ACC AM 28/03/19

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Former Lobbyist Pleads Guilty to Lying to Investigators

   Mar 27, 2019 | Politico

   By Theodoric Meyer
   
   
   FORMER LOBBYIST PLEADS GUILTY TO LYING TO INVESTIGATORS: A former lobbyist for Niyato Industries has pleaded guilty to lying to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service about his role in what the Justice Department described as a multimillion-dollar fraud scheme, according to the Justice Department.
2. (ACC Mentioned) Ex-Sidley Associate, Alito Clerk Named Acting Head of Trump Regulatory Portal

   Mar 27, 2019 | National Law Journal

   By Mike Scarcella
   
   
   A former Sidley Austin associate in Washington and clerk to Justice Samuel Alito Jr. is nowthe acting administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
3. (ACC Mentioned) Plastic Bottle Recycling Market Competitive Research And Precise Outlook 2019 To 2025

   Mar 28, 2019 | ClickLancashire

   By James Marshall
   
   
   A new report from the American Chemistry Council finds the potential economic impact of expanding advanced plastic recycling and recovery technologies in the U.S.to be almost $10 billion.
4. (ACC Mentioned) Plastics Industry Makes Case for Recycling Infrastructure

   Mar 27, 2019 | Waste Today

   By DeAnne Toto
   
   
   Representatives of the U.S. plastics industry made the case for greater recycling infrastructure at the 2019 Plastics Industry Fly-In, according to the Plastics Industry Association (Plastics, plasticsindustry.org), Washington.
5. (ACC Mentioned) Reporter’s Notebook: Can Chemistry Fix the Plastic Waste Problem?

   Mar 28, 2019 | Houston Chronicle

   By Marissa Luck
   
   
   While the petrochemical industry scrambles to find an answer to mounting plastic waste, one solution stands out as a potentially revolutionary force - chemical recycling.
6. EPA Rule Barring Grant Recipients From Boards Beats Another Suit

   Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Mike Leonard
   
   
   A rule change banning recipients of Environmental Protection Agency grants from serving on the agency’s scientific advisory boards survived a court challenge by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
7. Grassley Looks to Rein in Trump Tariff Powers

   Mar 28, 2019 | E&E Daily

   By Geof Koss
   
   
   Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is drafting legislation that would limit the president's authority to issue tariffs by invoking national security concerns under an obscure, decades-old law.

TSCA News

8. (ACC Mentioned) TSCA Data Release Does Little to End PV29 Controversy

   Mar 28, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin
   
   
   The US EPA’s decision to release additional information underlying its TSCA risk evaluation of pigment violet 29 has not ended the ongoing controversy around the confidentiality of health and safety data, Chemical Watch has learned.
9. First 40 Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization Under TSCA Announced

   Mar 27, 2019 | Lexology

   By Ryan J. Carra, Mark N. Duvall and Timothy M. Serie
   
   
   EPA has taken another step in implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Chemical Management News

10. (ACC Mentioned) How the Chemical Industry Deployed the Disinformation Playbook on PFAS

    Mar 27, 2019 | Union of Concerned Scientists

    By Genna Reed
    
    
    The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will convene tomorrow for a hearing on the federal responses (or lack thereof) to the risks associated with the class of toxic chemicals known as PFAS, inviting representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Defense, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to testify.
11. (ACC Mentioned) Ethylene Oxide Concerns Hijack Focus on Other Toxic at EPA Event

    Mar 28, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Stephen Joyce
    
    
    Speakers at an EPA hearing skipped the main agenda item and urged the agency to create a new, stand-alone regulation for ethylene oxide while updating its assessment of the risks posed by the toxic.
12. (ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists Hint At Suit If EPA Drops IRIS EtO Value From Air Rules

    Mar 28, 2019 | Inside EPA

    By Stuart Parker
    
    
    Environmentalists are warning EPA that any attempt to drop use of its conservative Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) risk values for ethylene oxide (EtO) when crafting air toxics rules would result in unlawful regulations not based on the “best available science,” signaling a likely legal challenge should the agency proceed with the approach.
13. Despite Past Controversy, EPA Plans Annual Reviews Of IRIS' Priorities

    Mar 27, 2019 | Inside EPA

    By Maria Hegstad
    
    
    EPA is planning an annual review of its program office priorities for Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments, a top official told lawmakers, despite controversy that the first such review stalled IRIS' work for months and led to charges that a top political appointee interfered in the review to drop the formaldehyde assessment.
14. EPA Neglect Is Catalyst for Chemical Research, Firefighters Say

    Mar 28, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Pat Rizzuto
    
    
    The EPA’s failures to recognize firefighters’ exposures to chemicals is helping spur the International Association of Fire Fighters to sponsor its own research, a senior association official says.
15. EPA Needs to Trust Its Own Scientists and Protect Us from Ethylene Oxide

    Mar 27, 2019 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)

    By Genna Reed
    
    
    Later this afternoon I will be providing comment to the EPA at a public hearing related to its proposed rule on facilities producing hydrochloric acid (HCl).
16. West Virginia Delays Updates to Water Standards

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Andrew M. Ballard
    
    
    West Virginia is delaying updates to dozens of its water quality standards after industry groups lobbied to put them off.
17. Bayer Loses Second Trial Over Claims Roundup Causes Cancer

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Joel Rosenblatt and Robert Burnson
    
    
    Bayer AG lost a second trial over claims its Roundup weed killer causes cancer, increasing pressure on the company to spend billions of dollars to settle thousands of similar lawsuits.
18. New PFAS Pollution Concern Spurs Ask for Senate Committee Investigation

    Mar 27, 2019 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

    By Mike Belliveau
    
    
    In their classic critique of the public relations industry, Toxic Sludge is Good For You!, authors John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton take apart propaganda-for-hire tactics.
19. Reagan Appointee Says EPA 'Disemboweling' Program

    Mar 28, 2019 | E&E Daily

    By Corbin Hiar
    
    
    A federal investigator who spent a year auditing EPA's chemical testing program yesterday still couldn't explain how or why agency leaders decided against releasing a completed review of the dangers posed by the widely used chemical formaldehyde.
20. New Jersey Legislature Passes Asbestos in Products Ban

    Mar 28, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    The New Jersey legislature has unanimously approved a bill to ban the sale or distribution of any product that contains asbestos.
21. Proactive Alliance Splits into Groups to Progress Chemical Reporting Goal

    Mar 28, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    By Leigh Stringer
    
    
    Cross-sector industry group, Proactive Alliance, has created four sub-groups that will help it establish a global standard for companies to report on substances in articles along the supply chain.

Energy News

22. Fla. Bill to Ban Some Forms of Fracking Advances

    Mar 28, 2019 | AP (In E&E Energywire)

    By Curt Anderson
    
    
    Two forms of fracking for oil and natural gas exploration would be banned in Florida under a bill that cleared state House and Senate committees Tuesday, leaving in place a third technique opponents say would still threaten water supplies and the state's fragile environment.
23. Faith-Based Investing Needed for Oil Frackers

    Mar 27, 2019 | Bloomberg (In The Washington Post)

    By Liam Denning
    
    
    As the first quarter draws to a close, the oil and gas sector is suffering from a lack of belief: While both exploration and production and refining stocks have greeted the apparent windfall from the commodity-market gods with a shrug, the similarities end there.
24. Ameren Missouri Can’t Keep Sierra Club From Clean Air Act Suit

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Peter Hayes
    
    
    Power company Ameren Missouri failed to exclude the Sierra Club from a suit brought by the federal government seeking to reduce emissions at two plants as a remedy for past violations of the Clean Air Act.
25. US Power Policy Grapples with Renewables Growth, Capacity Gaps

    Mar 27, 2019 | Platts

    By Jared Anderson, Mark Watson, Kate Winston, Rocco Canonica, Jasmin Melvin and Jeff Ryser
    
    
    As the US power industry contends with reliability concerns due to low electricity prices, rapid renewables growth and baseload generation retirements, policymakers are scrambling to offer solutions.
26. Top Oil Firms Have Spent $1B on Branding, Lobbying Since Paris Agreement: Study

    Mar 27, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Aris Folley
    
    
    The five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies in the world have invested over $1 billion in shareholder funds in the three years following the Paris climate agreement on “misleading climate-related branding and lobbying," according to a new report from InfluenceMap.
27. Google, GM Launch Group Focused on Expanding Renewable Energy Purchasing

    Mar 28, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Miranda Green
    
    
    Google, General Motors and other big name companies announced a new venture on Thursday that aims to make it easier for businesses to get their hands on clean energy.
28. Energy-Water Nexus Bill Sails Through Panel

    Mar 27, 2019 | E&E News PM

    By Ariel Wittenberg
    
    
    A bill requiring the Department of Energy to include water conservation and use in its research and demonstration programs sailed through a subcommittee today.
29. Court Faults Another Federal Climate Review

    Mar 28, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Ellen M. Gilmer
    
    
    Government officials failed to fully consider the climate impacts of oil and gas development in Colorado, a federal court ruled yesterday.
30. Saudi Arabia’s $69 Billion Plastics Bet Weakens Its Oil Hedge

    Mar 28, 2019 | Bloomberg (In The Washington Post)

    By David Fickling
    
    
    It’s not every day that the world’s biggest oil company buys the most profitable chemicals business.

Chemical Security News

31. New Jersey Lawsuits Seek Damages at Polluted DuPont Sites (1)

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By John Herzfeld
    
    
    New Jersey is suing DuPont, its spinoff Chemours Co., and the 3M Co. in a bid to recover damages for pollution at four factory sites across the state.
32. Hackers Force Water Utilities to Sink or Swim

    Mar 28, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak
    
    
    Last month, hackers tied computers into knots at a small Colorado water utility.
33. FERC to Weigh Pipeline Rules, Cyber Incentives

    Mar 28, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak
    
    
    Officials at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are exploring whether the pipeline and electric power sectors have enough cash on hand to handle new cyberthreats to their systems.
34. Texas Sues Fuel Tank Company Over Houston Chemical Fire, Aftermath

    Mar 28, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

    By Collin Eaton and Erwin Seba
    
    
    Texas officials on Tuesday sued owners of a Houston area petrochemical storage facility over a fire last week, alleging violations of environmental laws and seeking damages to cover response costs for the disaster that burned for days, releasing chemicals into the air and waterways.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

35. Broad Infrastructure Bill May Not Happen — Chao

    Mar 28, 2019 | E&E Daily

    By Maxine Joselow
    
    
    Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao conceded yesterday that Congress may not be able to pass the broad infrastructure package sought by President Trump and leaders of both parties.
36. Truck Carrying Chemical Explodes in Arkansas, Killing Driver

    Mar 27, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)

    A commercial truck hauling a chemical commonly used as fertilizer exploded Wednesday on a highway in Arkansas, killing the driver and creating a massive crater in the road, authorities said.

Environment News

37. EPA Must Evaluate Denver Ozone Levels, Group Says (1)

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Brian Flood
    
    
    The Environmental Protection Agency has failed to determine whether ozone levels around Denver are meeting national standards, according to a new lawsuit.
38. Plastic Plates, Cutlery to Be Banned in Europe as of 2021

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Stephen Gardner
    
    
    The European Union decided to ban plastic consumer items including plates, cutlery, and straws as of 2021 to help clean up oceans.
39. Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags Seen Likely in New York State

    Mar 28, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Keshia Clukey
    
    
    New York State is poised to ban single-use plastic bags, legislators and environmental advocates announced March 27.
40. House Republicans Want to Force Green New Deal Vote (1)

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Dean Scott
    
    
    House Republicans revved up efforts March 27 to force House Democrats to vote on the Green New Deal climate platform just after the April recess, hoping to capitalize on a tactic used a day earlier to put Senate Democrats on the defensive.
41. EPA Advisory Panel Enters 'Uncharted Territory'

    Mar 27, 2019 | E&E News PM

    By Sean Reilly
    
    
    Under typical circumstances, a high-profile EPA advisory panel would end a public teleconference tomorrow by unanimously voting to send its assessment of a pivotal research roundup to agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Former Lobbyist Pleads Guilty to Lying to Investigators

   Mar 27, 2019 | Politico

   By Theodoric Meyer

   FORMER LOBBYIST PLEADS GUILTY TO LYING TO INVESTIGATORS: A former lobbyist for Niyato Industries has pleaded guilty to lying to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service about his role in what the Justice Department described as a multimillion-dollar fraud scheme, according to the Justice Department. The former lobbyist, Christopher Petrella, falsely told investigators that he had filed a lobbying disclosure report to Congress. Petrella was indicted in October for his role in the scheme, in which the company “raised money from investors by representing that Niyato manufactured electric and compressed natural gas automobiles when, in truth, the company had no facilities, no operations and no capability to manufacture anything,” according to the Justice Department.

   SPOTTED: At a fundraising dinner for the National Republican Congressional Committee hosted by Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck at Charlie Palmer on Tuesday evening, according to a PI tipster: Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the NRCC chairman; Reps. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Jeff Duncan(R-S.C.), Sam Graves (R-Mo.), Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), Ann Wagner (R-Mo.), Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.); and Marc Lampkin, Rosemary Becchi, Geoff Burr, Emily Felder, Lori Harju, Charlie Iovino, Greta Joynes, Melissa Kuipers Blake, Elizabeth Maier, Bill McGrath, Will Moschella, Brian Wild and Ari Zimmerman of Brownstein Hyatt. The dinner raised nearly $300,000 for the NRCC, according to our tipster.

   — At another fundraising dinner on Tuesday evening, this one for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — who had to step out at one point to take a call from President Donald Trump — and held at Navigators Global’s offices, according to a PI tipster: former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who’s now at Blank Rome; Tim McKone of AT&T; Jane Adams of Johnson & Johnson; Laura Reiff of Greenberg Traurig; Charles O’Byrne of Related Companies; Jon Baselice of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Katie Collins of Act for NIH; Shawn Cooper of Pacific Gas and Electric; Mimi Braniff of Delta Air Lines; Richard Perry of Graham’s office; and Cesar Conda, Jim Pitts, Susan Nelson and Phil Anderson of Navigators Global.

   Good afternoon, and welcome to PI. We’ve heard some Democratic members of Congress are sending invitations to fundraisers that specify they won’t take corporate PAC contributions. Have you received one? Let me know: tmeyer@politico.com. You can also follow me on Twitter: @theodoricmeyer.

   NEW BUSINESS: The tobacco giant Reynolds American has added former Rep. Albert Wynn (D-Md.) and three other Greenberg Traurig lobbyists to its deep bench of Washington lobbyists. And Allstate has hired Thorn Run Partners to lobby on a variety of insurance matters. The company also retains Cypress Advocacy, Federal Hall Policy Advisors, Harbinger Strategiesand Peck Madigan Jones, according to disclosure filings.

   EXXON MOBIL CEO DISCUSSED CARBON TAX WITH HOUSE DEMOCRAT: Darren Woods, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, “met with House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson to discuss a carbon tax and other climate change initiatives, the Texas Democrat said today,” POLITICO’s Zack Colman reports. “The meeting came at Woods' request shortly after Democrats took the House in last year's midterm elections, Johnson told reporters. A carbon tax surfaced during the discussion, though Johnson said Woods didn't offer specifics of what he'd support. ‘He thought that it was maybe a possibility that we had to do that,’ Johnson said. ‘There was no firm decisions on my part or his. But there were discussions of many approaches.’” Full story.

   HOW THE CDC AND GILEAD FOUND THEMSELVES AT ODDS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the drug company Gilead Sciences are at a standoff over “a new use for an older prescription drug called Truvada: preventing HIV infection,” The Washington Post’s Christopher Rowland reports. “But the U.S. government, which patented the treatment in 2015, is not receiving a penny for that use of the drug from Gilead,” which “argues that the government’s patents for Truvada for PrEP, as the prevention treatment is called, are invalid. And the government has failed to reach a deal for royalties or other concessions from the company — benefits that could be used to distribute the drug more widely.” Full story.

   — Gilead, as you might expect, has a significant presence in Washington. The company spent almost $3 million on Washington lobbying last year and retains nearly a dozen outside lobbying firms, including 10-Square Solutions; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld; Capitol Tax Partners; Empire Consulting Group; Farragut Partners; Foley Hoag; the McManus Group; the Nickles Group; OFW Law; Tarplin, Downs & Young; and W Strategies, according to disclosure filings.

   FLYING IN: Members of the Plastics Industry Association, the American Chemistry Council, the American Mold Builders Association, the Manufacturers Association for Plastics Processors and the Plastics Pipe Institute are on the Hill today meeting with members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, among others.

   HOW MANUFACTURERS WANT CONGRESS TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE: Ross Eisenberg, the National Association of Manufacturers' vice president of energy and resources policy, has a piece in POLITICO Magazine in which he dismisses the Green New Deal as "an unrealistic set of proposals that has incited a messaging war over a pile of issues that have very little to do with the environment" and urges Congress to get to work on a better climate bill. Such a bill might include "the adoption of energy- and water-efficient products and technologies" and reductions in the emissions of "hydrofluorocarbons, greenhouse gases with global warming potentials thousands of times higher than carbon dioxide." Here's the full piece.

   IF YOU MISSED IT ON TUESDAY: McDonald's “boosted congressional Democrats' efforts to hike the minimum wage Tuesday by telling the National Restaurant Association that it will no longer participate in lobby efforts against minimum-wage hikes at the federal, state or local level,” POLITICO’s Rebecca Rainey reports. “‘We believe increases should be phased in and that all industries should be treated the same way,’ Genna Gent, McDonald's vice president of government relations, wrote in the letter. ‘The conversation about wages is an important one; it’s one we wish to advance, not impede.’”

   — “McDonald's' dramatic shift on the issue comes after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce signaled it would be willing to negotiate over raising the hourly minimum, which for a decade has been stuck at $7.25. "We're going to listen," Chamber President Tom Donohue told reporters in January.” Full story.

   JOBS REPORT

   — Adam Laxalt, the former Nevada attorney general who unsuccessfully ran for governor last year, has joined the Washington law firm Cooper & Kirk as a partner. He’ll be based in Reno, Nev., he wrote in a Facebook post on Monday, with offices in Las Vegas and Washington.

   — Albright Stonebridge Group has hired Kenichiro Sasae, a former Japanese ambassador to the U.S., as a senior adviser.NEW JOINT FUNDRAISERS

   Dunn Victory Fund (Rep. Neal Dunn, Defend & Uphold Our Nation Now, NRCC)
   Service First Women’s Victory Fund (Reps. Elaine Luria, Elissa Slotkin, Abigail Spanberger, Chrissy Houlahan, Mikie Sherrill)NEW PACS

   BABE VOTE Inc (PAC)
   Bruce Nixon PAC (PAC)
   Draft Sheriff Joe for Senate 2020 (Super PAC)
   Grange PAC (Leadership PAC: Del. Stacey Plaskett)
   New Faces GOP PAC (PAC)NEW LOBBYING REGISTRATIONS

   Blank Rome Government Relations: The Abraham Group LLC (on behalf of Tellurian Services LLC)
   Bockorny Group, Inc.: Consumer Data Industry Association
   DC Strategies Group, LLC: William & Punch, LLC
   Federal Hall Policy Advisors, LLC: Modern Markets Initiative
   Federal Hall Policy Advisors, LLC: Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan (OBO Lawful Constitutional Debt Coalition)
   Franklin Square Group, LLC: High Tech Inventors Alliance
   Gilliland & McKinney International Counsellors: Corey, S.A. de C.V.
   Greenberg Traurig, LLP: RAI Services Company
   O'Neill and Associates: Analogic
   Sims Strategies, LLC: US Physician Partners (Informal Coalition)
   Thorn Run Partners: Allstate Insurance Company
   Thorn Run Partners: CCC Information Services
   Thorn Run Partners: Renew Financial Group, LLC
   Venable LLP: Systems Application & Technologies, Inc. d/b/a SA-TECHNEW LOBBYING TERMINATIONS

   10-Square Solutions: Medtronic, Inc
   Alpine Group, Inc.: Centene Corporation
   Steve Buyer Group: T-MobileUSA
   The McKeon Group, Inc.: MBDA Incorporated

   https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2019/03/27/former-lobbyist-pleads-guilty-to-lying-to-investigators-416540
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) Ex-Sidley Associate, Alito Clerk Named Acting Head of Trump Regulatory Portal

   Mar 27, 2019 | National Law Journal

   By Mike Scarcella

   A former Sidley Austin associate in Washington and clerk to Justice Samuel Alito Jr. is nowthe acting administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

   Paul Ray, succeeding Neomi Rao at the helm of the agency, first joined the Trump administration in 2017 as counselor to U.S. Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta. Ray jumped over to the regulatory shop last year, serving as the associate administrator.

