-with-state-legislation-pending-colorado-county-temporarily-suspends-new-drilling
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. The Billion-Dollar Rebrand: How Big Oil Is Trying to Change Its Image

    Mar 22, 2019 | Grist

    By Zoya Teirstein

    To the untrained eye, it looks like the major oil companies that helped get us into this whole climate mess — conglomerates like ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell — are starting to envision a world beyond fossil fuels. A few of them have launched their own campaigns charting a path to a greener future — and, surprisingly, even more have backed a carbon tax proposal.

    Is Big Oil trying to hasten its own demise, or are these companies just ensuring that they will dominate the energy sector for decades to come?

    ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total have collectively spent more than a billion dollars on branding and lobbying since the signing of the Paris Agreement — the moment when the companies sensed a permanent turning of the tide against their industry. That’s according to a report published Friday by the U.K.-based InfluenceMap, a group that analyzes climate policy lobbying.

    The report illuminates a two-pronged approach by Big Oil: While the companies market themselves as socially and environmentally conscious to the public, they’re actively working against climate regulations behind the scenes. Since the global climate accord’s adoption in late 2015, European-based Shell, Total, and BP — followed shortly thereafter by U.S.-based ExxonMobil and Chevron — “initiated a campaign of top-line positivity on climate,” the report said.
    

    The five oil companies spent a combined $195 million in 2018 alone to rebrand themselves as climate-conscious. On its website, Shell touts its green accomplishments, including GravityLight, an initiative to create an alternative to kerosene in Kenya by harnessing “kinetic energy from falling rocks.” Not to be outdone, ExxonMobil is hard at work turning algae into biofuel. The company says it will produce 10,000 barrels of the stuff per day by 2025. Sounds big, but that’s only about 0.2 percent of the maximum amount of energy the company is capable of producing, InfluenceMap points out.

    Despite the marketing campaigns around these companies’ green projects, their disclosures tell a very different story. The five corporations are expected to spend $115 billion in 2019, “but only about 3 percent of this will go to low carbon investments,” the report shows. The majority will go toward the resources the companies know best: oil and gas.

    On the lobbying front, the oil majors have spent a combined $200 million per year to slow or block climate policy, according to InfluenceMap. They turned to trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute to do their most direct anti-climate lobbying. And it’s paid off, especially in a U.S. led by the Trump administration. Over the past two years, we’ve seen methane regulation rollbacks, deregulations of oil and gas development, and even attempts to stop California from greening its transportation sector.

    Big Oil didn’t just spend investor money on Beltway wheeling and dealing. In the four weeks leading up to the 2018 midterm elections, the five oil majors spent $2 million on targeted ads on Facebook and Instagram aimed at eroding support for environmental initiatives.

    The social media ads were concentrated in five states where key ballot measures were up for a vote: Washington, Colorado, Alaska, Texas, and Louisiana. Washington state’s ballot measure 1631, which would have established a moderate carbon tax, failed due in no small part to the influence of Big Oil — its interests spent a whopping $31 million to kill the measure. A Colorado ballot initiative that would have compelled developers to position oil and gas wells further away from schools, residential areas, and water sources failed after the industry spent $41 million on a campaign against it.

    It’s clear that 2019 won’t be the year Big Oil abandons oil and gas. But there is one reason to be optimistic: A combination of investor and legal pressure, paired with media scrutiny, is making these companies sweat, the report says. The day might soon come when algae biofuels and falling rocks aren’t convincing enough to delay taking serious climate action.

    https://grist.org/article/the-billion-dollar-rebrand-how-big-oil-is-trying-to-change-its-image/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. A Missed Opportunity in Virginia to Embrace Renewable Energy

    Mar 22, 2019 | Washington Post

    By Joe Rinzel

    Sustainability and profitability are not mutually exclusive. More and more American companies are demanding renewable energy options to power their businesses. You can be sure that these demands are motivated by economics, not philanthropy.