   The agency, widely known in Washington by its acronym OIRA, is the U.S. government’s main portal where officials review regulatory proposals and approve government information collections. Rao, who’d led the office since 2017, was recently confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

   The naming of Ray as the acting head of OIRA “surprised some in the private sector as Ray is a relative newcomer to the regulatory agency,” according to a Bloomberg Government report.

   A contender for administrator, Paul Noe, told the publication he had withdrawn his name from consideration. “This is not the right time for me and my family,” said Noe, who formerly served as counselor to the OIRA administrator from 2001-2006.

   An agency representative was not immediately reached for comment Wednesday.

   At Sidley Austin, Ray’s clients had included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Business, American Chemistry Council, Business Roundtable, Bayer Corp., and American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute. Ray, who’d joined the firm in 2014, identified his compensation as $421,000 on a financial disclosure.

   Ray is among several Sidley alums who took posts in the Trump administration.

   Rebecca Wood, who had been chief legal counsel to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for about a year, returned to the firm in September as a partner. Her clients included AT&T Corp., PhRMA, Duke Energy Corp. and CSX Transportation.

   Over at the Health and Human Services Department, Lowell Schiller is serving as acting associate general counsel. Schiller had provided legal services to clients such as Bayer Corp., Altria Group Inc., AbbVie Inc. and Amgen Inc.

   Justice Samuel Alito Jr. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM

   Ray clerked for Alito during the Supreme Court’s 2013-2014 term, and earlier clerked for Judge Debra Livingston on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 2011.

   Ray’s fellow Alito clerks included Zina Bash, Kyle Hawkins and Megan Wold. Bash was a part of the team that advocated for Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation, and Hawkins is now the Texas state solicitor general. Wold is a litigation partner in Washington at Kirkland & Ellis.

   “It was incredible to see how one of the greatest thinking minds of our time thinks about the law, but it was even better to see that great seriousness combined with the great kindness he displayed towards clerks,” Ray, a 2008 alum of Hillsdale College, told the school in an interview. He added: “Working at the court allowed me to see what actually persuades judges and justices.”

    https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/03/27/ex-sidley-associate-alito-clerk-named-acting-head-of-trump-regulatory-portal/?slreturn=20190228051937

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. (ACC Mentioned) Plastic Bottle Recycling Market Competitive Research And Precise Outlook 2019 To 2025

   Mar 28, 2019 | ClickLancashire

   By James Marshall

   A new report from the American Chemistry Council finds the potential economic impact of expanding advanced plastic recycling and recovery technologies in the U.S.to be almost $10 billion. The Recycled Plastics market globally is the foundation of the development edges and outlooks, as the progress of a precise guiding principle needs various creatively maintained theories, studies, and procedures.

   The "Recycled Plastics Market" worldwide is among the most budding markets.

   Prepared by ACC's Economics and Statistics Department, the report updates a similar analysis completed in 2014.

   Plastic Bottle Recycling Market Analysis by Application. We have formulated strategies to ensure that our post-consumer plastic bottles do not pollute the environment as wastes. "These technologies further demonstrate the untapped value of used plastics and have the potential to dramatically accelerate our transition to a circular economy".

   "Expanding advanced plastic recycling and recovery facilities could create thousands of U.S.jobs, result in billions of dollars in economic output, and eliminate the landfilling of 6.5 million tons of post-use recoverable plastics each year", says Priyanka Bakaya, Founder and CEO of Renewlogy and chair of ACC's Plastics-to-Fuel and Petrochemistry Alliance, which commissioned the study.

   Geographically, this report is split into some important countries, together with production, consumption, revenue (USD), along with market share in those regions, by 2018 to 2023, covering North America, United States, Canada, Mexico, Asia-Pacific, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Europe, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Russia, Rest of Europe, Central & South America, Brazil, Rest of South America, Middle East & Africa, GCC Countries, Turkey, Egypt, South Africa, Rest of Middle East & Africa. Many different products make great sources of recyclable material, including: soda bottles, plastic packaging, sheets and pellets.

   CarbonLITE is a major producer of food-grade rPET who already operates Starlinger recycling lines at its locations in Riverside and Dallas.

   Sales Revenue: Market Share, Growth Rate, Current Market Analysis. The report presents a demand for individual segment in each region.

   What are the market opportunities and threats faced by the key vendors?

   What are the forecasted growth rates for the market?

   Austrian plastic recycling equipment manufacturer, Starlinger recycling technology, will deliver PET recycling lines with a total installed capacity of 5.4 tonnes/hour for CarbonLITE's new site in Pennsylvania at the end of the year.

   Market Size Forecast: Global Overall Size, By Type/Product Category, By Applications/End Users, By Regions/Geography.

   Key Data (Revenue): Market Size, Market Share, Growth Rate, Growth, Product Sales Price. Price, cost, and gross analysis of the Plastic Recycling Market is also included in this section. We are among the leading report resellers in the business world committed to optimizing your business. The reports we provide are based on research that covers a magnitude of factors such as technological evolution, economic shifts and a detailed study of market segments.

   http://clicklancashire.com/2019/03/28/plastic-bottle-recycling-market-competitive-research-and.html
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. (ACC Mentioned) Plastics Industry Makes Case for Recycling Infrastructure

   Mar 27, 2019 | Waste Today

   By DeAnne Toto

   Representatives of the U.S. plastics industry made the case for greater recycling infrastructure at the 2019 Plastics Industry Fly-In, according to the Plastics Industry Association (Plastics, plasticsindustry.org), Washington. The event was March 27.
   

   In more than 100 meetings with members of Congress and their staffs, dozens of representatives from the nation’s third-largest manufacturing sector advocated for increased investment in the equipment, systems and other technologies that would enable the U.S. recycling industry to capture and recycle more plastic materials, Plastics says. This solution would preserve the value of plastic products while addressing serious environmental challenges like litter and marine debris, the association adds.

   Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler headlined the 2019 Plastics Industry Fly-In. In his remarks to attendees, Wheeler emphasized the administration’s commitment to infrastructure reform that includes recycling and waste management.

   “We all agree that we need to address marine litter, but we need to address it in an effective and precise manner,” Wheeler said. “Plastics have revolutionized the way we live, often in ways we don’t even realize … to really solve this problem, we must stop the trash from reaching our oceans. This means improving waste management and recycling.

   “I don’t believe that we have to choose between plastics or clean oceans,” he added. “We can have both.”

   Plastics has been part of an effort to rally support to modernize the nation’s recycling and waste management infrastructure.

   “With legislation forthcoming, the U.S. plastics industry is all-in for increasing our nation’s capacity to recycle plastic products that consumers rely on,” says Plastics Interim President and CEO Patty Long. “We need to ensure that waste disposal and recycling infrastructure are a part of the overall national conversation around investing in our country’s infrastructure. We look forward to working with public officials and other stakeholders across the country to focus our collective efforts on long-term solutions that enable the proper disposal and recycling of plastic products.”

   While infrastructure reform was a key part of the plastics industry’s message, attendees at the Fly-In also advocated for other reforms, including enacting open competition policies for plastic pipe on federal infrastructure projects, approaching trade and tariffs in a way that promotes global growth and developing the next generation of manufacturing workers, the association says.

   The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Mold Builders Association (AMBA), the Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI) and the Manufacturers Association for Plastic Processors (MAPP) also participated in this year’s Plastics Industry Fly-In.

   https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/2019-plastics-fly-in-stresses-need-for-recycling-infrastructure/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. (ACC Mentioned) Reporter’s Notebook: Can Chemistry Fix the Plastic Waste Problem?

   Mar 28, 2019 | Houston Chronicle

   By Marissa Luck

   While the petrochemical industry scrambles to find an answer to mounting plastic waste, one solution stands out as a potentially revolutionary force - chemical recycling.

   New advancements in chemical recycling technologies, which revert plastics back to their original chemical components, could not only make it easier to recycle plastics, vastly cutting into the amount of plastics filling oceans and landfills, but also represent a huge opportunity for petrochemical industry, a new report suggests. Unlike traditional forms of mechanical recycling, chemical recycling can turn previously difficult-to-recycle plastics into fuels and feedstocks.

   As corporations such as Coca Cola and Nestle commit to use more recycled plastics in their packaging, that’s pushing the petrochemical industry to advance the technology. 

   “If we can do chemical recycling back to feedstocks and back to plastics versus the alternatives — another oil and gas well — that opens up a whole range of impacts on climate possibilities that people haven't thought about,” said Jim Fitterling, CEO of Dow Chemical, speaking at IHS Markit’s World Petrochemical Conference in San Antonio recently.

   A recent report from the American Chemistry Council estimates that chemical recycling could create $9.9 billion in economic output in the U.S. economy annually, including $4.1 billion related to new products generated by chemical recycling facilities and $2.2 billion in annual payroll. The trade group found that chemical recycling could potentially support 260 new facilities and 38,500 jobs in the U.S. if adopted more broadly.

   Although chemical recycling itself isn’t new, technological innovations are making the process efficient and easier to bring to a commercial scale, said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics division at American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry trade group. For example, chemical recycling can convert plastics into crude, naphtha, ethylene and styrene that can be turned into countless consumer goods, Russell said.

   Several petrochemical companies, such as LyondellBasell of Houston, the French energy major Total and the Saudi Arabian company SABIC, are investing in improving chemical recycling technologies.

   LyondellBasell is partnering with a German university to develop technologies to turn plastic waste into liquid feedstocks. More research and development is needed before those technologies can be taken to a commercial scale, the company said.

   “While chemical recycling holds tremendous promise and meaningful work is being done, including by my company, these technologies are in their infancy,” said Bob Patel, CEO of LyondellBasell, speaking at the World Petrochemical Conference.

   Some industry leaders estimate it could take five to 10 years for chemical recycling technologies to fully mature. But others experts say it could take another 10 years on top of that to build plants to support a major chemical recycling industry, according to the petrochemical industry research firm ICIS.

   But some companies already are using chemical recycling commercially. Last year, The Woodlands company Americas Styrenics started using recycled chemical feedstock produced by an Oregon chemical company, Agilyx . And German chemical giant BASF, which has Houston operations, recently started using recycled chemicals to produce mozzarella cheese packaging, refrigerator components and insulation panels.

   Chemical recycling is one of several focus areas for the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, a nonprofit backed by companies from the petrochemical, recycling and consumer products industries. It’s a chance not only to clean up the environment, but also create a new market potentially worth billions of dollars.

   https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Reporter-s-Notebook-Can-chemistry-fix-the-13722009.php
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. EPA Rule Barring Grant Recipients From Boards Beats Another Suit

   Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Mike Leonard

   A rule change banning recipients of Environmental Protection Agency grants from serving on the agency’s scientific advisory boards survived a court challenge by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

   Judge F. Dennis Saylor of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the group’s lawsuit March 27, saying the court lacked the jurisdiction to rule on the environmental group’s allegations that former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued the directive unlawfully.

   In its suit, the UCS cited the rule’s impact on co-plaintiff Elizabeth Anne Sheppard, a University of Washington professor currently serving on the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee who would be eligible for a second term if not for the rule change.

   The complaint accused Pruitt of violating a Federal Advisory Committee Act provision requiring the EPA’s 23 advisory boards, which help shape environmental policy, to be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed.”

   But the claim is “non-justiciable” because the statute offers “no meaningful standard by which to adjudicate” what “fairly balanced” means, Saylor said. Courts are not in a position to substitute their own judgment for the opinion of EPA officials who are legally responsible for interpreting that phrase, the judge said.

   He stressed that the ruling “involves a fairly narrow set of issues.”

   “It is not about the best way to develop and implement our national environmental policies, or who are the proper people to assist in that process,” Saylor wrote. “And of course it is not about the wisdom or effectiveness of those policies.”

   The judge also rejected the environmental group’s argument that the EPA directive violated a federal statute that covers conflicts of interest statute, which subjects agency officials to an Office of Government Ethics rule that’s less stringent.

   The OGE rule “establishes an ethical floor, not a ceiling,” he said.

   Saylor is the second judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the EPA directive. His ruling follows a February decision by Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

   Saylor’s opinion leaned heavily on McFadden’s ruling, which he cited approvingly.

   The USC and Sheppard were represented by the Protect Democracy Project and Jenner & Block. Department of Justice attorneys represented the EPA.

   The case is Union of Concerned Scientists v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, D. Mass., No. 18-cv-10129, 3/27/19.

   https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/epa-rule-barring-grant-recipients-from-boards-beats-another-suit
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Grassley Looks to Rein in Trump Tariff Powers

   Mar 28, 2019 | E&E Daily

   By Geof Koss

   Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is drafting legislation that would limit the president's authority to issue tariffs by invoking national security concerns under an obscure, decades-old law.

   The measure, which will be introduced within weeks, aims to impose limits on President Trump's authority under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Trump roiled industry and many members of Congress last year when he imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports under the law, which the administration is also considering using to place similar fees on auto imports.

   "The U.S. Constitution gives Congress alone the job of regulating commerce with foreign nations," Grassley said in a statement this week announcing the push.

   "During the height of the Cold War, Congress delegated sweeping power to the executive branch to adjust imports on the basis of national security," Grassley said. "That was understandable given the era, but the benefit of time and experience has proven our Founders right in tasking Congress with authority over tariffs.

   "Congress should take back some of this delegation of its Constitutional authority and rebalance trade powers between the two branches in a responsible way that doesn't impede a president's ability to protect America's national security," the statement said.

   According to the statement, the measure would impose new "consultation and reporting requirements" throughout the Section 232 process.

   "It would also allow Congress to weigh in on any action without stripping a president of Constitutional authority as commander-in-chief," it said. "Specifically, any restrictions imposed by the president would be limited to a defined period of time unless extended by an Act of Congress."

   Grassley told reporters yesterday that negotiations with Democratic staff are "going very well" on the measure, which will include elements of competing proposals by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).

   He declined to comment on the time frame for tariff limits under consideration when asked by a reporter if there was any agreement on a 90-day or six-month limit.

   "You know more than you should know," he said. "So I don't want to answer your question. We're negotiating, and I don't want to negotiate through the press."

   The steel and aluminum tariffs are also complicating completion of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) — Trump's replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement — which must be ratified by Congress to take effect.

   The administration has refused to lift the tariffs during the ongoing talks, despite pressure from industry, Congress, Canada and Mexico.

   An irritated Grassley said Trump and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer resisted pressure from himself and a group of unnamed senators to separate the tariffs from the USMCA push during a meeting two weeks ago.

   "The whole message from the whole Senate delegation that went there is 'We've got to get rid of the tariffs or nothing is going to happen,'" Grassley recounted yesterday.

   Grassley also said Trump runs the risk of delaying ratification, saying Canadian officials have signaled their government is unlikely to vote for a deal until after its October elections if the tariff fight isn't resolved before June.

   "So I said to the president, 'Don't you think the tariffs ought to come off?'" Grassley said. The senator said that Trump responded, "No."

   House Ways and Means ranking member Kevin Brady (R-Texas) told reporters yesterday that GOP leadership has named members to a whip team to prepare for passage of the trade pact later this year.

   Brady said he opposes both the tariffs and quotas pushed by Lighthizer — an option Grassley doesn't like either.

   "We're going to continue to have that conversation with the White House as we push for passage of the agreement," he said. "We can do both."

   Brady declined to take a position on Grassley's forthcoming legislation, noting that similar bills are being drafted in the House. "Right now we're just monitoring those efforts," he said.

   https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/28/stories/1060131611
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

8. (ACC Mentioned) TSCA Data Release Does Little to End PV29 Controversy

   Mar 28, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin

   The US EPA’s decision to release additional information underlying its TSCA risk evaluation of pigment violet 29 has not ended the ongoing controversy around the confidentiality of health and safety data, Chemical Watch has learned.

   The EPA last week announced it had published the information underpinning its November 2018 draft evaluation for PV29, including 20 studies submitted to Echa when the substance was registered under REACH.

   The move came after public outcry and a December public records request, pressing for the release of 24 studies that had originally been withheld as confidential business information (CBI).

   But in an interview with Chemical Watch, Richard Denison said there are "still significant redactions" in the information that EPA has made public.

   For example, he said the study the PV29 risk evaluation relied on most heavily – a reproductive and developmental toxicity screening test – has 333 of its 430 pages fully redacted.

   "All of the data in the study are blacked out," he said. "There is simply no way to know whether that study says what EPA and the company says it did without that data," he added.

   Another problem, he said, is that the EPA has published a 10-page document of "summaries" covering ten of the studies, rather than the full versions. And he said this compilation appears to have been prepared by the data owner, BASF.

   The concern here is twofold, said Dr Denison. First, the public is being forced to rely on a company’s own interpretation of its studies. And second, it raises the question of whether the EPA itself has access to the full studies.

   "This is what [the EPA] has apparently declassified and made public," he said. "Does EPA only have these summaries of these ten studies? If so, then that’s troubling."

   The Natural Resources Defense Council's Jennifer Sass agreed: "The release of these study reports should not be mistaken for transparency by EPA – in fact, it shows that EPA is actively suppressing information and violating the requirements of TSCA.

   "The study reports are either too short or too redacted to be useful," she said.

   The American Chemistry Council, however, defended the agency’s approach.

   "EPA appropriately redacted CBI, when properly substantiated by study owners, to protect commercially valuable information in its public release of the PV29 health and safety studies," said the trade group. "We expect this is how the agency will proceed in the future as it is the correct approach."

   Meanwhile, Herb Estreicher, a partner with law firm Keller and Heckman, told Chemical Watch he found the EPA’s decision to release the studies "very troubling".

   "Companies will be reluctant to give EPA REACH studies, fearing loss of data compensation rights," he told Chemical Watch. "This will detract greatly from the quality of future TSCA risk evaluations and/or lead to unnecessary duplication of animal testing."

   The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which has been a vocal advocate for reducing animal testing, said in a statement it fully supports the sharing of test data to meet regulatory needs, as well as making it publicly available where possible.

   "In this case, the EPA reviewed the remaining [CBI] claims … and determined that some information is entitled to protection, which was redacted from the publicly released studies," said the PCRM’s Kristie Sullivan.Beck: More controversy to come?

   In an interview, following her public remarks at the Chemical Watch Global Business Summit in Brussels this week, the EPA’s Nancy Beck weighed in on whether confidentiality disputes under TSCA are only beginning.

   Ms Beck, principal deputy assistant administrator at the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said the agency thought that PV29 was "uncontroversial". But it has proven a challenge, she said, because "some of our stakeholder groups don’t understand how, with only screening level information, we can say something is safe."

   "Part of it is on us [the EPA] to do some education about screening level approaches and how we do decision making, but in the US it’s called the unknown unknowns," she added.

   But with respect to the additional nine draft evaluations that the EPA is planning to release in the coming weeks, she said the same CBI issues might not be in play.

   "Because PV29 is a data-poor chemical [that] nobody’s really studied a lot, the information did have to come from the companies," she said. "For the rest of the first ten – asbestos, [trichloroethylene], methylene chloride – there are thousands of articles in the public literature," so this same CBI concern is not likely.

   But she added: "I think when we finish the first 100 chemicals and then get to the later ones, you’ll have this issue [again]."

   https://chemicalwatch.com/75441/tsca-data-release-does-little-to-end-pv29-controversy
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. First 40 Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization Under TSCA Announced

   Mar 27, 2019 | Lexology

   By Ryan J. Carra, Mark N. Duvall and Timothy M. Serie

   EPA has taken another step in implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). It has announced the first set of 20 candidate chemicals for possible designation as high-priority substances and the first (possibly only) set of 20 candidate chemicals for possible designation as low-priority substances. 84 Fed. Reg. 10491 (March 21, 2019).

   This signals the beginning of EPA’s prioritization process to determine whether the 20 candidates for designation as high-priority substances may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use. If EPA makes that determination at the end of this prioritization process, EPA will designate those substances as high priorities for risk evaluations and will begin those risk evaluations. On the other hand, where EPA has sufficient information, it will designate a chemical substance that does not meet this standard as a low-priority substance and take no further action.

   EPA is accepting initial comments on these 40 candidate chemicals until June 19, 2019. Under section 6(b)(2)(B), EPA must publish final high- and low-priority designations by December 22, 2019.