    In Virginia, job creators from every corner of the commonwealth support state policies that enable greater customer choice for renewable energy. In fact, access to low-cost, clean energy was a key siting criteria for Amazon’s selection of Arlington for its second headquarters. (Amazon founder and chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Post.) Of course, companies from a variety of industries, not just the technology sector, understand that clean energy makes economic sense and has a positive impact on their bottom lines. Leading American businesses want the choice to run on cost-effective, renewable energy. However, many businesses in Virginia do not have access to these resources.ADVERTISING

    This is why I was particularly disappointed to see that the State Corporation Commission denied a recent request by Walmart to buy renewable energy generated by a company other than Virginia’s two regulated, monopoly utilities. Not only is this a dangerous and short-sighted precedent, but it also represents a missed opportunity by state regulators.

    Virginia is one of a handful of states across the nation that uses a “hybrid” energy marketplace in which large energy users have a few options when it comes to choosing their electricity provider.

    To date, companies across the United States have contracted for more than 15 gigawatts — or about 4 million average U.S. homes worth — of utility-scale wind and solar energy, driven by both corporate sustainability and cost-savings efforts.

    Access to a competitive energy marketplace makes Virginia attractive to other large customers and allows these companies to manage their electricity needs and sustainability goals through tailored solutions. Policies that stifle the ability of companies to adopt renewable energy with inhibitive or unclear procedures hurt the commonwealth’s economic growth potential.

    This decision by the SCC flies in the face of large-scale consumers that want to take an active approach in meeting their sustainability goals. It sends a clear message to many of the state’s largest employers that regulators have little interest in helping them achieve their objectives. Publicly available data shows that many large-scale customers have already attempted to access the competitive market to drive their costs down – including Costco, Harris Teeter, Kroger, Reynolds Metals, Safeway, Target and Walmart. These companies would be completely shut off from energy choice if the SCC continues making decisions like this.

    Further, if regulators continue down this path, it would put Virginia at a competitive disadvantage with other states as the commonwealth attempts to attract new businesses that prioritize the competitive costs of renewable electricity. Virginia would be at serious risk of missing opportunities to welcome businesses looking to move, expand and create jobs.

    The renewable energy industry itself is booming in Virginia. Recent statistics from Advanced Energy Economy, a coalition of advanced energy business, show that Virginia is home to nearly 100,000 jobs in wind, solar, efficiency and other advance energy industries. That is more jobs than exist in all of Virginia’s supermarkets, double the number employed by hotels and motels, and more than 10 times more than the two utilities in the state.

    The public overwhelmingly supports prioritizing investments in renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar. A recent poll showed that 73 percent of Virginia voters agree. These investments would reduce damage to public health, protect our natural resources, lower energy costs and create even more clean-energy jobs.

    Technology companies, retailers and manufacturers select locations for expansion based on lower costs, access to talent and modern facilities.

    This SCC decision represents a laundry list of misplaced priorities. Instead of stifling innovation and taking Virginia backward, the SCC should embrace policies that bring us to a new place in energy policy. There must be a better way.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/22/missed-opportunity-virginia/?utm_term=.01ee1418d988
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

19. Chemical Safety Board To Investigate Texas Fire

    Mar 22, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Courtney Columbus

    The U.S. Chemical Safety Board yesterday said it will investigate a fire at a petrochemicals storage site in Deer Park, Texas, that burned for several days before it could be extinguished.

    CSB is a federal agency tasked with doing root-cause investigations of industrial chemical accidents.

    "CSB investigators will start interviews next week and plan to be on site for several days to document the scene and collect evidence," CSB said in a news release.

    "The massive fire ... engulfed 11 above ground storage tanks containing a variety of hydrocarbons, resulting in multiple orders for community members to Shelter in Place," the agency said.

    The fire at the Intercontinental Terminals Co. facility started Sunday and involved tanks containing components of gasoline and substances used in nail polish, paint thinner and glues.

    Testing yesterday found elevated levels of benzene near the site. The facility's proximity to the Houston Ship Channel has also led to worries about water contamination from spilled chemicals or the foam used to fight the blaze, potentially causing environmental harm or affecting the fishing industry (Greenwire, March 21).

    Benzene is widely used as a base to make other industrial chemicals. Long-term exposure to it harms bone marrow and can lead to anemia, among other health effects, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Benzene also causes cancer, the Department of Health and Human Services has found.

    After the blaze, local residents have continued to express concern about air quality (see related story).

    "The safety and well-being of the surrounding communities, our employees, our first responders, and the environment continue to be our top priorities and we remain committed to providing information as it develops," Intercontinental Terminals said in a statement issued yesterday.

    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/22/stories/1060128053
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. Residents Fret About Chemical Plant Fire, Despite Assurances

    Mar 22, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)

    By Juan A. Lozano and David Warren

    Kristin Crump and her two kids put damp cloths over their mouths yesterday for the short walk from their suburban Houston front door to their car, defying an order to remain inside because of dangerous fumes coming from burned-out petrochemical tanks a couple of miles away.

    For the second time in three days, they were heading to a relative's house, worried about what they've been breathing since a massive fire broke out Sunday at the Intercontinental Terminals Co. in Deer Park, Texas, and not believing officials' assurances that they were safe.

    "I do not fully trust what they say," said Crump, whose husband later met up with her and the kids, who are 6 and 13 years old. "I do believe what is in the air is very harmful and it can have long-term effects such as cancer and things like that later down the line. I don't think it's worth risking that for me or my kids to stay there and breathe in this stuff."

    Authorities lifted yesterday's order to remain indoors after several hours, saying tests showed the elevated levels of benzene in the air had cleared. But that was little solace to residents who watched for three days as a giant plume of black smoke billowed from the plant. Authorities on Wednesday said they had finally extinguished the blaze.

    The U.S. Chemical Safety Board will investigate the fire (see related story).

    "It's pretty harrowing," said Jeff Fountain, a chemist who lives with his wife and three children about 4 miles from the plant.

    "I work with benzene. ... Science has told us that it's a well-known carcinogen," he said yesterday, adding, "The plume is gone, but the benzene in the air is lingering."

    Several government agencies will continue to monitor the air around the plant, where the tanks that caught fire contained components of gasoline and materials used in nail polish remover, glues and paint thinner. ITC said 11 of the 15 storage tanks in the area where the fire occurred were damaged.

    Authorities haven't revealed the cause of the blaze. They said Wednesday that the benzene levels near the facility didn't pose a health concern, but they issued the shelter-in-place order early yesterday due to "reports of benzene or other volatile organic compounds" in Deer Park, which is about 15 miles southeast of Houston.

    Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, who is the county's top administrator, said at a news conference that light winds had helped keep the vapors from spreading more broadly.

    Dr. Umair Shah, who heads the county health agency, said there was only a minimal public health risk, but he cautioned that the elderly, pregnant women and other vulnerable groups should take precautions.

    "The most important thing is that the levels that have been detected are still not high enough for the level of concern that people may be having," he said.

    Intercontinental Terminals Co. spokeswoman Alice Richardson said yesterday that company officials believe winds shifted foam that had been sprayed over one of the tanks which burned in the fire, allowing benzene vapors to escape.

    A unified command has been set up to coordinate the efforts of Deer Park city and Harris County workers, along with those of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, EPA and the Coast Guard. They are evaluating the environmental aftereffects on waterways surrounding ITC. The Texas National Guard's 6th Civil Support Team was assisting at the scene yesterday.

    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/22/stories/1060127951
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. Green Groups Sue EPA Over Lack Of Spill Regs

    Mar 22, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Courtney Columbus

    The Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups sued EPA yesterday over its failure to issue regulations on chemical facilities' plans for spills of hazardous substances.

    In 1990, the amended Clean Water Act required EPA to issue regulations by August 1992 that would force the most dangerous chemical facilities to plan for worst-case scenario spills of hazardous substances and work to prevent those spills from happening, the complaint states, and EPA hasn't yet issued those regulations.

    Chemical facility workers and the people who live closest to these facilities face the highest risk, with communities that are mostly low-income and made up of people of color bearing a disproportionate burden, the suit states.

    "For over 25 years, EPA has abdicated its responsibility under the law to protect communities that live near aboveground storage tanks brimming with harmful chemicals. These communities live with the constant risk of experiencing catastrophic, toxic chemical spills in their own backyards. This lawsuit seeks to put critical protections in place once and for all," NRDC attorney Kaitlin Morrison said in a statement.