   First 20 Candidate Chemicals for Designation as High-Priority Substances

   EPA identified 7 chlorinated solvents:p-Dichlorobenzene, CAS No. 106-46-71,2-Dichloroethane, CAS No. 107-06-2trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene, CAS No. 156-60-5o-Dichlorobenzene, CAS No. 95-50-11,1,2-Trichloroethane, CAS No. 79-00-51,2-Dichloropropane, CAS No. 78-87-51,1-Dichloroethane, CAS No. 75-34-3

   It identified 5 phthalates:Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dibutyl ester), CAS No. 84-74-2Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) - 1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1- butyl 2(phenylmethyl) ester, CAS No. 85-68-7Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) - (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester), CAS No. 117-81-7Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) - (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis-(2methylpropyl) ester), CAS No. 84-69-5Dicyclohexyl phthalate, CAS No. 84-61-7

   It identified 3 halogenated flame retardants:4,4’-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2, 6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA), CAS No. 79-94-7Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), CAS No. 115-96-8Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester (TPP), CAS No. 115-86-6

   Finally, it identified 5 other substances:Ethylene dibromide, CAS No. 106-93-4 (a chemical intermediate)1,3-Butadiene, CAS No. 106-99-0 (a monomer, regulated by OSHA as a carcinogen, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1051)1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta [g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB), CAS No. 1222-05-2 (a fragrance chemical)Formaldehyde, CAS No. 50-00-0 (a chemical intermediate, the subject of a controversial IRIS assessment, and regulated by OSHA as a carcinogen, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1048)Phthalic anhydride, CAS No. 85-44-9 (a phthalate precursor)

   In identifying candidate chemicals for designation as high-priority substances, EPA looked to its 2014 TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments. Section 6(b)(2)(D) requires EPA to give preference to chemical substances that are listed on the 2014 TSCA Work Plan that either: (a) have a persistence and bioaccumulation score of 3; or (b) that are known human carcinogens and have high acute and chronic toxicity. EPA included the hazard, exposure, and persistence/bioaccumulation scores from the 2014 TSCA Work Plan for each candidate chemical in the Federal Register notice as a basis for their selection. EPA also considered whether chemical substances were similar and whether there is existing EPA work or other publically-available risk assessments on these chemical substances.

   Among the chemicals on the 2014 TSCA Work Plan that meet those preference criteria but were not included among the 20 candidates for designation as high priority are:Arsenic and arsenic compounds (acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures)Cadmium and cadmium compounds (acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures)Chromium and chromium compounds (acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures)Cobalt and cobalt compounds (Persistence & Bioaccumulation Score of 3)Lead and lead compounds (Persistence & Bioaccumulation Score of 3)Long-chain chlorinated paraffins (C18-20) (Persistence & Bioaccumulation Score of 3)Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (C14-17) (Persistence & Bioaccumulation Score of 3)Molybdenum and molybdenum compounds (acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures)Nickel and nickel compounds (acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures)Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), CAS No. 556-67-2 (Persistence & Bioaccumulation Score of 3)Pigment Yellow 83 (Butanamide, 2,2’-[(3,3’-dichloro[1,1’-biphenyl]-4,4’-diyl)biz(azo)bis[N-(4-chloro-2, 5- dimethoxyphenyl)-3-oxo-), CAS No. 5565-15-7 (Persistence & Bioaccumulation Score of 3)

   As part of the prioritization process, EPA is required to consider, without consideration of costs or nonrisk factors, whether a candidate chemical may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use. EPA must designate a candidate chemical as a high-priority substance if it concludes that it may present an unreasonable risk. Once EPA designates a chemical substance as a high-priority substance, it must initiate a risk evaluation for such chemical substance. See TSCA section 6(b)(1)(B)(i); 40 C.F.R. Part 702, Subpart A.

   EPA’s prioritization designation is not a risk finding. Designating a chemical substance as a high-priority substance does not mean that the substance presents an unreasonable risk, but rather that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk and therefore warrants a risk evaluation. 40 C.F.R. § 702.17.

   First 20 Candidate Chemicals for Designation as Low-Priority Substances

   EPA identified the following list of candidate chemicals for designation as low-priority substances:1-Butanol, 3-methoxy-, 1-acetate, CAS No. 4435-53-4D-gluco-Heptonic acid, sodium salt (1:1), (2.xi.)-, CAS No. 3113-65-5D-Gluconic acid, CAS No. 526-95-4D-Gluconic acid, calcium salt (2:1), CAS No. 299-28-5D-Gluconic acid, .delta.-lactone, CAS No. 90-80-2D-Gluconic acid, potassium salt (1:1), CAS No. 299-27-4D-Gluconic acid, sodium salt (1:1), CAS No. 527-07-1Decanedioic acid, 1,10-dibutyl ester, CAS No. 109-43-31-Docosanol, CAS No. 661-19-81-Eicosanol, CAS No. 629-96-91,2-Hexanediol, CAS No. 6920-22-51-Octadecanol, CAS No. 112-92-5Propanol, [2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]-, CAS No. 55934-93-5Propanedioic acid, 1,3-diethyl ester, CAS No. 105-53-3Propanedioic acid, 1,3-dimethyl ester, CAS No. 108-59-8Propanol, 1(or 2)-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)-, acetate, CAS No. 88917-22-0Propanol, [(1-methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)bis(oxy)]bis-, CAS No. 24800-44-02-Propanol, 1,1’-oxybis-, CAS No. 110-98-5Propanol, oxybis-, CAS No. 25265-71-8Tetracosane, 2,6,10,15,19,23-hexamethyl-, CAS No. 111-10-3

   EPA explained that the selection of candidate chemicals for designation as low-priority substances was based on low hazard, as the initial criterion. EPA also looked at whether these chemical substances have been evaluated by EPA or other governmental bodies from OECD member states. EPA relied on its Safer Chemicals Ingredients List and Chemical Assessment Management Program (ChAMP) as sources of chemical substances that have already been evaluated to some degree.

   Under section 6(b)(1)(B)(ii), EPA will designate a chemical substance as a low-priority substance if EPA concludes, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, that the substance does not meet the standard for designating a chemical substance as a high-priority substance (i.e., that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use). Notably, EPA must have sufficient information upon which to make this determination.

   If EPA designates a chemical substance as a low-priority substance, EPA’s review of the chemical substance ends. However, EPA can reevaluate a low-priority substance if new information regarding the chemical substance comes to light that calls into question its designation. Section 6(b)(3)(B); 40 C.F.R. § 702.13.

   If EPA finds that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk or the Agency does not have sufficient information to make this determination, EPA must designate the candidate chemical as a high-priority substance and conduct a risk evaluation on the chemical substance. Therefore, it is important that manufacturers and processors of these candidate chemicals provide information to EPA to ensure that EPA has sufficient information upon which to base its decision.

   The Prioritization Process and Next Steps

   Section 6(b)(2)(B) requires EPA to ensure that risk evaluations are being conducted on the first 20 high-priority substances no later than December 22, 2019 (i.e., three and a half years after enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act). EPA must also designate at least 20 low-priority substances by December 22, 2019.

   EPA is providing a 90-day comment period for stakeholders to submit information regarding these 40 candidate chemicals. Companies with an interest in any of the candidate chemicals should consider submitting comments and information to EPA.

   During the prioritization process, EPA must conduct a risk-based screening of the candidate chemicals that considers their hazard and exposure potential, conditions of use or significant changes in conditions of use, and manufacturing or processing volumes or significant changes in such volume. EPA will then publish a proposed designation for each candidate chemical as either a high- or low-priority substance. This must set forth the information, analysis, and basis for EPA’s proposed designation. EPA must provide 90 days for interested stakeholders to comment on proposed designations. Once EPA has considered comments on proposed designations, EPA will designate each chemical substance as a high- or low- priority, and begin risk evaluations for all high-priority substances.

   EPA must issue proposed priority designations no later than September 22, 2019, in order to meet its December 22, 2019, statutory deadline to designate 20 high- and low-priority substances, but will likely need to do so well before this deadline to consider comments received on the proposed designations.

   https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ab8768ef-9c89-4551-a110-9b80ca352320
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

10. (ACC Mentioned) How the Chemical Industry Deployed the Disinformation Playbook on PFAS

    Mar 27, 2019 | Union of Concerned Scientists

    By Genna Reed

    The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will convene tomorrow for a hearing on the federal responses (or lack thereof) to the risks associated with the class of toxic chemicals known as PFAS, inviting representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Defense, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to testify. It has been encouraging to see Congress conducting oversight on the government’s failures to protect us from PFAS. While the federal government is responsible for its regulatory inaction once it learned of PFAS’ dangers, the companies who created, manufactured, and processed these chemicals and then dumped them unrestricted into our environment—fully understanding their persistence and even toxicity—should be required to answer and pay for their behavior.

    Today, we added a case study to our Disinformation Playbook that explores how DuPont and 3M chose to bury unfavorable research linking PFAS to health issues, a decision that staved off regulatory scrutiny and allowed the companies to continue to profit while workers in their facilities, and the rest of us downstream, faced the consequences. This is only one of the strategies from the disinformation playbook that the makers of PFAS, and the chemical industry trade associations that they are part of, have employed to undermine public health.The Fake

    In our new case study, we illustrate how DuPont and 3M used “The Fake” by concealing health studies linking exposure to increased rate of tumors, liver damage, and birth defects:

    In the 1960s, for example, DuPont researchers found PFOA could increase liver size in animals. According to the New York Times, other documents revealed that by the 1990s, the company knew that PFOA caused multiple types of cancerous tumors. The company did not share its knowledge with the public, regulators, or even largely its own workers, who faced elevated levels of cancers and the possibility of giving birth to children with birth defects, among other health effects.

    DuPont was not the only company to engage in such corporate disinformation. In early 2018, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office released documents showing that the chemical company 3M had also concealed and downplayed the dangers of PFAS for decades. 3M, which invented PFOA and used another variety of PFAS called PFOS in its popular product Scotchgard, had conducted scientific studies in the 1970s that showed the toxicity of the chemicals, but did not turn over any of its science to the Environmental Protection Agency for more than 20 years.The Diversion

    PFAS makers and users have also used “The Diversion,” a strategy to manufacture uncertainty about the science and deceive the public. As the body of evidence linking PFAS exposure to assorted health effects has grown, 3M, DuPont, and the chemical industry trade associations that they are affiliated with have continued to use disinformation to fight off regulations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a toxicological profile on PFOA, PFOS and a handful of other PFAS variants and determined that the risk levels for PFAS were 7 to 10 times lower than the EPA’s current health advisory. In 2018, 3M helped form the Responsible Science Policy Coalition, an advocacy group that has cast doubt on the findings of the ATSDR report and other science showing the health effects of PFAS. This organization joins the ranks of scores of other front groups with innocuous-sounding names that promote disinformation and fight tooth and nail against regulation that would protect public health. My colleague, Michael Halpern, described some of their methods in a blog post last year:

    In July, the Responsible Science Policy Coalition surfaced at a meeting of the Council of Western Attorneys General where they expressed being “eager to help your state with your issues.” In their presentation to the attorneys general, the RSPC argued that there are “lots of problems with existing PFAS studies” and that these studies “don’t show the strength of association needed to support causation.”

    The RSPC also submitted a comment on the ATSDR draft toxicology assessment that extensively detailed why, in their view, ATSDR’s scientific approach was sub-par.The Fix

    The infiltration of state and federal governments by individuals pushing the chemical industry’s agendahas hamstrung further regulation of PFAS to protect public health, in a textbook use of “The Fix.”In West Virginia, several employees at the state’s Department of Environmental Protection ended up working for firms hired by DuPont. At the national level, starting in 2003, DuPont’s PFOA strategy for the EPA was led by former EPA deputy administrator Michael McCabe, and his successor at EPA also joined DuPont’s efforts after leaving the agency in 2003. DuPont had access to inside information at the agency and drafted quotes for EPA officials, a practice McCabe later said was “customary.”

    In 2006, a draft report by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board found PFOA to be a likely human carcinogen. In response to the report, an internal DuPont email noted that “In our opinion, the only voice that can cut through the negative stories, is the voice of EPA. We need EPA…to quickly (like first thing tomorrow) say the following: Consumer products sold under the Teflon brand are safe.” A few weeks later, EPA issued such a statement. McCabe denied that EPA made the statement in exchange for DuPont’s phase-out of PFOA, while EPA has declined to comment.

    Last year, the revolving door between industry and EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention impacted the release of the aforementioned ATSDR report. In May 2018, documents we obtained revealed that the White House and EPA blocked a draft government study on PFAS after a Trump administration official warned the study’s release would lead to a “public relations nightmare.” The Trump administration has close ties with the chemical industry, and EPA employee Nancy Beck—one of the employees involved in the effort to bury the study—worked at the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry trade association, before joining Trump’s EPA. The documents were released the week before an EPA conference on PFAS in which community members and journalists—but not industry employees—were shut out from attending. In mid-June, after significant bipartisan Congressional pressure, ATSDR finally released its report.As the disinformation drags on, local action is powerful

    As the same players use the same tired old plays to divert attention away from dangerous chemicals and real solutions, the agencies that have promised to keep us safe from PFAS by figuring out how to regulate them and clean them up have been failing to do so. Just last month, EPA released its long-awaited PFAS “action” plan that was seriously lacking in any real action. In lieu of meaningful federal action, states like Vermont, New Jersey, and Minnesota have set enforceable drinking water standards stricter than EPA’s health advisory. Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer yesterday directed the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to begin the process of establishing standards for PFAS in the state. States have taken the lead not only in setting enforceable drinking water and groundwater standards, and passing legislation that further regulates these chemicals, but also in holding companies accountable for poisoning our waterways and bloodstreams.

    Take my home state of New Jersey, in which the governor just this week ordered 3M, DuPont, DowDuPont, Chemours, and Solvay to assess and eventually clean up the very expensive PFAS-related pollution in the state. This comes after class action lawsuits have compelled DuPont and 3M to pay West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan residents for PFAS-related pollution. And as states work to hold companies accountable, grassroots organizations and community members are standing up to fight corporate power across the country.

    As Congress continues to consider legislation related to this class of chemicals, it is essential that there are provisions holding companies responsible for polluting, and for spreading disinformation in order to keep on polluting. Companies should be held liable for all of the damage they have done in lives lost and harmed and natural resources destroyed. You can help by contacting your members of congress to urge them to join the recently created PFAS task force (and scientists- you can use your expertise to encourage Congressional oversight here).

    https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/how-the-chemical-industry-deployed-the-disinformation-playbook-on-pfas
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. (ACC Mentioned) Ethylene Oxide Concerns Hijack Focus on Other Toxic at EPA Event

    Mar 28, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Stephen Joyce

    Speakers at an EPA hearing skipped the main agenda item and urged the agency to create a new, stand-alone regulation for ethylene oxide while updating its assessment of the risks posed by the toxic.

    A March 27 hearing in Washington, D.C., was set up to focus on an EPA proposed rule on Clean Air Act standards for hydrochloric acid.

    The proposed rule on hydrochloric acid included a section—not mentioned in the rule’s summary—asking for public comment on ethylene oxide emissions.

    Many commenters at the hearing focused instead on ethylene oxide, not the acid, which was slated to be the main agenda item.

    Ethylene oxide is used in making antifreeze, textiles, plastics, detergents and adhesives, among other medical applications, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

    The EPA has acknowledged that ethylene oxide emissions pose health risks, yet the agency’s standards for ethylene oxide haven’t been updated in more than a decade, speakers said. 
    The ‘Ask’

    EPA should advance a new regulatory effort on ethylene oxide and not—as is the case with the proposed rule discussed March 27—deal with it only marginally, they said.

    “The whole problem with having this hearing was that EPA injected this ethylene oxide review into a single source-based hazardous air pollutant standard. It doesn’t belong there,” Ann Mesnikoff, federal legislative director for the Environmental Law & Policy Center told Bloomberg Environment.

    “If it’s going to address ethylene oxide, EPA should put out a proposal that is entitled ethylene oxide,” she said.

    According to EPA, high levels of exposure to ethylene oxide is linked to breast cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lymphocytic leukemia.

    An EPA spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on possible future regulatory actions regarding ethylene oxide.
    Sterilization Facilities

    Emissions stemming from the use of ethylene oxide to sterilize medical equipment at a Willowbrook, Ill. facility operated by Sterigenics U.S. LLC has sparked community opposition. The issue has spurred members of Congress to seek additional regulations and heightened congressional oversight.

    The agency’s standard for commercial sterilizers was last updated in 2006, and the standard for hospital sterilizers was last revised in 2007.

    Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) requested in a letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler any documents related to EPA political appointee involvement in enforcement activities at facilities using ethylene oxide and their involvement, if any, in deciding whether and how to amend EPA’s 2016 hazard assessment for ethylene oxide.
    Many States

    But concern over the emissions aren’t limited to Illinois. EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory shows ethylene oxide is emitted from facilities in Missouri, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and other states. Citizens from several states appeared at the March 27 hearing to voice their concern over the emissions.

    Not everyone at the hearing was critical. An American Chemistry Council representative said the current EPA standard for ethylene oxide is too strict.

    The industry trade group in 2018 requested that EPA “correct” its ethylene oxide standard because they argued it relied on a flawed risk value that’s lower than the normal amount of ethylene oxide found in ambient air.

    It’s even lower than the naturally created levels of ethylene oxide in the human body, the council asserted.

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/ethylene-oxide-concerns-hijack-focus-on-other-toxic-at-epa-event
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. (ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists Hint At Suit If EPA Drops IRIS EtO Value From Air Rules

    Mar 28, 2019 | Inside EPA

    By Stuart Parker

    Environmentalists are warning EPA that any attempt to drop use of its conservative Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) risk values for ethylene oxide (EtO) when crafting air toxics rules would result in unlawful regulations not based on the “best available science,” signaling a likely legal challenge should the agency proceed with the approach.

    The Clean Air Act “does not allow the agency to ignore the best available science,” Michelle Mabson, a staff scientist at environmental law firm Earthjustice, said in testimony at a March 27 public hearing in Washington, DC.

    The hearing focused on EPA’s proposed risk-and-technology review (RTR) rule for the hydrochloric acid (HCl) manufacturing sector, which finds no remaining health risks from the plants that would warrant tightening emissions limits.

    Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must conduct RTRs eight years after promulgating national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for an industry sector. If the agency finds “residual” risks to health, or new, cost-effective control technology, or both, it can tighten the rule. Written public comments on the HCl proposal are due April 26.

    But the proposal also seeks comment on whether the agency should not use conservative risk values that its IRIS program set in 2016 for EtO, a chemical released from both hydrochloric acid plants as well as medical sterilization plants.

    The IRIS assessment found EtO to be 30 times more potent at causing cancer than previously thought and affirmed long-suspected claims that the chemical, used as an intermediate to make other chemical products like detergent, antifreeze and polyester, and to sterilize medical equipment and foods, causes breast and lymph cancers.

    It also classified the substance as a known carcinogen and recommended conservative risk values that are expected to drive stricter regulatory standards.

    When coupled with EPA's most recent modeled National Air Toxics Assessment data last summer, the assessment models elevated cancer risk at a pair of facilities that emit EtO in the Chicago area.

    In response, EPA launched a review of its air act rules governing EtO emissions to determine whether they are adequately protective.

    But its call for comment on whether to continue using the IRIS value in air toxics rules appeared to mark a reversal of that commitment. As such, the approach has drawn strong criticism from environmentalists and lawmakers, especially those who represent residents adjacent to an Illinois medical sterilization plant that is at the heart of the debate over how strictly EPA should regulate the facilities.

    In a recent letter to EPA, members of the Illinois congressional delegation called on Administrator Andrew Wheeler to “publicly commit to at least preserving, if not strengthening, EPA's current risk value of EtO.”

    But the agency’s approach is generally consistent with calls from the chemical industry, which has formally petitioned EPA to “correct” the IRIS assessment because it would “have significant regulatory implications” for the industry.

    Cancer Risks

    At the hearing, environmentalists pressed their case that abandoning the use of the IRIS values would expose fenceline communities to unacceptable risks.

    “Alarmingly, due to the co-location of a number of chemical facilities, the lifetime cancer risk for some individuals has been found to be 600-in-1 million -- which is six times more than what EPA itself deems acceptable. EPA may not simply ignore the high cancer risks just because they are coming from collocated emission points,” Mabson said.

    EPA in the proposal says that the “maximum facility-wide cancer [maximum individual risk] is 600-in-1 million, mainly driven by [EtO] emissions from a variety of industrial processes, none of which are part of this source category.”

    EPA adds in the RTR that “we intend to evaluate those [EtO] facility-wide estimated emissions and risks further and may address these in a separate future action, as appropriate.”

    EPA’s failure to account for collective and cumulative risks of co-located facilities is therefore a major failing that undermines the RTR proposal, which is too weak even using the 2016 EtO IRIS value, said Mabson.

    Mabson said, “we are calling on EPA to continue to apply the IRIS-derived ethylene oxide risk value in this rulemaking and future rulemakings. It is the best available science and EPA has no lawful or scientific basis to ignore it.”

    Other environmentalists and community activists backed these views. Several also said EPA cannot use the RTR rule as vehicle to quietly reconsider the IRIS value.

    Ann Mesnikoff, federal legislative director with the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said that EPA should not attempt to alter use of the IRIS value in a sector-specific rulemaking, when IRIS is an independent program and should be detached from policy considerations.

    Several Democratic lawmakers backed environmentalists’ efforts. Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) told the hearing that altering EPA’s view of EtO risks “opens a possibility of ignoring the dangers,” noting that air monitoring at the Willowbrook sterilization facility in Illinois has shown “extremely high” levels of EtO.

    “EPA should be using the best science. It should do it quickly,” Lipinsky said, backing continued use of the 2016 IRIS value.

    Also, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), along with Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) wrote Wheeler March 27 asking for information on both EPA’s handling of the Sterigenics facility’s emissions, and also the wider request for comment on the IRIS risk value in the HCl proposal.

    The senators note that Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) directed the plant to stop using EtO last month.

    “EPA concluded in 2016 that its confidence in the hazard characterization of EtO as ‘carcinogenic to humans’ is high. EPA now appears to be entertaining the American Chemistry Council’s September, 2018 request to re-assess this conclusion,” the senators write.

    They ask Wheeler to turn over a wide range of documents relating to limiting emissions at Sterigenics and also the wider IRIS value question by April 17.

     The sole industry comment came from James Bus, a scientist with consulting firm Exponent, representing the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

    Bus said the 2016 IRIS value is “overly conservative,” and “implausible,” noting that ACC has filed a request for correction with EPA under the Information Quality Act to remove use of the value that underpinned findings of increased risk to communities under EPA’s most-recent National Air Toxics Assessment.

    The IRIS value results in “overstated risk” in EPA rulemakings, Bus said. EtO “occurs in ambient air” at concentrations that, using EPA’s risk number, would present a 100 in one million cancer risk, he said. “It is critical” that EPA not use the 2016 IRIS value in rules, and instead EPA should use the substantially weaker alternative “Valdez-Flores” risk assessment from 2010 preferred by ACC, Bus said. 

    https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-hint-suit-if-epa-drops-iris-eto-value-air-rules
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Despite Past Controversy, EPA Plans Annual Reviews Of IRIS' Priorities

    Mar 27, 2019 | Inside EPA

    By Maria Hegstad

    EPA is planning an annual review of its program office priorities for Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments, a top official told lawmakers, despite controversy that the first such review stalled IRIS' work for months and led to charges that a top political appointee interfered in the review to drop the formaldehyde assessment.

    “Because IRIS assessments play a critical role in supporting Agency decisions and can involve a significant expenditure of time and resources, [Administrator Andrew Wheeler] requested a more formal, structured survey of IRIS priorities signed at the Assistant Administrator level,” Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, a career EPA scientist who is the agency's acting research chief, told a joint hearing of two House science committee panels March 27.

    “The IRIS program will conduct this same formal request and prioritization process annually, although programs are able to nominate [substances for IRIS assessment] at any time,” she added.

    Orme-Zavaleta praised the review as “bringing further stability and responsiveness to the IRIS program. Through this new process, programs formally identify what assessments are a priority program need, why the assessment is needed, and when the assessment is needed. Not only does this improve the scope of IRIS assessments and help IRIS prioritize its activities, it also reinforces accountability between the requesting program and IRIS.”

    Asked by Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX), if she considered the review “a positive step for IRIS,” Orme-Zavaleta praised it for raising the process to a higher level of agency leadership.

    “We have always gone out to programs in helping to identify what their needs are. But this new process raises it to the assistant administrator level. That's going to help provide greater stability to the program as well as greater accountability to the program offices,” she said.

    But Democrats questioned Orme-Zavaleta and Alfredo Gomez, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) official, about its recent report. It raised questions about the two-part prioritization process EPA used in response to Wheeler's call for the media programs to identify their priority assessments.

    In its March 4 report, GAO found that the Trump EPA eliminated as many as nine of 22 pending assessments from the IRIS research agenda, including its high-profile assessment of formaldehyde, which has been pending for more than 15 years and has subsequently been transferred to the agency's toxics office.

    The report found that EPA initially narrowed the IRIS agenda by limiting its work to assessments that had been requested by program offices, and then barred it from releasing any documents while the review took place, a point Gomez reiterated.

    “For nearly 6 months … EPA leadership deliberations about the program's priorities that took place from June through December 2018 delayed the program's assessment production,” he said.

    But GAO also found that after the IRIS program had surveyed program offices, EPA required a second round of prioritization that limited program offices' requests to “no more than three or four chemicals.” GAO reported that it appeared to be a verbal process, as no documents about this second phase were made available.

    The report prompted top Democrats, including science committee Chairman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) to request an investigation into “whether the Agency’s efforts to prevent the completion of the formaldehyde health assessment constituted a violation of the agency’s scientific integrity policy, and determine whether [David Dunlap, the top political appointee in EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)], violated the terms of his recusal agreement by participating in efforts related to the IRIS formaldehyde health assessment.”

    Formaldehyde Assessment

    During the hearing, Democrats teased out a series of additional concerns with EPA's prioritization process, including that Orme-Zavaleta was not involved in the second round of the process and that the children's health office priorities, which included formaldehyde, was not considered before the final IRIS agenda was released.

    Rep. Donald Beyer, Jr. (D-VA) asked Orme-Zavaleta why ORD decided to reduce the IRIS agenda so much, why IRIS leaders were not involved in the second phase of the prioritization process and whether there was any information on the purpose of the process.

    “The conversation that took place was a meeting the administrator has weekly with his senior leadership, the assistant administrators. I was not there,” Orme-Zavaleta replied. “I'm not aware how the request was made. I don't know the conversation that ensued.”

    Beyer replied, “the suspicious part of me wonders if the prioritization wasn't simply used as a way to eliminate chemicals that are controversial within industry … for example, formaldehyde. … Which raises the prospect that this is not science driving it, but politics.”

    Democrats also questioned Orme-Zavaleta about the status of the formaldehyde assessment, and why it was dropped from IRIS' updated agenda, released last December. It provided no explanation of why nearly half the assessments previously on the list had been dropped.

    Rep. Ben McAdams (D-UT), noting that the draft formaldehyde assessment has been completed since late 2017, asked about its status and when it would be released for comment.

    “We do have a draft formaldehyde assessment, and with [the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program] recently announcing that formaldehyde is in their top 20 [chemicals for risk prioritization], we're going to be having conversations with our [toxics office] to determine next steps going forward. We do feel that the assessment we have will help with that TSCA determination and we need to determine the next steps for supporting the other agency needs.”

    McAdams asked “How can formaldehyde simultaneously be a high priority under TSCA, and not a priority at all for IRIS?”

    “I wouldn't say that it is not a priority for IRIS,” Orme-Zavaleta replied. “We have not discontinued that work and that information will be leveraged in helping support TSCA to move forward. There's going to be more conversations to follow on our next steps.”

    And Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), who serves on the science committee and chairs a key Energy and Commerce Committee panel that oversees EPA, questioned Orme-Zavaleta about the involvement of EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP) in the IRIS prioritization review process last summer and fall.

    Orme-Zavaleta replied that OCHP received the request to participate in the both rounds of the process. But she noted that the office only submitted their priorities in the second round “the day after I released the December memo with the [IRIS priority] decisions.”

    She added that an office can still “nominate a request at any time,” and the agency will have another formal round of requests due later this summer.

    In response to a Tonko question, Orme-Zavaleta said she believed that OCHP had identified formaldehyde as among the three or four chemicals it had identified for priority assessment.

    The second round of the IRIS prioritization process took place in October, after EPA political leadership's decision to remove the OCHP director, Ruth Etzel, and place her on administrative leave late last September.

    The decision has been met with a firestorm of protest from the agency's children's health advisors and environmentalists. Michael Firestone, a career employee who has been the office's deputy director, has been selected to serve as the office's acting director.

    IRIS Handbook

    Republicans at the hearing sought to defend the Trump EPA's prioritization review process, and pressed Orme-Zavaleta on why EPA has yet to release a handbook of IRIS procedure which the National Academy of Sciences recommended IRIS create in a 2011 report.

    “GAO recently issued a report that was largely critical of current EPA leadership and its efforts to manage and update the IRIS program. Democrats and environmental groups point to this report as evidence that the Trump Administration is trying to stifle science,” said Rep. Roger Marshall (R-KS), ranking member of the environment subpanel, in his opening remarks. “I think these efforts are critical to overhauling a flawed program so that it is responsive to program and regional office needs and best serves EPA's core mission.”

    Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC), ranking member of the oversight subpanel, asked about the status of the IRIS handbook, noting that EPA had promised its release in 2018.

    Gomez replied that GAO received a draft copy, as the handbook has yet to be finalized.

    Orme-Zavaleta said the handbook is undergoing internal review at EPA. “We received comments all the way through December. We are still in the process of addressing some of the comments that came in,” she said, adding that some are not easily addressed.

    She described these difficult issues as relating to “how we evaluate hazard, how we categorize areas of hazard. These are areas that involve more than one [EPA] office,” she said, adding that she is trying to engage the agency-wide Risk Assessment Forum on these issues. “My hope is to complete this soon, I've raised it with the administrator.” 

    https://insideepa.com/daily-news/despite-past-controversy-epa-plans-annual-reviews-iris-priorities
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. EPA Neglect Is Catalyst for Chemical Research, Firefighters Say

    Mar 28, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Pat Rizzuto

    The EPA’s failures to recognize firefighters’ exposures to chemicals is helping spur the International Association of Fire Fighters to sponsor its own research, a senior association official says.

    The association hopes some of the research results will be ready to present at the association’s health and safety symposium in August, Patrick J. Morrison, assistant to the association’s general president, told Bloomberg Environment March 27.

    The Environmental Protection Agency has failed to make public some chemical safety information, refused to gather additional information from chemical manufacturers, and ignored firefighters’ exposures to chemicals such as asbestos and hexabromocyclododecane flame retardants that it’s examining as it decides whether those chemicals’ risks warrant regulatory controls, Morrison said.

    “We feel like the chemical companies are running EPA right now,” he said.

    The EPA didn’t comment on that particular statement, but pointed to information it has posted online that firefighters and other groups could examine to address their safety questions.

    “EPA needs to do its job and protect workers now,” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) told Bloomberg Environment after a March 13 hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee.

    “We know as a matter of fact that firefighters, teachers, farm workers and people in many other professions are dying earlier and getting sick more than they should,” due to their chemical exposures, Tonko, the subcommittee’s chairman, said by email.
    Fluorochemicals

    The group of chemicals the fire fighters association recently has focused on are heat-, grease-, and water resistant compounds called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, Morrison said.

    Firefighters are exposed to those chemicals in specialized foams that fight jet fuel and similar fires, in the protective clothing they wear, and in carpets and furniture, he said.

    Firefighters are worried their exposure to PFAS and to flame retardants may contribute to their already documented greater risk of cancer, Morrison said.

    A National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study of 30,000 firefighters found they get cancer more often and are more likely to die from cancer than most people.

    Firefighters also are worried those chemicals may harm their children, Morrison testified during the March 13 hearing. Studies have reached inconsistent findings, but some research has found some PFAS can impair the immune system and the thyroid hormone, which plays a critical role during development. 
    A Lot of Fear’

    “Right now we have a lot of fear out there without a lot of information,” Morrison said.

    The association is sponsoring three studies to start answering questions, he said.

    First, the association is working with Oregon State University to determine which PFAS chemicals and brominated flame retardants are in firefighters’ protective clothing, or “turnout gear,” and what the concentrations are of those chemicals, Morrison said.

    That information will help the association work toward the next question--whether a limit should be set on the amount of those chemicals in firefighters’ clothes, he said.

    The association hopes the results of Oregon State’s analyses will be ready for the association’s August conference, he said.

    Second, the association and Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center (CBRC) also collected dust samples from 50 fire stations in the U.S. and Canada to determine what levels of flame retardants firefighters brought back from fire incidents to the station. Those dust samples are being re-analyzed to determine PFAS levels, Morrison said.

    The idea of the dust study is to see if firefighters are bringing these PFAS chemicals from fires to the stations where they sleep, eat, and live, Morrison said.

    If they are, the association would work on examining procedures that could reduce the chemical contamination, he said.

    Some U.S. information already has been published, but the association hopes details on the PFAS concentrations will be ready by August, he said.

    Finally, the association and University of Arizona plan to test the concentrations of PFAS and other chemicals in the blood of about 200 firefighters, Morrison said. 
    Government ‘Failed Us’

    The exposure studies are filling a gap, Morrison suggested. But critical health information isn’t available, and that’s where “the government has failed us completely,” he said.

    The health information about PFAS, flame retardants, and other chemicals that firefighters seek would help them know when, after they’ve put out a fire, it’s safe to take off their breathing apparatus, Morrison said.

    Health information also would help firefighters determine decontamination protocols, he said.

    The EPA, for example, hasn’t made public the information it gathered as it approved hundreds of new PFAS, Morrison said.

    Nor has the agency used its legal authorities under the original or amended Toxic Substances Control Act to collect health and safety information about new or older PFAS, he said.

    Some information on the new and older chemicals is available on an EPA databasecalled ChemView under the PFAS group category, the agency said. It provided detailed instructions on ways firefighters or other parties parties could search that database to see if contains the information they seek.

    The first national health study to examine the effects of PFAS will focus on communities that have drank contaminated water.

    Ironically, that study won’t examine the firefighters who used the specialized fire fighting foam containing the chemicals that led to much of that contamination, Morrison said.
    Congress

    Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) led a bipartisan group of 21 senators last year who asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the health effects of occupational exposure to per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), particularly in firefighters.

    NIOSH, the part of the CDC that typically conducts occupational studies, doesn’t have any research underway on firefighter exposure to PFAS, a spokesman for that agency said March 27.

    Shaheen and Murkowski introduced legislation, S. 858, that would require the Department of Defense to test PFAS levels in the blood of military firefighters.

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/epa-neglect-is-catalyst-for-chemical-research-firefighters-say
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. EPA Needs to Trust Its Own Scientists and Protect Us from Ethylene Oxide

    Mar 27, 2019 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)

    By Genna Reed

    Later this afternoon I will be providing comment to the EPA at a public hearing related to its proposed rule on facilities producing hydrochloric acid (HCl). In addition to HCl, many of these sites emit ethylene oxide, a flammable colorless gas that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) determined was carcinogenic to humans back in 2016. According to the proposed rule, communities near these facilities experience a lifetime cancer risk of 600-in-1-million, which is six times EPA’s unsafe level. What is the agency doing to protect people from this risk? There is no regulatory action proposed in the rulemaking—instead, the agency is asking for comment on the use of the IRIS ethylene oxide risk value for “regulatory purposes,” calling into question the work of its own scientists in the IRIS program.

    The IRIS program conducted a systematic review of toxicological and epidemiological evidence that took ten years to complete and included interagency review, input from the EPA Science Advisory Board, and public comment. It concluded that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic to humans, causing an increased risk of cancer of leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in women. Recently released National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) data incorporating the new IRIS risk value revealed that the probability of developing cancer from air pollutants was beyond the EPA’s acceptable level of risk, and 91 percent of the risk can be attributed to ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, or chloroprene. The threat of cancer from ethylene oxide is real and present in so many communities across the country. In places like St. Charles, Louisiana right in the backyard of the largest ethylene oxide emitter in United States, exposure to ethylene oxide is just one toxin in a chemical cocktail of industrial exposures that the community faces. Areas like St. Charles rely on the EPA to use its own rigorous assessments of the science to set health-protective limits. EPA has no time to waste complying with industry requests to question its own science. It must act with urgency to use its own science to protect all of the people whose lives are at risk due to ethylene oxide exposure.

    Here’s my full comment:

    Good afternoon, I would like to thank the EPA for the opportunity to provide this comment today. My name is Genna Reed. I am the lead science and policy analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. The Center for Science and Democracy at UCS advocates for improved transparency and integrity in our democratic institutions, especially those making science-based public policy decisions.

    I am here today to urge the agency to cease consideration of the IRIS ethylene oxide cancer risk value in the proposed rulemaking for hydrochloric acid (HCl) production source category on the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Ethylene oxide is included in the rulemaking because these facilities are often collocated with those that use and emit this chemical. The rule asks for comments on the use of the updated IRIS value for “regulatory purposes.” This is ill-advised. The agency should understand best the history of the EPA IRIS assessment on the carcinogenicity of ethylene oxide issued in 2016 which incorporated public comment opportunities, interagency review, and scientific peer review by EPA’s Science Advisory Board. The IRIS risk value is based on the best available science regarding health effects from this chemical. Agency policymakers evaluating regulations for the HCl production source category should not seek to disregard this established science, especially when the facilities addressed in this rulemaking are only one part of a serious problem. Questioning the use of the IRIS cancer risk value is out of the authority of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards program, and to do it within a rulemaking on the source-focused proposal for an entirely separate chemical would set a dangerous precedent. Burying this request for comments in a rulemaking on HCl appears to be an attempt by the agency to limit community and expert input, while dismissing its own scientific experts within the agency.

    The EPA IRIS program serves a critical scientific service to EPA and to the public, providing assessments that inform the decisions that protect us from hundreds of environmental contaminants. The IRIS program is housed in the National Center for Environmental Assessment within the Office of Research and Development and does important scientific work that is completely separate from the policymaking programs at EPA. Its placement is by design in order to ensure independent and objective assessments on hazardous chemicals that pose serious risks to Americans. The output of this office is not just important for federal policymaking, but IRIS assessments and associated toxicity values are used by state environmental and public health agencies, as well as community groups, to assess and address local risks to public health. This scientific expertise guides action that is essential to protect public health nationwide. It should be incorporated into and relied upon to set health-protective standards as EPA has done for years, rather than suddenly questioned in a rulemaking, for this or any other individual source of toxic air pollution.

    Data on ethylene oxide released by the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 2018 revealed that the chemical is significantly contributing to higher cancer rates in areas surrounding chemical manufacturers and sterilizers using the chemical across the country. Just last week, the EPA issued its findings from air monitoring outside of the Sterigenics facility in Willowbrook, Illinois that was shut down by the state, comparing emissions before and after the shutdown. The monitors revealed levels 90 percent lower at the sites closest to Sterigenics, revealing the direct relationship between the facility’s operations and ethylene oxide levels. The systematic review conducted by IRIS evaluated the toxicological and epidemiological evidence available on the chemical and determined that it was carcinogenic to humans, leading to an increased risk of cancer of leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in women. The EPA should be taking swift action to issue ethylene oxide emissions standards to protect the over 100 communities across the country found to have cancer risk levels above the acceptable level of 100 in 1 million, as the Clean Air Act directs. The last thing communities exposed to ethylene oxide need is for EPA to try to ignore the science that has identified the problem.    

    The chemical industry has attempted to undermine the work of the IRIS program time and time again, and there is now concern that the EPA itself is working to delay or halt IRIS assessments already underway, according to a recent GAO report. There is absolutely no good reason or time to question the agency’s own peer-reviewed science on ethylene oxide, which is robust and well-supported with substantial, independent evidence. In order for the EPA to meet its mission to protect human health and the environment, the EPA must rely on IRIS for its evaluations of the best available science and issue standards that best protect communities exposed to the highest emissions and associated health risks.

    Thank you.

    https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/epa-needs-to-trust-its-own-scientists
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. West Virginia Delays Updates to Water Standards

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Andrew M. Ballard

    West Virginia is delaying updates to dozens of its water quality standards after industry groups lobbied to put them off.

    Lawmakers rejected rules proposed by the state Department of Environmental Protection, calling instead for further study of the contaminants.

    Under legislation (S.B. 163) signed into law by Gov. Jim Justice (R) March 26, the state agency instead will collect more data and propose new standards for chemicals such as fluorine, heptachlor, ethylbenzene, toluene, and certain phthalates used to soften plastics. The agency will propose any standards by April 2020 for review during the 2021 legislative session.