    The complaint cites spills of chemicals such as benzene and butadiene during Hurricane Harvey that led to hospitalization of emergency responders as examples of the need to prevent and address these types of incidents.

    EPA spokeswoman Maggie Sauerhage said the agency doesn't comment on pending litigation.

    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/22/stories/1060128033
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

22. Report: FBI Allowed Suspected Terrorists to Hold TWIC Cards

    Mar 22, 2019 | The Maritime Executive

    The U.S. Department of Justice's internal watchdog has faulted the Federal Bureau of Investigation for allowing individuals on the federal terrorist watch list to obtain Transportation Worker Identification Credential cards, better known as TWIC cards. TWIC is the ID card required to gain unescorted access to secure areas in America's seaports. 

    The Office of the Inspector General found that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had 214 interactions with terrorist watchlisted individuals applying for TWICs between 2006-2017. Some undisclosed number of the watchlisted individuals - including known or suspected terrorists (KSTs) and individuals on the No Fly List - were issued TWIC cards. The identities of the known or suspected terrorists with TWICs were redacted, but there were enough of them that their names merited a table of about one-half page in length. OIG noted that some of the information it reviewed about the individuals on this table "was particularly concerning."

    In part, these suspected terrorists gained TWICs because the FBI agents who worked with TSA on reviews did not know what the TWIC does, according to the report. "FBI agents we spoke to who provided input on these individuals did not adequately understand the TWIC program," the OIG wrote. "Some agents were unable to explain what a TWIC was and what access it granted, and others had not fully considered the impact of allowing an investigative subject continued access to secure maritime areas." 

    The agents involved in the review process were also siloed from the counterterrorism-focused FBI Maritime Security Program (not related to the ship subsidy program of the same name). They did not relay the fact that watchlisted individuals had applied for TWIC cards, which could be useful intelligence for the agents tasked with preventing terrorist attacks. 

    OIG also highlighted significant loopholes in the TWIC system itself. Outside of major seaports, the majority of maritime facilities do not use the TWIC's encoded biometric data system - the feature than makes TWIC unique - but simply use the card as a required piece of photo identification. To use biometric data to verify identity, terminals and a wide variety of other installations would have to buy and install fingerprint readers. This requirement has been delayed (and criticized) for years, and last August, Congress and the White House enacted a law ordering the U.S. Coast Guard not to implement it. 

    https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/report-fbi-allowed-suspected-terrorists-to-get-twic-cards
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

23. BGOV Bill Summary: S. J. Res. 8, Green New Deal

    Mar 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Adam M. Taylor

    The U.S. would achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years under S. J. Res 8.

    The measure, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), outlines the “Green New Deal,” a reference to climate change and the post-Depression policies of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    The text of the measure credits federal efforts during World War II and the New Deal with creating “the greatest middle class that the United States has ever seen,” but says that many communities were excluded from those benefits.

    Despite introducing it, McConnell opposes the resolution. Its language was drawn from nonbinding resolutions (H.Res. 109, S. Res. 59) introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

    “This dangerous fantasy would burn through the American people’s money before it even got off the launch pad,” McConnell said March 13.

    McConnell introduced the joint resolution using procedures to bypass committee consideration and force a vote to put Green New Deal supporters on the record. Senate Democrats have opposed the move, and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) called on Democrats to vote “present,” Bloomberg News reported.

    “By calling for this cynical vote, Republicans want to block the public hearings,” Markey said in a Feb. 14 news release.

    “They want to block this historic debate and continue to deny the science of climate change,” he added.
    

    Green New Deal

    The resolution would establish as policy that the U.S. has a duty to meet five core goals:

    -Achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a transition fair to all.

    -“Create millions of good, high-wage jobs” and ensure economic security for all.

    -Invest in sustainable industry and infrastructure.

    -Secure clean air and water, climate resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for future generations.

    -Promote justice and equity by ending and undoing the effects of discrimination against marginalized groups, including indigenous peoples, communities of color, deindustrialized and depopulated communities, the poor, women, the elderly and the young, persons experiencing homelessness, and those with disabilities.

    The measure would lay out several policies to achieve the goals, including by meeting all U.S. demand for electricity with “clean, renewable, and zero-emission” sources. Other policies include:

    -Investments to build resiliency against climate change.