    Environmental groups say lawmakers ignored necessary health protections, while industry representatives argued that the benefits from the resulting controls haven’t been shown and requirements should be based on relevant science.
    2015 EPA Update

    The issue stems from rules proposed by the state Department of Environmental Protection in July 2018 following a regular review and update under the federal Clean Water Act. The review has to consider the most recent criteria from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Based on EPA’s 2015 update, the state agency decided to revise water quality standards for 60 of the contaminants the federal agency had updated based on new health information.

    Although the Legislature approved several other rules proposed by the state Department of Environmental Protection, the lawmakers voted to put off the water quality standard updates pending further review. After industry officials lobbied the legislature, the updates were removed from regulatory authorization in the final version of the bill.
    Limited Adoption

    Rebecca McPhail, president of the West Virginia Manufacturers Association, told Bloomberg Environment that her group “urged lawmakers to allow time for additional study and submission of a full review of the criteria based on West Virginia specific values.”

    Adoption of the federal recommendations, “absent state specific inputs would result in significant investment for compliance by West Virginia companies and municipalities, without demonstrated improvement to drinking water quality,” she said.

    Guillaume Artois, a spokesman for the Dow Chemical Co., told Bloomberg Environment that his company joined other groups in urging lawmakers to take the time “to get the science right.”

    “Many manufacturers and municipalities, including Dow, remain certain that the best outcome for our West Virginia communities comes from basing human health criteria on data that is directly relevant to West Virginia waters,” Artois said.
    Science ‘Ignored’

    But environmentalists don’t see it that way.

    Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, said in a statement that health protections were inappropriately tossed by the Legislature due to industry lobbying, leaving West Virginia with outdated standards for at least another two years.

    “It’s distressing to see lawmakers continue to push aside years of scientific study simply because a few industrial polluters want them to,” she said. S.B. 163 “sends the message that our residents don’t deserve those protections, no matter what the science says.”

    “The majority of legislators seem to have political paralysis when it comes to doing anything good for our water that might draw the slightest industry opposition,” Rosser said.

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/west-virginia-delays-updates-to-water-standards
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. Bayer Loses Second Trial Over Claims Roundup Causes Cancer

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Joel Rosenblatt and Robert Burnson

    Bayer AG lost a second trial over claims its Roundup weed killer causes cancer, increasing pressure on the company to spend billions of dollars to settle thousands of similar lawsuits.

    A jury in San Francisco federal court awarded compensatory damages of $5.3 million and punitive damages of $75 million to a 70-year-old California man who became ill after spraying the herbicide on his property for decades.

    Wednesday’s verdict follows a similar decision by a state court jury last summer, and comes as a third trial over Roundup is under way in Oakland, Calif.

    “You can’t keep trying case after case after case and keep losing and say, ‘We’re not going to settle,” said Thomas G. Rohback, a trial lawyer at Axinn in New York. If Bayer continues to lose at trial, it “has to put the possibility of a settlement of these cases into the mix.”

    The case was brought by Edwin Hardeman, who used the weed killer on his large plot of land in Sonoma County, about 60 miles north of San Francisco. As with the thousands of other consumers suing Bayer, Hardeman argued his years of exposure to the chemical caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/bayer-loses-second-trial-over-claims-roundup-causes-cancer
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. New PFAS Pollution Concern Spurs Ask for Senate Committee Investigation

    Mar 27, 2019 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

    By Mike Belliveau

    In their classic critique of the public relations industry, Toxic Sludge is Good For You!, authors John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton take apart propaganda-for-hire tactics. In one chapter, they detail how a devilish euphemism transformed the dumping of sewage sludge into the beneficial reuse of “biosolids.”

    What the name change could not cover up, however, are the toxic chemicals, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which often end up in our food and water after toxic sludge is spread on farm fields as a fertilizer. (Sludge is the leftovers from wastewater treatment; Some PFAS used in products by consumers and business are washed down the drain and end up creating toxic sludge.)

    Last week, the tragic story of a Maine dairy farmer ruined by PFAS pollution brought home the persistent threat of toxic sludge. Unsafe levels of PFAS were found in cow’s milk, drinking water and hayfields at Stoneridge Farm. Sewage sludge had been spread on the fields for more than twenty years (1983-2004), including paper mill waste for at least one year.

    Fred Stone’s cows produced milk with the highest levels of PFOS ever reported, globally. Consumers were exposed for up to thirty years before the contamination was discovered. Farmer Stone called the experience “a bloody nightmare,” and faces financial ruin because he can no longer sell his milk.

    Unfortunately, farmer Stone is not alone. Toxic sludge spreading has already been linked to PFAS contamination of milk in Alabama and surface water pollution in North Carolina. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, sewage sludge is spread on the land in all fifty states.

    This concern expands the growing national PFAS crisis, which until now has been driven by alarm over drinking water contamination by military bases, chemical plants, and other industrial factories.

    What PFAS contamination lurks undetected beneath farmlands across America?

    That’s one question raised by the Environmental Health Strategy Center in its letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.  This Committee will hold an oversight hearing on the federal response to the risks of PFAS, scheduled for Thursday, March 28th at 10 am Eastern.

    Since the use of PFAS chemicals and sludge spreading have both been common practices for more than forty years, state and federal actions are urgently needed to protect public health and our food and water supplies. A protective action agenda should include:Test the fields. Which farm fields have accepted sewage sludge or industrial waste? Those farmlands and their agricultural products must to tested to find PFAS contamination, halt human exposure, and clean up the toxic mess.Stop the sludge: All sludge spreading should be halted until it’s shown to be free of unsafe levels of PFAS.  In response to the dairy farm PFAS crisis, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection adopted sludge standards to limit three PFAS chemicals. Maine just announced that sludge generators are now required to demonstrate compliance with those limits before sludge can be spread again. That’s a good beginning that EPA and other states should follow, expanding to other PFAS.Phase-out PFAS in products. Pollution prevention remains the best way to avoid contaminating sludge with PFAS in the first place. Since a variety of consumer, commercial and industrial products contain PFAS, they should be replaced with safer alternatives to prevent PFAS from being washed down the drain. This includes so-called “newer” PFAS, such as the four-carbon PFBA, which in one study was found at the highest level in sludge and the six-carbon PFHxA, which was most frequently detected among the eight PFAS measured.

    No farmer should ever have to suffer like Fred Stone and his beloved cows. And no family should drink milk or water contaminated with PFAS. As we work to solve the PFAS crisis, we have to grapple with these ugly truths about toxic sludge management and replace the entire class of PFAS chemicals with truly benign alternatives.

    https://saferchemicals.org/2019/03/27/when-toxic-sludge-hits-the-fan/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. Reagan Appointee Says EPA 'Disemboweling' Program

    Mar 28, 2019 | E&E Daily

    By Corbin Hiar

    A federal investigator who spent a year auditing EPA's chemical testing program yesterday still couldn't explain how or why agency leaders decided against releasing a completed review of the dangers posed by the widely used chemical formaldehyde.

    "There are questions about what happened to it," Alfredo Gómez, director of the Government Accountability Office's natural resources and environment team, told lawmakers at a House Science, Space and Technology subcommittee hearing.

    Also unclear, the GAO witness said, is "when it is going to be released."

    While Republicans and a career EPA official supported leadership's efforts to delay the draft formaldehyde report, a Reagan-era political appointee argued they were destroying the agency's Integrated Risk Information System.

    IRIS has been working on the draft formaldehyde risk assessment since 1997. The chemical, which a Department of Health and Human Services program determined in 2011 is "known to be a human carcinogen," is used in everything from plywood to insecticides.

    IRIS was ready to unveil its long-awaited formaldehyde review last year. But EPA leaders blocked the science-focused program from releasing any of its research, GAO reported earlier this month (E&E News PM, March 4).

    Such assessments are often used by regulatory offices at EPA and other federal and state agencies to limit the use of potentially dangerous chemicals.

    Gómez began auditing IRIS last March. He found EPA leadership verbally ordered program offices to limit their assessment requests to no more than four chemicals after an initial agencywide survey found broad support for most of IRIS's work.

    The end result of that process was a work plan for IRIS that didn't include formaldehyde or 10 other chemicals.

    Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) pressed the top career official overseeing IRIS for more information on how that second review of the program's work plan came about.

    Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, EPA's science adviser, during a hearing yesterday. House Science, Space and Technology Committee

    "I wasn't involved in that conversation," said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, the principal deputy assistant administrator for science in EPA's Office of Research and Development. "I don't know if it was requested by the ORD representatives or the administrator."

    Beyer suggested the move to withhold the formaldehyde assessment was made to appease the former clients and employers of EPA leadership.

    "The suspicious part of me wonders if the prioritization wasn't simply used as a way to eliminate chemicals that are controversial within industry and focus on ones that are easy, low-hanging fruit," he said.

    EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Chemical Safety is currently working on a risk assessment of formaldehyde, the first step toward potential regulations of the chemical — but is doing so without first releasing IRIS's completed draft review (Greenwire, March 20).

    The situation, Beyer said, "raises the prospect that this is not science driving it, but rather the politics and money."

    Although Orme-Zavaleta couldn't offer much clarity on the status of IRIS's formaldehyde assessment, overall she described the politically directed surveys of the program's priorities as a positive step.

    "We have always gone out to programs in helping to identify what their needs are," she said. "But this new process raises it to an assistant administrator level. And that's going to provide greater stability to the program as well as greater accountability."

    Republican lawmakers on the Science Committee also backed EPA leadership's IRIS efforts. GAO found these moves had shrunk the workload of the program from 22 chemicals to 11 and effectively prevented it from publicly releasing any work for six months.

    "A brief pause may have been necessary to adequately address the issues and challenges that IRIS faces and develop a plan of action for future progress," said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who noted the program has been on GAO's High Risk List since 2009 (Greenwire, March 6).

    "You suspend operation and pull the cars off the track for evaluation, which makes for a better ride in the end," Norman said.

    But that analogy didn't match up with what GAO's most recent review found was needed. It mainly called for greater leadership support of IRIS's scientific focus.

    "As we understand it, the IRIS program was able to handle that workload given their current resources," Gómez said, referring to the 22 chemicals it was reviewing in early 2018.

    Bernard Goldstein, who was the assistant administrator for EPA's ORD under President Reagan, was even more dismissive of the efforts by the Trump EPA to reform IRIS.

    "Rather than streamlining, disemboweling is really what's happening here," he said.

    https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/28/stories/1060131809
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. New Jersey Legislature Passes Asbestos in Products Ban

    Mar 28, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    The New Jersey legislature has unanimously approved a bill to ban the sale or distribution of any product that contains asbestos.

    The bill (A 4416) passed the Senate on a 35-0 vote last month. The assembly agreed the final version on 25 March by a 76-0 margin.

    The legislation would authorise the state’s Department of Environmental Protection the right to enter a business to determine compliance with the act. Violations are subject to a penalty of up to $2,500 per offence.

    If signed into law by New Jersey governor Phil Murphy, the prohibition will take effect on the first day of the fourth month following its enactment.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/75445/new-jersey-legislature-passes-asbestos-in-products-ban
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. Proactive Alliance Splits into Groups to Progress Chemical Reporting Goal

    Mar 28, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    By Leigh Stringer

    Cross-sector industry group, Proactive Alliance, has created four sub-groups that will help it establish a global standard for companies to report on substances in articles along the supply chain.

    The group is made up of representatives from a number of sectors, including automotive, chemicals, electrical and electronic, furniture and textiles.

    It formed at Chemical Watch's Global Business Summit in Amsterdam in 2018 to address the growing number of requirements from regulators and companies to communicate substances in articles (SiA).

    Speaking this week at this year's Global Business Summit in Brussels, Stephane Content, Cefic’s product stewardship manager and member of the PA, announced the aims of the four working groups.

    These will:deal with the harmonisation of the criteria for establishing a Substance Reporting List (SRL);harmonise reporting formats on how to declare substance information;draw up the terms of reference or determine the rules of procedure; andreach out and invite organisations around the world to join PA’s work.

    Mr Content said that, without an SRL, it is "not possible to collect efficient substance data, and confidential business information (CBI) is difficult to protect".

    "The more harmonised the sector/company SRLs are, the more efficient data collection can be and less individual work is required," he said.  

    Working Group one has proposed six criteria for the development and maintenance of SRLs. They define the scope of:a substance;the legislation;the jurisdiction;the application;the threshold; andthe format and content of an SRL.Outreach

    Working group four has not yet started its outreach work. "So far we have only discussed this with trade associations within Europe," said Mr Content.

    The group will connect with other initiatives around the world, including standardisation bodies. However, inviting colleagues outside of the original group now would "create great complexity, which is why it is already split into four sub-groups," he said.

    "Having a discussion with 25 people on such a difficult topic is complex but if you include Japanese, Chinese, US and other colleagues we could end up with a hundred people in the group and this is not practical.

    "So when we have something more presentable, hopefully next year, then we can open up to our national and regional colleagues," he said.

    The PA has two face-to-face plenary meetings a year, as well as coordination meetings and lastly the sub-group meetings.

    "We realised that when we started talking about these difficult issues, we needed experts to focus on specific areas. And this is why we have divided the large group into sub-groups," he said. These will feed back to a coordination group, which will in turn communicate the outcomes to the plenary.

    Outcomes from the four groups will be available by the second quarter of the year. The PA says these will feed into a draft policy document.

    It aims to present the draft policy recommendations at Chemical Watch’s Global Business Summit next year. It will then put these recommendations to the fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM) in Bonn in October 2020, where the future of the global voluntary programme, the Strategic Approach to Chemicals Management (Saicm), will be decided.

    Speaking alongside Mr Content, Martin Führ, a professor at Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences, who is coordinating the initiative with his research group Sofia, told the summit: "There is a momentum towards this direction of transparency, traceability and to increase trust among professionals and citizens, as well as to improve communication along the supply chain."

    Referring to earlier discussions about the importance of achieving circular business models, Dr Führ said that without these elements the idea of circularity is not possible.

    In February, the PA published a mission statement, setting out its plan to establish a global standard to report substances in articles.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/75446/proactive-alliance-splits-into-groups-to-progress-chemical-reporting-goal
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

22. Fla. Bill to Ban Some Forms of Fracking Advances

    Mar 28, 2019 | AP (In E&E Energywire)

    By Curt Anderson

    Two forms of fracking for oil and natural gas exploration would be banned in Florida under a bill that cleared state House and Senate committees Tuesday, leaving in place a third technique opponents say would still threaten water supplies and the state's fragile environment.

    The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee voted 10-2 for the bill, which would permit a rock-dissolving technique called matrix acidizing but ban two other common forms of fracking. Later Tuesday, the Senate Innovation, Industry and Technology Committee voted 6-4 for a similar bill.

    Environmental groups call that a loophole, putting underground aquifers at risk of contamination from potentially dangerous chemicals. The petroleum industry also opposes the bill because it would halt use of other fracking techniques.

    But legislators who voted in favor called the measure a major step forward in curbing the practice in Florida.

    "Is it completely perfect? Is it everything we want? No, it's not," said Democratic Rep. Kristin Jacobs of Coconut Creek. "We have to do something. The idea that we're not going to act because it isn't perfect, I reject."

    The Senate version also leaves in place the matrix acidizing fracking procedure.

    "If you don't ban that, you don't ban fracking," said Democratic Sen. Oscar Braynon of Miami Gardens.

    Only New York, Vermont and Maryland have enacted total bans on fracking.

    The oil and gas industry opposes the measure for different reasons. David Mica of the Florida Petroleum Council said fracking is largely responsible for greater U.S. energy independence, cheaper fuel supplies and tens of thousands of jobs across the country.

    "We've made America the super energy power it is today. Actions like this today do not move us in that direction; it moves us in a regressive direction," Mica said.

    There have recently been five small earthquakes along the Florida-Alabama border where some oil and gas production takes place. Experts are unsure of the cause. 

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/28/stories/1060131299
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. Faith-Based Investing Needed for Oil Frackers

    Mar 27, 2019 | Bloomberg (In The Washington Post)

    By Liam Denning

    As the first quarter draws to a close, the oil and gas sector is suffering from a lack of belief:

    While both exploration and production and refining stocks have greeted the apparent windfall from the commodity-market gods with a shrug, the similarities end there.

    Refining stocks haven’t matched the sudden lurch in margins for the very good reason that the lurch owes something to one-off factors juicing gasoline prices in particular. Massive flooding in the Midwest has played havoc with ethanol production and logistics in general. Refinery utilization in the region is running below 90 percent so far this month, the first time that’s happened in March since 2016, when the entire oil market was in the depths of the crash. The recent fire at an oil-storage facility that sent a black plume over Houston provided a further disruptive jolt. 

    Against such short-term factors, the market must weigh the fact that surging light-oil production from U.S. shale is lifting gasoline yields, while domestic demand for the fuel is down slightly so far this year.

    Yet refiners remain in a much better position than their upstream brethren. Compare them on virtually any time scale longer than the past few months, and refining stocks have trounced E&P stocks; on a five-year view, refiners have generated a total return of 71 percent versus a negative 55 percent return for the latter.

    The reason E&P stocks haven’t matched the increase in crude oil prices is that investors are wary of such price strength lasting (we are, for one thing, nearing the zone where President Donald Trump’s tweeting thumbs get twitchy). More importantly, investors are wary of reaping the benefits of higher prices anyway. A decade of excessive spending did wonders for U.S. oil production but provided little in the way of cash payouts. It thereby blunted any option value on oil prices and pushed company valuations ever further out toward a terminal point that is beginning to intersect with projections of peak oil demand. Little wonder activists now demand cost cuts and restraint on drilling.
    

    They also want to see any savings shared immediately; dividends are the opposite of relying on terminal values. On that front, refiners have been pointing the way for E&P stocks for a while now. The latter have just been slow on the uptake.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/faith-based-investing-needed-for-oil-frackers/2019/03/27/dfb9c664-50af-11e9-bdb7-44f948cc0605_story.html?utm_term=.33af759c8ecd
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

24. Ameren Missouri Can’t Keep Sierra Club From Clean Air Act Suit

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Peter Hayes

    Power company Ameren Missouri failed to exclude the Sierra Club from a suit brought by the federal government seeking to reduce emissions at two plants as a remedy for past violations of the Clean Air Act.

    The Sierra Club has standing to intervene in the case because its members who live or recreate near the Rush Island power plant in Jefferson County, Mo. allege they have suffered injuries from the excess emissions, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri said.

    But Sierra Club failed to show that its members would have standing to seek relief at a second plant, Labadie Energy Center, the court said, denying the group summary judgment on that point.

    The court found in January 2017 that Ameren violated the CAA by modifying the Rush Island plant without undergoing an EPA review to determine whether new sulfur dioxide pollution controls would be necessary.

    The modifications extended the life of boilers that were near the end of their lifespan, and increased their sulfur dioxide emissons, the court found.

    The trial court ruled in February 2019 that the injunctive order may also require reductions at the Labadie plant, even though it was non-offending.

    The court also rejected Ameren’s argument that the CAA authorizes injunctive relief for ongoing violations only.

    Judge Rodney W. Sippel issued the ruling.

    Schiff Hardin LLP and Armstrong Teasdale LLP represent Ameren Missouri.

    The case is United States v. Ameren, E.D. Mo., No. 11-CV-77, 3/27/19.

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/ameren-missouri-cant-keep-sierra-club-from-clean-air-act-suit
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

25. US Power Policy Grapples with Renewables Growth, Capacity Gaps

    Mar 27, 2019 | Platts

    By Jared Anderson, Mark Watson, Kate Winston, Rocco Canonica, Jasmin Melvin and Jeff Ryser

    As the US power industry contends with reliability concerns due to low electricity prices, rapid renewables growth and baseload generation retirements, policymakers are scrambling to offer solutions.

    Regulators are also trying to work out how to best incentivize adequate generation capacity additions, and how to ensure compensation of existing power plants and other resources operating in competitive markets.

    The current challenges have already led to a variety of complicated market design proposals and other potential fixes created at both state and federal level.

    Among the major federal issues being watched closely this year are efforts by the White House to keep nuclear and coal-fired power plants afloat, although so far the Trump administration’s efforts have been frustrated. Among the states, meanwhile, Texas has made market design changes to encourage generation capacity development at a time when reserve margins are extremely low.

    PJM Interconnection also has the daunting task of installing reforms to maintain a competitive marketplace in the face of state subsidies designed to prevent the retirement of major baseload nuclear facilities because of low energy prices. And in California, the effort to go 100% renewable has led to a number of reliability questions.

    Appealing to the base(load)

    The White House’s effort to keep struggling coal and nuclear plants solvent is perhaps the highest-profile power industry event in 2019. However, many Washington insiders have grown increasingly skeptical that action at the federal level to keep these baseload coal and nuclear plants online can find a legal foothold.

    In a recent development, the board of the federal government-owned utility Tennessee Valley Authority voted February 14 to close two coal generation units despite pressure from President Donald Trump, who tweeted ahead of the vote that the utility “should give serious consideration to all factors before voting to close viable power plants”.

    TVA responded that while coal was an important part of its generation mix, the Paradise and Bull Run coal plants at issue no longer met its system needs. Retiring the plants is expected to save TVA customers more than $1 billion.  

    This latest snub to the White House’s efforts comes over a year after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejected the administration’s original plan to prop up coal and nuclear generators. That involved a notice of proposed rulemaking from the Department of Energy that sought to guarantee full cost recovery and a return on investment for generators that had 90-day, on-site fuel supplies.

    “I think it’s just going to be very difficult to do anything on the federal level although I think the administration is going to continue to try,” Barry Worthington, executive director of the United States Energy Association, said in an interview. Action from states could be more likely, he said.

    States such as Illinois, New York and New Jersey have turned to zero emissions credits programs to save their nuclear fleet, and Worthington said coal-producing states may look to craft programs to help coal units.

    FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said on the sidelines of an industry conference that if a threat is identified, his preference would be to resolve it with a market solution. “Whatever action we take on resilience will be based firmly on the record, on evidence, on science without any political influence or favoritism for one fuel source or another. We just want to make sure we do it right.”

    ERCOT struggles with tight capacity

    Among the state initiatives being watched are the Electric Reliability Council of Texas’ market reform strategies to encourage development and retention of dispatchable generation resources, in light of the low reserve margins the Texas grid is expected to faceagain this summer.

    A number of recent capacity retirements resulting from renewable power generation growth, cheap and abundant natural gas, and low power prices have put the state grid in a precarious supply situation.

    Over 5 GW of fossil-fuel generation – including 4.2 GW of coal-fired generation – has been retired in ERCOT since May 2017. This summer the market has a projected 7.4% planning reserve margin, the lowest on record and well below the system’s target of 13.75%.

    In February, ERCOT issued a market notice stating that it would implement the first change to its Operating Reserve Demand Curve on March 1. ORDCs are used to calculate scarcity prices when supply and demand tighten, providing incentives for new generation development. ORDCs enable wholesale prices to increase automatically as available operating reserves decrease. The actual price adjustment is based on the level of increasing risk that a rotating outage could occur and the potential consumer impacts associated with an outage.

    In order for the ORDC change to have the desired generation retention and growth effect, investors and developers must have faith that the resulting higher wholesale prices will be sustained, and such faith may be hard to find during a biennial legislative session in which lawmakers may hear complaints from consumers about surging electricity bills.

    ERCOT, market stakeholders and industry observers all seem to disagree about how successful the market reform actions will be – or indeed can be – in encouraging new generation capacity.

    “Market reforms are good but probably not enough to yield new dispatchable capacity within 2-3 years,” said Gurcan Gulen, energy economist and principal of G2 Energy Insights.

    However, Gulen said that if the reforms enable developers to obtain financing, 2 to 3 GW of gas-fired generation may result.

    In contrast, Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Sierra Club’s Lone Star region, said, “We do not think the ORDC adjustment will make a large difference in providing an incentive to more dispatchable generation, though it could provide an incentive for investments in demand response as a reaction to higher prices.”

    In Texas, demand response often takes the form of on-site fossil-fueled generation, either with natural gas or by a liquid fuel such as diesel or gasoline. Such relatively high-cost, inefficient resources could be aggregated and dispatched to serve the grid in high-demand situations.

    “Alliance” of renewables, oil, gas

    In February, the ERCOT Board of Directors learned the Far West weather zone’s peak demand has doubled since 2009 – from about 1.8 GW to about 3.7 GW – largely because of Permian Basin oil-and-gas development.

    ERCOT projects about 20 significant new wind and solar projects in West Texas by 2033, but Neil McAndrews, an energy market consultant based in Austin, Texas, said the region’s natural gas production is a more significant impediment to ERCOT’s thermal generation fleet.

    “The essential problem faced by all US utilities is that natural gas is priced, in large part, as a by-product,” McAndrews said. “The Permian oil field is wasting 55 Bcf per year via flaring, according to industry sources. … The gas that is flared is considered valueless.”

    “Look for many more retirements of coal and nuclear units in the US,” McAndrews added. “Without addressing the fundamental problem of natural gas oversupply, there is little ERCOT or the PUC of Texas can do.”

    PJM markets in flux

    ERCOT has not been alone in attempting to manage challenging capacity trends. PJM Interconnection has been at the forefront of the situation in large part because of low power prices due to cheap natural gas from the Appalachian Basin, as well as several state efforts to subsidize uneconomic baseload facilities in response to those low power prices and the likelihood of plant retirements.

    In its 2018 capacity auction, the PJM base residual auction RTO clearing price came in at $140/MW-day for capacity in the 2021-2022 period, an 83% increase from the previous year’s clearing price of $76.53/MW-day.

    The capacity price increase was attributed to a response to continuing energy prices declines, and thus, net revenue for generators, Stu Bresler, PJM’s senior vice president of operations and markets, said when the results were released. Since generators have been receiving less revenue from the energy market, they have looked to earn higher capacity payments and thus bid into the auction at higher prices.

    PJM has been working to adjust some of its energy market pricing rules, adding uncertainty to the pricing dynamics between the energy and capacity markets.

    In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order in June 2018 that found the PJM Interconnection’s existing tariff governing its capacity market is unjust and unreasonable, which set off a major proceeding to adjust the rules. The order said PJM’s capacity pricing model had become “untenably threatened by out-of-market payments provided or required by certain states”. Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut have passed laws or issued regulations designed to financially support a number of at-risk nuclear plants, while several other states are considering similar actions.

    A decision from FERC is expected in the first half of 2019 to keep the capacity auction on schedule for August. The upcoming auction already has been delayed three months due to the complexity of the process.

    FERC’s order will be one of the most important capacity market developments of 2019.

    PJM’s energy price formation contains two main elements: fast-start pricing and reserve price reform. Fast-start pricing, which would modify pricing treatment for generation resources that can start up quickly, awaits a FERC response. A contentious filing on reserve reform from PJM at FERC can be expected around mid-March, PJM president and CEO Andy Ott said in a recent interview. Reserve pricing reform is expected to include multiple components affecting several major aspects of the wholesale power market in the region.

    Go deeper: Podcast – PJM CEO Andy Ott on energy and capacity markets

    Initial S&P Global Platts Analytics modeling of the impact of both fast-start pricing and reserve reform resulted in an overall price increase of $1-2/MWh. Since the analysis was conducted, updates to the proposed ORDC as well as a larger penalty adder could increase this estimate, according to Platts Analytics power market analyst Kieran Kemmerer.

    Ott said in the interview that he believes reserve price increases will incentivize new alternative technologies to provide more reserves and “compete away the advantage that generators have had and so the price will drop”.

    As the rule changes encourage technologies such as storage and demand response, providing additional reserves to the market, the increased supply of reserves could exert downward energy price pressure.

    The outcome will provide valuable lessons that could influence future state or federal actions.

    ISO New England faces controversy

    Stakeholders in ISO New England’s capacity market also recently raised concerns that low prices, a renewable exemption and a specific contract with the gas-fired Mystic power plant near Boston in a recent capacity auction, all conspired to damage the viability of generation resources in the region.

    ISO-NE’s 13th forward capacity auction held in February closed at a preliminary clearing price of $3.80/kW-month, an 18% decline from last year’s auction price and the lowest clearing price in six years.

    Worries arose that the Mystic power plant’s exemption and contract dampened the impact of ISO-NE’s rules for competitive auctions with sponsored policy resources. In December 2018, FERC accepted a cost-recovery proposal for Mystic, providing ratepayer support for the plant, which was allowed “price-taker” status in the next three annual capacity market auctions.

    The New England Power Generators Association said that with Mystic entered as a price taker, the auction undervalued other fuel-secure resources in the market. “Coupled with the future scale of subsidized new entry, competitively-determined adequate revenues are at grave risk in New England,” NEPGA President Dan Dolan said.

    New York carbon price

    In New York, efforts to price carbon emissions into the wholesale market could lead to price increases. The New York Independent System Operator’s five-year power grid plan sets out strategic initiatives to guide its projects and resource allocation that include pricing carbon emissions into the wholesale market, which could increase power prices by about $10-$15/MWh, according to Platts Analytics.

    “The carbon prices being discussed for implementation in New York are significantly higher than the current [Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative] RGGI prices,” said Manan Ahuja, senior director of North America power modeling at S&P Global Platts Analytics.

    If implemented, the carbon prices could add significantly to the wholesale power prices, increasing location-based marginal prices “by about $10-$15/MWh (in the proposed carbon price vs the RGGI price) based on our recent modeling,” Ahuja said.

    Such changes would also impact decisions about what type of supply resources get built or retired, he added.

    “Analysis conducted by the Brattle Group on the carbon pricing proposal under consideration, found a slight, short-term increase of roughly $1.50 on the average consumer’s monthly bill,” said Kevin Lanahan, vice president of external affairs at NYISO. “However, the same analysis found that costs drop quickly in the out-years, and produce savings as markets respond,” he added.

    The initiative could go into effect in the second quarter of 2021, NYISO has said.

    California worships renewables

    Many states have ambitious clean energy goals and vague perceptions of the challenges they carry, but none are as far along or as deep into the difficulties as California. The state is forging ahead toward a goal of 100% clean energy by 2045, but to get there it will need new rules and at least some gas-fired power to ensure resource adequacy.

    Meeting the target with only renewables and the current storage technology is likely to be too expensive, stakeholders say.

    Not every megawatt needs to be clean and green under the state law that set the mandate, and there are certain resources needed for reliability that have a carbon footprint, said Karl Meeusen, senior advisor for infrastructure and regulatory policy at California Independent System Operator.

    But while some thermal generation is needed in the short term, the possibilities are endless for the resource mix in the future, Meeusen said. And both Cal-ISO and the CPUC are working on rule changes to help transition to a low-carbon grid.

    Getting to 100% clean energy with only wind, solar and short-duration storage is cost-prohibitive because it requires a massive overbuild of the renewable and storage portfolio to ensure reliability, according to Arne Olson, senior partner with consultancy Energy and Environmental Economics.

    But getting to 80-90% clean energy can be done without sacrificing reliability, Olson said. “Natural gas capacity will continue to be needed indefinitely barring a breakthrough in nuclear, carbon capture and sequestration, or very long-duration storage,” he said.

    While solar and storage will play a major role in California, there is also room for other resources, said Morris Greenberg of S&P Global Platts Analytics. Remote wind in Wyoming and New Mexico could be an important source of clean energy as inland coal retirements free up transmission, Morris said. The state can also rely on in-state hydro, some Pacific Northwest hydro, and California utilities’ share of the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona, he explained.

    The CPUC could improve the way the resource adequacy program accounts for the value of projects that combine renewables and storage, said Mark Specht, an energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. These projects create a value that is greater than the sum of their parts, he said.

    Conversely, the CPUC might also need to weigh whether to require longer durations for storage projects to qualify as resource adequacy capacity, Specht said. Current CPUC rules allow four-hour storage to qualify. In many ways, California will be the power sector’s guinea pig for the relationship between clean energy and reliability. Big questions remain in many ISOs about the appropriate generation fuel mix and capacity levels to meet reliability standards, and the answers may hinge on technological advances in storage. However, one of the biggest challenges is establishing the right market design that leads to appropriate price signals to meet those reliability goals.

    https://blogs.platts.com/2019/03/27/us-power-policy-renewables-growth/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

26. Top Oil Firms Have Spent $1B on Branding, Lobbying Since Paris Agreement: Study

    Mar 27, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Aris Folley

    The five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies in the world have invested over $1 billion in shareholder funds in the three years following the Paris climate agreement on “misleading climate-related branding and lobbying," according to a new report from InfluenceMap.

    The research, released last Friday, found that the five companies — ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP and Total — spend $200 million dollars every year on lobbying seeking to control, delay or block policies that combat climate change.ADVERTISEMENT

    “These efforts are overwhelmingly in conflict with the goals of this landmark global climate accord, and designed to maintain the social and legal license to operate and expand fossil fuel operations,” the report states.

    The report found that Chevron, BP and ExxonMobil led the other companies in lobbying efforts pushing back against legislation intended to tackle global warming.

    The report also found that the companies were increasingly using social media to push their agenda to oppose such polices. Top oil companies and their industry bodies also were found to have spent $2 million on ads ran on Facebook and Instagram that promoted the benefits of increased fossil fuel production, according the report. 

    Because company disclosures on spending on climate lobbying are limited, the UK-based nonprofit said it created the report using a methodology that focused on the best available records and intensive research of corporate messaging “to evaluate oil major spending aimed at influencing the climate agenda, both directly and through their key trade groups.” 

    The nonprofit’s research also found that companies spent an annual $195 million on investing in branding campaigns “aimed at convincing stakeholders they are on board with ambitious action on climate.”

    The report pointed to ExxonMobil’s current promotion of its algae-biofuels research and the jointly funded Oil and Gas Climate Initiative as an example. The nonprofit said the messaging of the company’s promotion “de-emphasizes climate regulation while stressing voluntary action and low carbon investments.”

    “In fact, company disclosures show such investments will make around 3% of the oil projected capital investments by the oil majors,” the report states. “Exxon’s goal of reaching 10,000 barrels of biofuel a day by 2025 would still only equate to 0.2% of its current refinery capacity, essentially a rounding error.”

    Shell rejected the report’s findings in a statement to The Guardian: “We firmly reject the premise of this report. We are very clear about our support for the Paris agreement, and the steps that we are taking to help meet society’s needs for more and cleaner energy.

    “We make no apology for talking to policymakers and regulators around the world to make our voice heard on crucial topics such as climate change and how to address it,” the company added.

    Chevron also came out against the report, telling the news agency that it “is taking prudent, cost-effective actions and is committed to working with policymakers to design balanced and transparent greenhouse gas emissions reductions policies that address environmental goals and ensure consumers have access to affordable, reliable and ever cleaner energy.”

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/436117-top-oil-firms-spend-millions-on-lobbying-to-block-climate-change
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

27. Google, GM Launch Group Focused on Expanding Renewable Energy Purchasing

    Mar 28, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Miranda Green

    Google, General Motors and other big name companies announced a new venture on Thursday that aims to make it easier for businesses to get their hands on clean energy.

    Driven by consumer calls for renewable energy use as the price of wind and solar continues to drop, businesses are increasingly looking for ways to go green. A new trade association assembled by industry giants including Facebook, Johnson & Johnson, Walmart and Disney, hopes to make that goal easy to achieve.

    The group, called the Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance (REBA), aims to work toward a zero-carbon future, where every organization has the ability to offset as much of their energy use as it desires from renewable sources.

    With over 200 members, REBA is comprised of the largest group of clean energy buyers in the United States. By helping other businesses become better positioned to purchase renewable energy, board members say they hope to help unlock the marketplace and, eventually, transition to a completely zero-carbon energy future.

    “At a very fundamental level our theory of change is that we can leverage the markets and buyers have a unique role in the markets to drive the renewable energy future,” said Miranda Ballentine, REBA CEO.

    The idea for the trade association started five years ago, when a dozen company heads in a meeting began discussing obstacles to obtaining often limited renewable energy options in the marketplace.

    “How do we really scale up renewables across a diverse sector? How do we think about scaling this up beyond just a few companies that have done on site procurement?,” Rob Threlkeld, global manager for renewable energy at General Motors, said of the meeting.

    “It really morphed out of planting a seed in terms of, 'How to do we think about this in a much more diverse manner? How is technology really adapting to all of that?’”

    It turned out, multiple companies had the same issues finding renewable energy sources to meet their goals.

    “We have a commitment to match 100 percent of our energy purchases with renewable energy. We’re the world’s largest non-utility buyer of renewable energy,” said Michael Terrell, head of energy market development at Google.

    “But it was incredibly challenging to do that and we faced lots of challenges trying to buy energy for our business and found others do too. The goal was to come together in a collaborative effort and really look for ways to break down barriers and make access for renewable energy ubiquitous for everybody.”

    Threlkeld said company heads also realized they could play a role in driving the market toward creating more clean energy sources.

    “The timing is really now to scale it to the next level,” Threlkeld said. “The utility sector and transportation sector are changing more in the next few years than you saw in the past 100 years. I think a lot of companies are aligning to similar thoughts. Cost and technology are coming to the point where it’s the right thing to do on the business perspective and sustainably as well.”

    REBA aims to obtain 60 GigaWatts of renewable energy by 2025 for its buyers. The association is also looking to scale up, with more corporate energy buyers looking to use renewable energy.

    The ideas of the trade association are largely driven by science linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change. The businesses within the company have acknowledged that industry is one of the biggest polluters.

    A report released earlier this week from Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan think tank, found that solar and wind power are on track to overtake coal as cost-effective energy sources. According to the analysis, economics alone played the biggest role in driving U.S. consumer energy use towards renewable sources, driving down the cost of wind and solar.

    As it stands, local wind and solar could replace nearly 74 percent of the U.S. coal fleet today and still save customers money, the report found.

    The findings are in line with what REBA founders say they’ve encountered themselves when opting to buy renewable energy for their companies.

    As renewable energy becomes more affordable, REBA founders say they think more businesses will continue to opt to choose clean energy over fossil fuels.

    “In many markets you can’t just call up your energy provider and say, “Give me the clean energy solution.’ It’s not how the system works. So we really have to find ways to change that,” said Terrell.

    “Cost is not really the issue anymore. It’s really access.”

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/436183-google-gm-launch-group-focused-on-expanding-renewable-energy
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

28. Energy-Water Nexus Bill Sails Through Panel

    Mar 27, 2019 | E&E News PM

    By Ariel Wittenberg

    A bill requiring the Department of Energy to include water conservation and use in its research and demonstration programs sailed through a subcommittee today.

    The "Energy and Water Research Integration Act," H.R. 34, passed the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Energy by voice vote.

    The bill is sponsored by full committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) and ranking member Frank Lucas (R-Okla.).

    Johnson described the bill as helping find "drier watts and cheaper drops" by working to make sure that energy projects conserve water and water projects similarly conserve energy.

    Lucas criticized Democrats for not asking the Department of Energy for technical comments on the legislation before holding the markup. He said his office had reached out to the department and hoped the full committee would not approve the bill until members have a chance to "digest" any DOE comments.

    Separately, subcommittee ranking member Randy Weber (R-Texas) offered and then withdrew an amendment criticizing the Green New Deal. He said moving to 100 percent clean energy would be devastating to the workforce and infrastructure. He pushed instead for more research.

    https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/27/stories/1060131241
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

29. Court Faults Another Federal Climate Review

    Mar 28, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Ellen M. Gilmer

    Government officials failed to fully consider the climate impacts of oil and gas development in Colorado, a federal court ruled yesterday.

    The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found that the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management should have considered the greenhouse gas emissions linked to the fossil fuel development that the agency approved.

    "Defendants must quantify and reanalyze the foreseeable indirect effects the emissions," Senior Judge Lewis Babcock wrote.

    The ruling comes one week after another federal court faulted Interior for inadequate climate analysis for oil and gas leases in Wyoming (Energywire, March 20).

    It joins a stack of recent cases ordering additional analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions that occur when fossil fuels are ultimately burned for energy. Babcock himself has authored such an opinion before, ruling last year that BLM didn't properly analyze emissions for another development area.

    The decisions — many involving Obama-era environmental reviews — are an obstacle to President Trump's "energy dominance" goals and efforts to streamline permitting and development.

    "This ruling is welcome news," Western Environmental Law Center attorney Laura King said in a statement. "It joins a string of favorable rulings on downstream climate effects, helping to ensure that the federal government shares with the public and considers the true climate effects of its fossil fuel extraction approvals."

    The latest case involves oil and gas development across a few thousand acres in western Colorado's prized North Fork Valley (Energywire, Nov. 22, 2017).

    BLM completed a detailed environmental review under President Obama in 2016, and the Trump administration approved the related master development plan the following year.