    -Rebuilding infrastructure to eliminate pollution and guarantee access to clean water.

    -Upgrading the energy and water efficiency of every building in the country and promoting distributed and “smart” power grids.

    -Collaborating with farmers and ranchers to decarbonize the agricultural sector. Overhauling the transportation sector through investments in public transit, high-speed rail, and zero-emission infrastructure and manufacturing.

    -Enforcing labor and environmental protections in trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments to keep jobs in the U.S.

    -Removing greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere through “proven low-tech solutions” such as land preservation and creating new forests on treeless land.

    -Promoting international adoption of similar policies through exchange of technology, expertise, and funding.

    The resolution would also call for providing everyone in the U.S. with health care, housing, and economic security.

    It includes provisions to support the creation of a jobs guarantee with “family-sustaining” wages and benefits, strengthened collective bargaining rights, and increased protections against “unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies.”
    

    Climate Background

    The largest focus of the resolution is preventing and counteracting climate change, which it calls a direct threat to U.S. national security.
    

    The resolution’s findings cite conclusions from an October 2018 United Nations report and a November 2018 federal climate assessment that human activity is the dominant cause of climate change. The reports said that major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and achieving global net-zero emissions by 2050 will be required to prevent global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels, which scientists say would have devastating effects.

    The resolution calls for “massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as technologically feasible.”
    

    The resolution doesn’t include an outright ban on fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, which remain the largest source of electric power generation, though it would call for deriving 100 percent of U.S. power from “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

    Omitting a fossil-fuel ban could make the proposal more acceptable to labor unions and Democratic presidential candidates, Bloomberg News reported, though unions connected to the energy sector have been skeptical of the resolution (see below).

    Regulating Carbon

    Strategies to regulate emissions through a cap-and-trade regime or a carbon tax aren’t mentioned in the resolution.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the cap-and-trade bill the House passed in 2009 (H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress), when Democrats last controlled the chamber, could be the starting point for climate legislation this year. Under that framework, limits on greenhouse gas emissions would be imposed and a market for permits to exceed them would be created.

    While Pelosi hasn’t endorsed the specifics of the Green New Deal, she praised its “enthusiasm.”

    Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) introduced a bill (H.R. 763) this year to impose a price on carbon emissions, which would be paid to the government and rebated to households. That measure had 20 Democrats and one Republican as cosponsors as of March 21.

    Carbon fee-and-dividend, also called tax-and-dividend, programs are widely supported by economists as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Bloomberg News reported.

    Economic Provisions
    

    The resolution’s findings describe several “related crises” in the U.S., including declining life expectancy, wage stagnation, erosion of workers’ bargaining power, and income inequality. It states that climate change and other environmental degradation have exacerbated existing “systemic injustices” that disproportionately affect vulnerable and marginalized groups.

    It would call for prioritizing programs to target economic, social, and environmental benefits in marginalized and deindustrialized communities that might otherwise be negatively affected during the process of decarbonizing the economy.

    It would also call for providing everyone in the U.S. with high-quality health care, affordable housing, and economic security.

    The resolution wouldn’t define specific programs that would achieve its goals. For instance, it doesn’t specify the means by which Congress should ensure all Americans have health-care coverage — whether through expansion of the Affordable Care Act or through a variant of “Medicare for All,” or by some other means.

    Several Democrats have discussed proposals under the “Medicare for All” name, though there isn’t agreement on a particular plan or definition. Some proposals would expand Medicare coverage to include anyone 50 or older, or allow anyone under 65 to enroll in the program by paying a premium, while others would create a single-payer health-care system similar to Canada or the United Kingdom.

    Environmental Groups Supportive
    

    Climate advocacy and progressive groups including Sierra Club, the Sunrise Movement, Center for American Progress, and Indivisible SUPPORT pursuing a Green New Deal.

    “America has a choice to make: We can come together to create high-quality jobs in the industries of the future, protect our communities from extreme weather and economic damage, and build a better and more equitable country for our children and grandchildren—or we can stick our heads in the sand,” Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, said in a Feb. 7 news release.

    Markey’s office has compiled a list of additional supporters here.
    