    The litigation centers on those approvals, plus a nearby 25-well natural gas project. Environmental groups lodged an array of complaints against BLM and the Forest Service.

    Citizens for a Healthy Community and other groups argued that the government failed to fully consider development alternatives; ignored certain impacts from greenhouse gas emissions; failed to analyze impacts of hydraulic fracturing; and ignored development's cumulative impacts on air, water and wildlife.

    Babcock, a Reagan appointee, agreed with the environmentalists on the question of indirectclimate impacts, ruling that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it failed to weigh the greenhouse gas emissions from the future combustion of fossil fuels from the project despite having estimates of how much would be extracted.

    "Simply put," he wrote, "an agency cannot rely on production estimates while simultaneously claiming it would be too speculative to rely upon the predicted emissions from those same production estimates."

    But he rejected other climate arguments, upholding BLM's analysis of cumulative climate impacts — that is, the agency's consideration of project emissions combined with regional and national totals — and upholding the government's refusal to use the "social cost of carbon" metric to put a dollar figure on impacts.

    The rest of the ruling was a mixed bag for the litigants. He rejected the complaints about the government's analysis of fracking and broader impacts to air and water. He agreed with the environmentalists, however, that the government did not fully explain its study of impacts to mule deer and elk.

    Babcock asked the parties to discuss options for how he should resolve the case in light of the NEPA deficiencies. Courts have scrapped underlying permits and resource plans in some similar cases but left them intact in others while allowing the government to improve its analysis.

    BakerHostetler attorney Mark Barron, who represents SG Interests, the owner of the acreage at issue in the master development plan, highlighted the ruling's rejection of the argument that BLM's cumulative impact analysis was faulty.

    "It is also notable that the Judge rejected the plaintiffs' attempts to characterize oil and gas development generally, and hydraulic fracturing specifically, as a threat to air and water resources," he said in an email.

    "Judge Babcock's ruling reflects the reality that, when planned and managed properly, development is not inconsistent with preserving public health and environmental values," he added.

    BLM does not comment on active litigation.

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/28/stories/1060131595
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

30. Saudi Arabia’s $69 Billion Plastics Bet Weakens Its Oil Hedge

    Mar 28, 2019 | Bloomberg (In The Washington Post)

    By David Fickling

    It’s not every day that the world’s biggest oil company buys the most profitable chemicals business.

    Saudi Arabian Oil Co., better known as Saudi Aramco, will pay 123.4 riyals a share for the 70 percent stake of Saudi Basic Industries Corp. held by the Public Investment Fund, the country’s sovereign wealth fund, the suitor said in a statement Wednesday.

    On the face of it, that looks about as run-of-the-mill as 259 billion riyal ($69.1 billion) transactions can possibly get. The price is pretty much in line with the level at which Sabic stock has been trading over the past year. All three main players are essentially arms of the Saudi state, so in a sense the takeover is no more than a reshuffling of assets in the government treasury.

    At the same time, it gives a clue to where Riyadh sees the oil market going – and the answer isn’t especially appealing either to Aramco or Sabic.

    One leg of the transaction is that Saudi Inc. is going short oil and long private equity. It’s not clear yet how the transaction will be financed, but any deal will involve using Aramco’s income and balance sheet to fund a gigantic cash payment to the PIF, which can in turn be spent on whatever projects Masayoshi Son and Stephen Schwarzman feel are crying out for capital.

    As my colleague Liam Denning has written, that as much as anything should make you worried about the future of oil. If the best use of Aramco’s capital is to invest in WeWork Cos. rather than, say, producing more crude, which currently earns margins north of 80 percent, the future for oil demand looks very dark indeed.
    

    The reason for optimism on that front is embodied in Sabic itself. Many of oil’s traditional uses are already in decline: Consumption of fuel oil for heating and energy output peaked a generation ago. Even under current policies the world will use less gasoline in 2040 than in 2017, according to the International Energy Agency. (Something closer to complying with the Paris Agreement on climate change would cut gasoline consumption in half and reduce diesel demand by a third).

    Chemicals, though, are a bright spot. Naphtha – the volatile mix of short hydrocarbons used as feedstock for plastics manufacturing and other petrochemicals – is the only major component of the crude barrel where the IEA expects to see consumption increase, regardless of action on climate change. Other companies, such as the world’s biggest packaging business, Amcor Ltd., have been betting that consumer demand for plastics will prove resilient, despite concerns over climate costs. 

    That may well prove correct. Still, analysts of late have started to question whether the forecasts of demand growth for plastics are overblown. More parsimonious usage, reduced use of disposable bags and increased recycling could cut oil demand from petrochemicals by 20 percent, according to Christof Ruhl, the former head of research for the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.

    About 400 million metric tons of new plastic are produced every year and 300 million tons of waste generated, with only 55 million tons of that total being recycled, according to a BloombergNEF report in January. Lifting the recycling rate for polymers to 60 percent from its current 18 percent would reduce oil demand by about 1.5 million barrels a day, based on the report’s numbers – enough to take a substantial bite out of that projected demand growth.

    Worries about the sheer volume of single-use plastic waste help explain why the buzzword in the industry these days is the “circular economy” – the idea that polymers should be re-used and recycled rather than landfilled and incinerated.
    

    As an independent company, Sabic has been committed to the same recycling agenda as rivals such as BASF SE, LyondellBasel Industries NV, and DowDuPont Inc. That made a lot of sense on purely commercial terms: Getting more of your feedstock from waste dumps rather than oil wells can look like a common-sense way of tapping alternative sources of cheap raw materials.

    The argument doesn’t hold up quite as well now. Making more use of recycled plastics risks antagonizing Sabic’s controlling shareholder, which hopes to sell it as many as 3 million barrels a day for turning into petrochemicals. 

    Sabic looked like a smart way for Saudi Arabia to offset the risk of a future that’s less dependent on crude demand. In hitching the business to Aramco, the government has weakened that hedge. 

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/saudi-arabias-69-billion-plastics-bet-weakens-its-oil-hedge/2019/03/28/04599bec-5129-11e9-bdb7-44f948cc0605_story.html?utm_term=.16a363bd1d98
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

31. New Jersey Lawsuits Seek Damages at Polluted DuPont Sites (1)

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By John Herzfeld

    New Jersey is suing DuPont, its spinoff Chemours Co., and the 3M Co. in a bid to recover damages for pollution at four factory sites across the state.

    The litigation is part of increased environmental enforcement efforts since Gov. Phil Murphy (D) took office in 2018.

    It comes on the heels of a March 25 New Jersey warning to five manufacturers that they could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars for pollution from fluorinated chemicals.

    The latest round of pollution lawsuits follows a series of similar actions in August and December by Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal. Those cases were the first New Jersey lawsuits in a decade to seek monetary damages for harm to natural resources. The state added a natural resources action against Exxon Mobil Corp. on March 7.

    It would be premature to publicly discuss dollar amounts the state is seeking from the companies, Grewal said at a news conference.

    “They’ve had four decades to get this right, and they have not done everything they can,” he said, adding that the lawsuits aim to “hold them accountable and force their hands to move faster.”

    The state-court lawsuits seek money to cover ongoing cleanup costs at two large hazardous waste sites of the former DuPont Chambers Works and Pompton Lakes plants. They also cover two smaller DuPont facilities, known as the Parlin and Repauno sites.
    3M Chemicals Allegedly Used

    Two of the new lawsuits name 3M as a defendant—in addition to E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. and Chemours—for its role in manufacturing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). The chemicals were used at the Chambers Works site, located in Pennsville and Carneys Point Township, and the Parlin site in Sayreville Borough.

    PFAS are common industrial chemicals manufactured in the U.S. since the 1940s and used in nonstick coatings, stain-resistant fabrics, fast-food wrappers, firefighting foam, and other products. Some have been classified as likely human carcinogens, and at sufficient levels of exposure have been linked to kidney, liver, and testicular harm, among other medical problems.

    The other two lawsuits focus on pollution of groundwater, surface water, and other natural resources by volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, mercury, lead, and other contaminants from the Repauno site, in Greenwich Township, and the Pompton Lakes site.

    The state, in a separate action, also pressed DuPont and Chemours to pay for additional costs of assessing natural resources damages linked to pollution at the Pompton Lakes site. The action is meant to add to assessment work by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by expanding the scope to pollution and geographic areas not covered by the federal effort.

    The new cases add to a litigation landscape that includes a $1.1 billion lawsuit over pollution from the Chambers Works site filed in 2016 by Carney’s Point Township.
    Chemours ‘Surprised, Disappointed’

    Chemours, in a statement, said it’s “surprised and disappointed” by the announcement and will “vigorously” defend itself in the lawsuits.

    “Since our creation, Chemours has consistently stepped up to its responsibility and worked cooperatively with state and federal officials regarding any environmental issues at our manufacturing and remediation sites in New Jersey,” the company said.

    “The actions announced today appear to be coming out of left field.”

    DuPont settled natural resources matters on groundwater with the state in 2005, Chemours said.

    A Pompton Lakes clean-up plan made final with the EPA in 2015 called for an estimated $43 million in spending by Chemours.

    DuPont, now the DowDuPont Specialty Products Division, said in a statement that it “has worked under the direct oversight” of the state Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for more than 20 years on remediating soil, sediment, and groundwater at the locations.

    “Fulfilling our remediation responsibilities has been and will continue to be a priority for DuPont,” the statement said.

    3M, in a statement, said that it “acted responsibly in connection with PFAS and will vigorously defend its record of environmental stewardship.”

    The Parlin case is New Jersey Dep’t of Env. Protection v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., N.J. Super. Ct., No. MID-L-002448-19, complaint 3/27/19.

    The Repauno case is New Jersey Dep’t of Env. Protection v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., N.J. Super. Ct., No. GLO-L-000388-19, complaint 3/27/19.

    The Pompton Lakes case is New Jersey Dep’t of Env. Protection v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., N.J. Super. Ct., No. PAS-L-000936-19, complaint 3/26/19.

    The Chambers Works case is New Jersey Dep’t of Env. Protection v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., N.J. Super. Ct., No. SLM-L-000057-19, complaint 3/27/19.

    (Adds 3M statement in last paragraph before citations.)

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/new-jersey-lawsuits-seek-damages-at-polluted-dupont-sites-1
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

32. Hackers Force Water Utilities to Sink or Swim

    Mar 28, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak

    Last month, hackers tied computers into knots at a small Colorado water utility.

    It wasn't the first time the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and its wastewater counterpart had been hit by "ransomware," a type of malware that encrypts victims' computer files and demands online payment to unlock them.

    While operations weren't harmed, the infection prompted the water district to switch out its information technology service provider and call in the FBI. The case, first reported by the Coloradoan, remains under active investigation. FCLWD and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District treat and distribute water to 45,000 customers in northern Colorado.

    Colorado water officials aren't alone in their cybersecurity woes. The nation's nearly 70,000 water and wastewater utilities are struggling to keep their heads above a rising tide of online threats, based on interviews with security experts and water company operators.

    As one IT manager at a midsize water utility put it, "It's not a question of if, it's a question of when" hackers disrupt vital U.S. water systems. "Most small and midsize utilities are overstressed," said the manager, who requested anonymity.

    Some larger utilities are well-positioned to thwart an attack by hackers backed by foreign governments, said Michael Arceneaux, managing director for the Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center, the industry's clearinghouse for getting the word out about the latest hacking threats and vulnerabilities.

    But in a sector that encompasses tens of thousands of local water systems, securing America's vast and disparate drinking water supply remains a significant challenge.

    "Drinking water utilities run the gamut in terms of cybersecurity preparedness," Arceneaux said. "What we try to do to compensate for that is make sure people are aware of the threats, so they have some motivation to invest the resources that should be invested."

    He said the ISAC and its membership recently reached the level of maturity needed to start partnering with other sharing and analysis centers, including the multistate ISAC and the electric power sector's E-ISAC.

    Water utilities and power distributors share similar industrial control systems, rely on many of the same equipment providers and can encounter similar cyberthreats.

    While the water system is inherently not as interconnected as the U.S. electricity system, "it's very plausible that the water sector is less prepared than the power sector for dealing with cybersecurity threats," Arceneaux said. "We are so fractured, so the water sector as a whole is at a little bit of a disadvantage."What keeps you up at night?

    The decentralized nature of the U.S. water industry has left policymakers with a dilemma. Cybersecurity for water treatment and supply networks is only loosely monitored at the federal level and is often ignored by state utility commissions that may have limited cybersecurity expertise and tend to focus on water quality.

    "Water cybersecurity is not on everyone's — or certainly not every commissioner's — radar screen, although I've tried to make it that way," said Mary-Anna Holden, a commissioner on the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.

    In many emergency planning exercises, it isn't the lack of electricity that triggers chaos and widespread casualties. It's the lack of clean water that forces people from their homes.

    "Nobody thinks about wastewater systems until they break," said Holden, who chairs the Committee on Water at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

    You could cause cholera or dysentery downstream, which could be a major city. How do you counteract that?-- Mary-Anna Holden, commissioner of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities

    New Jersey is one of the few states to have taken any regulatory action on the issue of water security. It's required utilities to report cyber events to state environmental officials and directed regulated utilities to include cybersecurity in risk management plans.

    "If someone's hacked into the operational network and can control chlorination, do something to the [wastewater] digesters or can get control of the wastewater plant, that's the thing that keeps me up at night," Holden said. "You could cause cholera or dysentery downstream, which could be a major city. How do you counteract that?"

    In New York, staff members from the Department of Public Service conduct "frequent and regular audits of company defenses" against emerging cyberthreats, according to a spokesman. The agency conducts annual reviews of water companies' cybersecurity plans and is weighing data security requirements for certain firms that receive sensitive personal and billing information from water, electric and gas utilities.'Scotch tape and bubble gum'

    In the summer of 2013, a small New York dam saw its control systems hit by a suspected Iranian hacker. The Justice Department accused Hamid Firoozi of gaining access to the dam's supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, costing city managers in Rye, N.Y., roughly $30,000 to remediate the threat.

    While a few flooded basements might have been the worst-case scenario from the dam breach in New York, the case still drew scrutiny to SCADA system security and the water sector writ large.

    In 2016, the same year DOJ unveiled its charges against Firoozi, the security branch of telecom giant Verizon Communications Inc. reported responding to another bona fide hack of a water utility's control systems.

    In the report detailing Verizon's data breach investigations, its analysts used a pseudonym called "Kemuri Water Co." to stand in for multiple data breaches at water utilities of varying severity.

    Verizon reported that the hackers modified settings without knowing exactly what they were doing to the control system. The unnamed water company was able to quickly identify and block what they were doing.

    Other industrial cybersecurity experts said that the baseline scenario outlined by Verizon was plausible: a hacker gaining a foothold in a water utility's business networks; crossing over a firewall or "DMZ" to land in the industrial control network; and from there fiddling with valves, flows and physical processes.

    Dave Weinstein, vice president of threat research at Claroty Inc., said water and wastewater are among his top concerns. "It gets the least attention, and they're probably the least mature sector from a cybersecurity standpoint," he said.

    Many tiny water utilities simply don't have the bandwidth to square off against hacking teams that may be backed by foreign militaries, he explained.

    Small mom-and-pop operators, I've visited a number of those sites. A lot of them are being held together by Scotch tape and bubble gum.-- Dave Weinstein, vice president of threat research for Claroty Inc.

    "Small mom-and-pop operators, I've visited a number of those sites. A lot of them are being held together by Scotch tape and bubble gum," Weinstein said. "It's pretty precarious."

    The number of exploitable cybersecurity weaknesses found in water-sector equipment also appears to be growing, based on statistics from the U.S. Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) and analyses by Kaspersky Lab's ICS-CERT.

    Sixty-three cyber vulnerabilities were uncovered in the "water supply" sector in 2018, according to federal data, accounting for 15 percent of all industrial security problems. Only the energy and manufacturing sectors had more vulnerabilities in 2018.Risk and resilience

    Federal lawmakers have started to take note.

    Last fall, Congress passed the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and signed into law by President Trump on Oct. 23.

    Any water utility serving 3,300 or more people is now expected to carry out a "risk and resilience" assessment of its networks, including a review of cyber defenses. The nation's biggest water providers have until next March to comply, while smaller companies can wait to act until June 2021.

    EPA is now the go-to agency for water cybersecurity. It's tasked with issuing guidance to utilities on implementation of the new law and following up on compliance. "EPA is very aware that cyberattacks are a significant threat to critical infrastructure sectors, including water and wastewater systems," an EPA spokesperson said in an email. "EPA works through a voluntary partnership approach to help water utilities enhance the cybersecurity of their water systems."

    The voluntary approach signed off by Congress means utilities are not required to hand over data to the federal government that could help it assess how vulnerable the nation's water systems are. That contrasts to electric utilities, which are required to report major cybersecurity incidents and gaps through both the Department of Energy and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    Robert Powelson, a former FERC commissioner who's now CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, said the federal push to ramp up cybersecurity guidance and regulation includes water. "Looking at the posture with DHS and the Department of Energy's new cyber office, everyone's like, 'We've got to bring water into this conversation.' I think it's healthy; I think it's a great opportunity."

    Industry groups like the National Rural Water Association and American Water Works Association have released some of their own assessment tools and cybersecurity resources, warning members to ignore cybersecurity at their peril.'Perfect target'

    News of a few water-sector cyber intrusions has trickled out publicly, including an attack on a North Carolina water utility in the aftermath of Hurricane Florence last year.

    Jeffrey Hudson, CEO of the Onslow Water and Sewer Authority in southeastern North Carolina, announced on Oct. 15, 2018, that "a sophisticated ransomware attack" had effectively wiped out many of the small utility's computers. He emphasized that the safety of the water supply and the environment was never jeopardized.

    "ONWASA will undertake the painstaking process of rebuilding its databases and computer systems from the ground up," Hudson said, rather than pay off the digital hostage-takers.

    Cybersecurity experts project that targeted ransomware attacks are set to rise. In a recent threat outlook, analysts at Booz Allen Hamilton predicted "a plausible uptick in state-sponsored attacks and intrusions at water utilities," citing a March 2018 alert from DHS that claimed Russian hackers had already targeted U.S. water networks.

    Booz Allen described the water sector as a "perfect target" for hackers.

    So far, the U.S. water utilities hit hardest by hackers have been "collateral damage," explained Booz Allen chief technologist Kyle Miller, falling prey to common threats like ransomware.

    "Most water utilities have less robust, less mature network security than a lot of the other [infrastructure] verticals," Miller said. "A lot of that comes down to size and funding. It's hard to compare a county water system to a Fortune 100 oil and gas company."

    Miller said he's most concerned about targeted threats, as water companies follow global trends in industrial automation and digital connectivity.

    Even if supply interruptions or chemical releases don't become a full-blown crisis, a hack that causes people to lose faith in the quality of their water is "certainly within the realm of possibility" for nation-state hackers, he said.

    The stakes are high. "Nearly every facet of life relies on clean and reliable water to function," he said.

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/28/stories/1060131769
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

33. FERC to Weigh Pipeline Rules, Cyber Incentives

    Mar 28, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak

    Officials at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are exploring whether the pipeline and electric power sectors have enough cash on hand to handle new cyberthreats to their systems.

    A technical conference at FERC headquarters tomorrow morning will examine how those industries recoup costs when protecting their systems and "whether additional incentives for making such investments are needed," according to a memo.

    The daylong event will feature testimony from senior grid leaders and security officials, including Bob Kolasky, who directs the Department of Homeland Security's National Risk Management Center; James Robb, president and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corp.; and Chris Crane, president and CEO of utility giant Exelon Corp..

    FERC and NERC draft and enforce binding cybersecurity standards for the bulk electric power industry, though those baseline requirements do not apply to the large natural gas pipelines that also fall under FERC's jurisdiction.

    FERC commissioners and staff are set to probe the need for security investments beyond the points covered by binding reliability standards, "including in infrastructure not subject to those standards (e.g., natural gas pipelines)," the planning memo states.

    "The NERC [critical infrastructure protection] standards, while they're a very good baseline, some of these threats are not susceptible to standards-setting," said former FERC Commissioner Suedeen Kelly, who is now a partner at the Jenner & Block law firm and an adviser to grid security advocacy group Protect Our Power. "There needs to be a more dynamic, industrywide approach."

    Kelly pointed out that the second part of the conference will key in on a "huge challenge" for the industry — how to lay out best practices and equip utilities of all sizes to meet them.