    Several Democratic Presidential Candidates on Board

    Several Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential election are SUPPORTING the resolution as cosponsors, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand(D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
    

    Unions Split

    Labor groups SUPPORTING the Green New Deal include the Service Employees International Union and National Nurses United, Bloomberg Law reported.

    “This is an opportunity to tackle economic inequality, re-industrialize America with a green economy, with jobs that, with the right training, can provide career ladders for many low-wage workers who struggle to afford the high cost of living,” Hector Figuero, president of 32BJ SEIU, a union for property service workers, said in a news release from Markey’s office. “For the first time, our elected officials recognize that our climate and economic crises are both intertwined and can only be solved with bold and effective government action.”

    Those service-sector unions, largely based in coastal metropolitan areas, are “more likely to have members that are in the neighborhoods that are devastated by climate change and extreme climate events,” Todd Vachon, a researcher with the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations told Bloomberg Law.

    The energy committee of the AFL-CIO, an umbrella group comprising dozens of unions, OPPOSES the resolution. “It is not rooted in an engineering-based approach and makes promises that are not achievable or realistic,” according to a letter signed by ten unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO including United Mine Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and United Steelworkers.

    The letter highlighted the unions’ support for addressing climate change, increasing investment to reduce carbon emissions and make buildings and communities more resilient, and promoting greater labor rights. However, “we will not accept proposals that could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and their families,” they wrote. 
    

    Green Energy Companies Cautious

    Solar and wind power companies haven’t endorsed the Green New Deal, citing its feasibility as well as political concerns, Reuters reported.

    “If you just broadly endorse the Green New Deal, you are liable to upset one side of the aisle or the other. And that’s not constructive,” Tom Werner, CEO of solar firm SunPower Corp., said.

    “We love the enthusiasm the Green New Deal has brought to the climate issue,” Dan Whitten, the Solar Energy Industries Association’s vice president of public affairs, said in the report. “But we need to operate in political reality.”
    Business Groups, Conservatives Opposed

    Those OPPOSED to increasing federal investment to counter climate change and pursue other goals in the resolution include the American Enterprise Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

    “This is not some run-of-the-mill progressive policy — it is a Trojan Horse for socialism,” wrote Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the Chamber, in a post on the group’s website.

    American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Mike Sommers said the proposal is “not realistic at all in terms of what our future energy needs are going to be.”

    Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, expressed “serious concerns about the potential adverse economic and employment impacts of” the policies falling under the Green New Deal during his opening remarks at a Feb. 6 Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee hearing.

    “The Green New Deal, just like proposals for free college or Medicaid for All, is nothing but an empty promise that leaves American taxpayers on the hook,” Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said.
    

    Previous Action

    McConnell introduced S. J. Res. 8 on Feb. 13. He moved to limit debate on his motion to proceed to the measure March 14.

    Markey introduced S. Res. 59 on Feb. 7 with 10 Democrats and Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats. Ocasio-Cortez introduced H. Res. 109 the same day and it had 90 Democrats as cosponsors as of March 21.
    

    Prospects

    The Senate could hold the procedural vote on S. J. Res. 8, which would require the support of 60 senators, as soon as the week of March 25.

    https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/bgov-bill-summary-s-j-res-8-green-new-deal
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

24. The Energy 202: Senate Democrats Look For Unity On Eve Of Green New Deal Vote

    Mar 22, 2019 | Washington Post

    By Dino Grandoni

    Faced with the choice of voting up or down on their Green New Deal, Democrats look like they're going to rally around a third option. 

    Originally presented as a nonbinding resolution, the ambitious outline for addressing climate change has galvanized Washington. A half-dozen presidential candidates have co-sponsored the Green New Deal resolution introduced in February to cement their pro-environment bona fides. And almost immediately, numerous Republicans have spoken against what they see as itsenormous costs.  

    Now with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) scheduling a vote on the resolution next week to put senators on the record, Democrats are trying to avoid an intraparty fight. According to two Democratic aides, top Senate Democrats are weighing a strategy of voting “present” on what climate activists and Senate Democrats are dubbing a “sham” vote. 

    Even the lead Senate sponsor of the Green New Deal resolution, Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), has indicated he will vote present after accusing McConnell of trying to “short-circuit the process.” 

    “Democrats will not allow Leader McConnell and Republicans to make a mockery of the debate in the Senate on climate change,” Markey said in a statement. “This vote is a sham and little more than a political ploy to protect vulnerable Republicans from having to defend their climate science denial.”

    And the Sunrise Movement — the activist group that protested in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) office and kick-started discussions in Washington of a Green New Deal to begin with — is not pressuring Senate Democrats to vote yes.

    “He has no intention of taking action on climate change to ensure our generation has a livable future,” Sunrise Movement spokesman Stephen O'Hanlon wrote by email. “The only reason he is calling for this vote is to score some points for the oil and gas executives who bankroll his campaigns. This vote is a sham and Senators are planning to treat it as such.”

    Republicans have been quick to use the Green New Deal as a cudgel against Democrats. The proposal calls for rapidly reducing climate-warming emissions over the next decade from virtually all sectors of the U.S. economy while providing every American with a high-quality job.

    In turn, Democrats — even those who did not sponsor the Green New Deal — want to show as much unity as possible to spare colleagues the embarrassment of defeat.Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) is offering his own resolutions in response to McConnell to establish a select panel on climate change and to affirm that man-made climate change needs to be addressed by Congress. The latter resolution was co-sponsored by all 47 senators in the Democratic caucus.

    Yet while the decision to vote against your own proposal may seem odd, it is not unprecedented. Democrats staked out a “present” strategy similar to one they pursued in 2017 when McConnell brought a Medicare-for-all proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) up for a vote. 

    Next week's likely vote still puts every senator seeking the 2020 Democratic nomination for president in the tough position of deciding whether to reaffirm their support for it in a floor vote or break ranks with their leadership. None of the offices of six Senate candidates — Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) — responded to a request for comment. 

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/03/22/the-energy-202-senate-democrats-look-for-unity-on-eve-of-green-new-deal-vote/5c93e7421b326b0f7f38f230/?utm_term=.3e0b675d3c2c
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

25. Ewire: Senators Jockey Ahead Of Green New Deal Vote

    Mar 22, 2019 | Inside EPA

    Senators are rhetorically sparring ahead of a vote early next week on the Green New Deal (GND) resolution, which majority Republicans are bringing to the floor in an effort to highlight a policy they believe is extreme and fracture the Democratic caucus.

    In response, Democrats -- including the primary sponsor of the measure -- are planning to vote “present” in an effort to paint the vote as a political “sham,” while strafing Republicans for being unwilling to address climate change.

    “This vote is a sham and little more than a political ploy to protect vulnerable Republicans from having to defend their climate science denial,” said GND sponsor Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), according to the Washington Post.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has tentatively scheduled the vote for March 26. Democrats hope to reprise a “vote present” strategy they employed in 2017 when McConnell held a vote on a “Medicare for all” plan, the article notes.

    Even so, a report in E&E News highlights slowing legislative momentum for the GND resolution, which has not attracted any new Senate co-sponsors since an initial batch of 11 lawmakers signed on in early February.

    Similarly, new co-sponsors in the House have “slowed to a trickle.”

    It notes that Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is planning to co-sponsor the measure in the coming weeks, though he will simultaneously introduce his cap-and-dividend legislation, in order to signal the importance of putting a price on carbon emissions.

    “I felt it was important to couple my support for the Green New Deal -- which puts forward a plan for investment in green jobs and renewable energy -- with my legislation to significantly reduce carbon pollution by putting a price on emissions. Both pieces are necessary to tackle this crisis," Van Hollen told E&E.

    In addition, Reuters is reporting that some solar and wind companies, which might be expected to benefit from a GND -- are keeping a distance from the measure and calling it “too extreme.”

    The article notes that renewable firms, which have “long been associated with the environmental left,” have improved their technology and reduced prices enough that “their growth is shifting from politically liberal coastal states to the more conservative heartland, where skepticism of climate change and government subsidies runs high.”

    As one spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association put it: “We love the enthusiasm the Green New Deal has brought to the climate issue . . . but we need to operate in political reality.”

    https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-senators-jockey-ahead-green-new-deal-vote
    

    Return to headline | Return to top