    "Under the current [regulatory] structure, costs for cybersecurity don't get recovered as a separate category," she said. For smaller, distribution-level utilities outside FERC's jurisdiction, cybersecurity expenses are requested and approved "on a state-by-state basis."

    FERC regulators may follow up on a touchy issue for the energy industry: whether to extend NERC CIP physical and cybersecurity standards to gas pipelines as large power generators increasingly rely on natural gas as a fuel source to keep the lights on.

    "I would expect that to come up," said Paul Feldman, former chairman of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator. "There is the obvious argument for standards with pipelines in that they don't have standards today, so maybe they're not doing anything."

    Sonya Proctor, who oversees pipeline security issues at the Transportation Security Administration, is scheduled to speak tomorrow. FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee (R) has advocated a wait-and-see approach to regulating gas pipeline security more closely, hinting that the technical conference would provide a venue to hear more about current TSA efforts (Energywire, Feb. 22).

    "You have to ask yourself, have those [CIP] standards been successful on the electric side? And I think the answer is yes," said Feldman, who also advises Protect Our Power. "The question is: Is that the right way to do it, and was that done efficiently — and are we getting the bang for the buck relative to the process? And there are arguments against that."

    Tomorrow's technical conference kicks off at 10 a.m. at FERC headquarters in Washington and will be livestreamed by the independent agency.

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/28/stories/1060131675
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

34. Texas Sues Fuel Tank Company Over Houston Chemical Fire, Aftermath

    Mar 28, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

    By Collin Eaton and Erwin Seba

    Texas officials on Tuesday sued owners of a Houston area petrochemical storage facility over a fire last week, alleging violations of environmental laws and seeking damages to cover response costs for the disaster that burned for days, releasing chemicals into the air and waterways.

    The county and state jointly filed suit in a county court against Mitsui & Co's Intercontinental Terminals Co (ITC). The suit seeks reimbursement for emergency responders, temporary air and water monitoring systems, and health care workers. An auditor will determine costs, officials said.

    "We have been working with state and federal partners to hold ITC responsible for the damages," Harris County Chief Executive Lina Hidalgo said on Tuesday at a hearing where local residents pushed for a response to the disaster that sent tons of carbon monoxide into the air and chemicals into waterways. Schools were closed and visits to area hospitals and clinics spiked.

    Federal and state officials were already investigating the company as emergency workers pumped fuels from 11 damaged or destroyed tanks that spilled fuels out of the site. The fire began March 17 and spread among rows of giant tanks that can hold up to 80,000 barrels of fuel.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    An ITC executive declined to comment on the lawsuit, and defended the company's handling of the disaster.

    "ITC and our ERT (emergency response team) responded immediately and we called both CIMA (an industry mutual aid group) and surrounding municipalities for additional firefighting resources," said ITC Senior Vice President Brent Weber. "Right now, we're just focused on the recovery effort."

    SHIP TRAFFIC DISRUPTED

    The spill of fuels, water and fire suppressant foam from the site halted traffic on a stretch of the Houston Ship Channel connecting Houston to the Gulf of Mexico. Restrictions on travel near the ITC site forced at least two refineries to curb production this week. The disruptions sent U.S. fuel prices higher and cut crude exports.

    A tanker containing oil was inbound Wednesday to Royal Dutch Shell Plc's Deer Park refinery adjacent to the ITC terminal, according to the Houston Pilots, whose members guide ships in and out of the channel. Shell faced a potential shutdown if it did not get crude by the weekend, people familiar with operations said.

    Three tankers also were moving to other plants along the channel, said JJ Plunkett, port agent. The U.S. Coast Guard on Wednesday lessened travel restrictions on a portion of the channel nearest the ITC terminal, but there were still dozens of ships waiting for permission to pass either way. [nL1N21E1J0]Editors’ PicksPeople Don’t Bribe College Officials to Help Their Kids. They Do It to Help Themselves.A Beloved Restaurant Where Fried Chicken Achieves Its Highest FormGucci Makes a Shoe and Keen Gets the Last Laugh

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Last week, schools in Houston suburbs were closed for several days after air quality monitors detected elevated levels of benzene, a cancer-causing chemical that was contained in ITC tanks that burned.

    More than 1,100 local, state and federal workers and contractors working at the site and waterways have removed 16,000 barrels of a fuel-and-water mix from the ship channel and another 33,000 barrels from ITCs grounds, said Adam Adams of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    "Until these people find themselves placed in jail, you're not going to see what needs to be done to keep these communities protected," said County Commissioner Steve Radack at a hearing where officials approved the lawsuit.

    HEALTH PROBLEMS, MARKET IMPACT

    More than 1,000 people visited a county health clinic last week, many with symptoms related to "respiratory issues, headaches, skin irritation and nausea," Dr. Umair Shah, executive director of the county's public health department, said in an interview.

    Air monitors in the area detected a spike in benzene levels last week, but they were "were not high enough, long enough" to cause long-term health effects, he said. The county is continuing to monitor air quality levels, he said.

    U.S. conventional gasoline in the Gulf Coast on Tuesday rose to 1.75 cents per gallon above futures, the highest since Feb. 15. U.S. crude exports last week fell 506,000 bpd, government figures showed, a decline blamed in part on shipping curbs.

    https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/03/27/world/americas/27reuters-texas-energy-houston-fire.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

35. Broad Infrastructure Bill May Not Happen — Chao

    Mar 28, 2019 | E&E Daily

    By Maxine Joselow

    Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao conceded yesterday that Congress may not be able to pass the broad infrastructure package sought by President Trump and leaders of both parties.

    Chao told Senate appropriators that lawmakers face a "compressed time frame" for moving the infrastructure package before the August recess.

    The secretary also noted Congress must soon pass a five-year reauthorization of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, which is set to expire in 2020.

    "I think it's an issue that we all need to discuss because we have surface reauthorization coming up," Chao said during a hearing held by the Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee.

    "So does it make sense to have two vehicles — an infrastructure bill and a surface reauthorization?" she continued. "Given the compressed time frame, it may very well be that it's easier for everyone — ourselves as well as the Congress — to have one vehicle, and that should be the surface reauthorization bill."

    Asked about specifics and ways to fund improvements, including raising the gas tax, Chao said "nothing is off the table."

    Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is putting together language for an infrastructure bill. House leadership has reserved floor time for the measure and is considering late spring (E&E Daily, March 7).

    Yesterday's hearing was ostensibly focused on Trump's fiscal 2020 budget request for the Department of Transportation and related agencies.

    Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, however, spent the majority of their time pressing Chao on infrastructure as well as the recent fatal crashes of two Boeing 737 Max planes.

    In October, a Lion Air flight crashed just minutes after taking off from Jakarta, Indonesia. Earlier this month, an Ethiopian Airlines flight involving the same 737 Max jet model crashed shortly after leaving Ethiopia's capital, killing all 157 people on board.

    Subcommittee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Chao about requiring additional training for pilots. She also inquired about the nature of the relationship between the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing Co., a major lobbying player in Washington.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she was considering introducing a bill that would "require key safety equipment be included in basic plane sale costs."

    Returning to infrastructure, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) asked the secretary about the importance of leveraging private investment.

    "Pension funds, endowment funds ... they're actually ideal to help in the financing of public infrastructure," Chao said in response. "But there are 26 states that have some kind of limitations on allowing the private sector to participate in the financing of public infrastructure, and that's really a shame."

    Subcommittee ranking member Jack Reed (D-R.I.) called for ensuring the resilience of infrastructure in the face of climate change, echoing a message from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) (E&E Daily, Dec. 7, 2018).

    Reed pointed to the massive flooding in the Midwest, which climate scientists say will become a greater concern due to global warming.

    He criticized the Trump administration for rescinding the federal flood risk management standard, which was meant to ensure that federally funded infrastructure is built to account for rising seas and stronger storms.

    Chao's response was diplomatic, though she avoided using the words "climate change."

    "I think the resilience of infrastructure is very important to be prepared for natural disasters of any sort," she said. "And so we need to work to ensure that infrastructure projects are able to meet these unusual circumstances."

    https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/28/stories/1060131223
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

36. Truck Carrying Chemical Explodes in Arkansas, Killing Driver

    Mar 27, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)

    A commercial truck hauling a chemical commonly used as fertilizer exploded Wednesday on a highway in Arkansas, killing the driver and creating a massive crater in the road, authorities said.

    The explosion happened west of the city of Camden, or about 100 miles (160 kilometers) south of Little Rock. According to Arkansas State Police, the driver had called 911 early Wednesday to report that his brakes had caught fire.

    The driver, 63-year-old Randall McDougal, attempted to extinguish the blaze but was killed when the truck exploded, authorities said.

    “It looks like a bomb went off,” Camden Fire Chief Robert Medford told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. “There’s a big hole in the ground on where the truck was at.”

    State police said that McDougal was employed by Blann Trucking Co. and was hauling ammonium nitrate from El Dorado to Texarkana in south Arkansas.

    The Arkansas Department of Transportation said crews would begin repairing the 15-foot (4.5-meter) crater once the wreckage from the accident was cleared. The affected road is a low-volume road that carries about 1,300 vehicles per day, department spokesman Danny Straessle said.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/truck-carrying-chemical-explodes-on-arkansas-highway/2019/03/27/87ca986c-50a4-11e9-bdb7-44f948cc0605_story.html?utm_term=.40b6d6a653f1
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

37. EPA Must Evaluate Denver Ozone Levels, Group Says (1)

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Brian Flood

    The Environmental Protection Agency has failed to determine whether ozone levels around Denver are meeting national standards, according to a new lawsuit.

    Nonprofit conservation group WildEarth Guardians says the agency failed to meet a Jan. 20 deadline to determine whether the Denver Metro-North Front Range Area has met 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.

    Ozone poses a serious risk to human health and the environment, and the EPA’s failure to evaluate Denver’s adherence to the standards jeopardizes “the health and welfare of millions of Coloradoans and regional visitors,” according to WildEarth.

    The EPA found that the area, covering seven Colorado counties and parts of two others, wasn’t in compliance with the ozone standards in 2012 and 2016, according to the complaint. “Yet nearly seven years later, air quality in the Denver Metro-North Front Range Area has failed to substantially improve and continues to violate this critical public health standard,” WildEarth said.

    The EPA was required to re-evaluate the area’s attainment level by Jan. 20. If the area had still failed to meet the standards, it would have forced the state of Colorado to adopt more stringent clean air safeguards, submit a cleanup plan, and set a new deadline for the area to finally come into attainment with the standards, WIldEarth said. But the EPA failed to meet this mandatory deadline, it said.

    Cause of Action: Clean Air Act.

    Relief: WildEarth asks the court to force EPA to make the determination.

    Response: An EPA spokesman said the agency doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

    The case is WildEarth Guardians v. Wheeler, D. Colo., No. 1:19-cv-00897, filed 3/26/19.

    (Updated with statement from EPA spokesman.)

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/epa-must-evaluate-denver-ozone-levels-group-says-1
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

38. Plastic Plates, Cutlery to Be Banned in Europe as of 2021

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Stephen Gardner

    The European Union decided to ban plastic consumer items including plates, cutlery, and straws as of 2021 to help clean up oceans.

    The prohibition on single-use plastics approved by the European Parliament in a 560-35 vote, with 28 abstentions, March 27 in Strasbourg, France, also applies to beverage cups, food containers, and cotton bud sticks, and expanded polystyrene beverage cups and food containers. EU governments already signaled support for the ban, making their final approval, due April 15, a formality.

    With plastics accounting for around 80 percent of marine litter, the EU rushed through deliberations on the planned restrictions in less than a year. The European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm, proposed the curbs in May 2018 and representatives of EU governments and the 751-seat Parliament reached a negotiated deal last December.

    “Plastics poison our seas,” said Frederique Ries, a Belgian member who steered the draft law through the 28-nation assembly. “If we do not take action, by 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans.”

    The new legislation also sets a 90 percent collection target for plastic bottles by 2029 and a 30 percent goal for recycled material in them by 2030 and an obligation for them to have nondetachable caps.
    Companies Comment

    Companies said they supported the goals of the law and that its provisions broadly were in step with measures they are already taking to better manage plastic.

    PepsiCo Inc. is “already proactively working on ways to reduce, reinvent, recycle and reuse our plastic packaging,” and has a goal for all its plastic packaging to have a 25 percent recycled material content by 2025, Paul Skehan, the company’s senior director for EU policy, said in an email to Bloomberg Environment.

    The Coca-Cola Co. has similar goals and wants “an average of 50 percent recycled content in our bottles and cans by 2030,” the company said in an emailed statement.

    McDonald’s said by 2025 all its “guest packaging will come from renewable, recycled, or certified sources.”

    Reducing single-use plastics “is not an easy route, but it’s a necessary route,” Hein Schumacher, chief executive officer of Dutch processed food multinational Koninklijke FrieslandCampina NV, said in a March 27 email to Bloomberg Environment. Among other things, the company makes drinks with attached single-use plastic straws.

    FrieslandCampina has developed an assessment methodology for packaging recyclability and this would be used “to review the current packaging portfolio globally and will be used in every new project to enable sustainable design choices,” Schumacher said.

    Bans and restrictions on plastic items and packaging should be accompanied by work to improve waste collection and boost recycling rates, Skehan said.

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/plastic-plates-cutlery-to-be-banned-in-europe-as-of-2021
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

39. Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags Seen Likely in New York State

    Mar 28, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Keshia Clukey

    New York State is poised to ban single-use plastic bags, legislators and environmental advocates announced March 27.

    The plan, part of the 2019-20 budget, includes bags provided at the checkout of grocery stories, bodegas, and superstores such as Walmart and Best Buy.

    Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), as well as Senate and Assembly leaders, have spoken in support of the ban, but details still are being discussed. These include whether to impose a fee on paper bags, where the money should go, and whether communities can opt out.

    Several local governments, like Suffolk County on Long Island, already have enacted a ban.

    “This issue has kicked around Albany way too long. It’s about time that we finally do something about this and I believe the opportunity is there now to do that,” Sen. Todd Kaminsky (D-Long Beach), chairman of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee, said at a March 27 news conference at the State Capitol. “We’re working very hard to address both plastic and paper. The details are still being ironed out, but we’re getting there.”
    Businesses Concerned

    The ban has elicited concerns from business groups who worry about the proposal’s impact on stores and plastic bag manufacturers, as well as its potential cost to customers.

    There are 30 businesses statewide that produce plastic bags and pouches and that reported employing approximately 1,500 individuals, according to a 2017 report produced by the New York State Plastic Bag Task Force, led by the Department of Environmental Conservation.

    Those businesses would have to transition to other products, Darren Suarez, senior director of Government Affairs at the Business Council of New York State, said in a March 27 interview.

    The council would like the legislation to include a transition period with a fee on plastic bags, and would prefer not to have a fee on paper bags, he said.

    “It’s a complex issue,” Suarez said. “We’d like to have that policy issue outside of the budget to give everyone a fuller opportunity to review the proposal.” 
    ‘Emerging Consensus’

    The ban was included in Cuomo’s executive budget proposal in January.

    The Senate Democratic majority, in its one-house budget proposal earlier this month, supported the ban as well as a fee on paper bags. The Democratic majority in the Assembly didn’t include the measure in their one-house budget, but Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) has said he would support the ban.

    Budget negotiations are ongoing, as the state’s fiscal year ends on March 31.

    “We’re encouraged by the emerging consensus on this issue and will continue to work with the Legislature to finalize a budget that works for all New Yorkers,” Rich Azzopardi, senior advisor to the governor, said March 27 in a statement.

    Environmental groups including Riverkeeper, a nonprofit focused on clean water, said they’re delighted for the ban to be included in the budget, and are urging lawmakers to follow it up with a fee on paper bags.

    “Those bags are heavier. They take up more space in landfills,” Riverkeeper Advocacy Coordinator Jeremy Cherson said in a March 27 interview. “The main point of these laws is to get people to remember the reusable bag again and again and to start changing the culture, to get away from the single-use culture that is so prevalent in modern society.”

    Other states have enacted similar bans. Hawaii is also considering a first-in-the-nation ban on single-use plastics, to reduce local and marine pollution.

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/ban-on-single-use-plastic-bags-seen-likely-in-new-york-state
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

40. House Republicans Want to Force Green New Deal Vote (1)

    Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Dean Scott

    House Republicans revved up efforts March 27 to force House Democrats to vote on the Green New Deal climate platform just after the April recess, hoping to capitalize on a tactic used a day earlier to put Senate Democrats on the defensive.

    Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) said he hopes to have rounded up 218 signatures by the time Congress returns from recess in late April on a procedure that enables legislation to bypass committees and move directly to the floor.

    That number would force House Democrats controlling the chamber to vote on a resolution supporting the green deal.

    “The American people need to know where their representatives stand on these radical proposals in the Green New Deal, and make no mistake about it, it is a radical proposal that will take American society dramatically to the left,” Hice said, flanked by a roughly dozen Republican colleagues including House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).

    “I want to vote on it, my colleagues behind me want to vote on it, and the vast majority of Republicans want to vote on it,” Hice said.
    More Than 20 Democrats Needed

    With Democrats in control of the House 235-197, with three vacancies, Republicans would need more than 20 Democrats to sign onto their discharge petition to force a floor vote.

    The petition is one of the few procedural tools available to the Republican minority in the House to bring measures to the floor.

    Hice noted that 92 Democrats are backing a House resolution touting the Green New Deal (H.Res.109) authored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

    “We are looking for at least 20 of them out of the 92 to have the courage to stand up” and defend the resolution they are co-sponsoring, he said.

    “There’s no question in my mind we will get the vast majority of Republicans,” Hice said. “We will need a handful of Democrats.”

    That won’t happen, a House Democratic leadership aide who spoke on condition of anonymity told Bloomberg Environment.

    “This is a desperate effort from a party whose leading voices continue to express denial that the climate crisis is happening,” the aide said. “It will fail.”
    Republican Effort Launched

    Hice outlined his effort as Scalise and other House Republicans launched their coalition on energy issues, the House Energy Action Team, or HEAT, billed as a coalition to promote “all of the above” energy policies and defend the continued use of oil, gas, and other fossil fuels.

    The GOP team is co-chaired by Reps. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) and Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.).

    Ocasio-Cortez has touted the Green New Deal—a climate platform that also includes a call for dramatic expansion of green jobs as well as other progressive priorities on healthcare, college education, and social justice—as a dry run for sweeping legislation that could move if Democrats win the White House and the Senate in 2020.

    House backers of the green deal argue that the resolution would help guide legislation to implement the proposal, but the resolution hasn’t gained the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or the majority of House Democrats.

    Those Democrats say an issue as weighty as climate change deserves a far more deliberative approach, with time devoted to crafting detailed legislation.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) March 26 brought a similar resolution to the floor in hopes of exposing a rift among Democrats. All but three Democrats voted “present” in protest of the tactic.

    Voting no were Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Doug Jones (Ala.), and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.). Independent Sen. Angus King (Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, also voted no.

    (Adds comment from House Democratic aide in 11th and 12th paragraphs.)

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/house-republicans-want-to-force-green-new-deal-vote-1
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

41. EPA Advisory Panel Enters 'Uncharted Territory'

    Mar 27, 2019 | E&E News PM

    By Sean Reilly

    Under typical circumstances, a high-profile EPA advisory panel would end a public teleconference tomorrow by unanimously voting to send its assessment of a pivotal research roundup to agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler.

    Assuredly, however, the call among the seven members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) will not be typical.

    The committee's chairman, Denver consultant Tony Cox, is facing accusations of promoting a theory of scientific causation that would undercut EPA's ability to set air quality standards to protect public health (E&E News PM, March 21). While Cox says detractors are distorting his views, he and other CASAC members will face scalding criticism from former members and other scientists scheduled to address the committee.

    There are also signs of dissent within the panel, according to comments posted online by one current member, Dr. Mark Frampton, a retired professor of medicine from the University of Rochester.

    "Uncharted territory," George Allen, a past member who has been involved in four earlier reviews of the standards for ozone and other pollutants, said in an interview today. "We have never been here before."

    At stake, ultimately, is the course of EPA's review of the adequacy of its current standards for particulate matter. In the draft roundup released last year and formally known as an "integrated science assessment," EPA staffers included evidence that existing limits on fine particulates are too weak.

    In its own preliminary report on the roundup made public two weeks ago, the committee said that EPA failed to comprehensively look at all available research and did not follow "widely accepted scientific methods" for deriving sound conclusions for the data.

    Allen, chief scientist at Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, a Boston-based consortium, is among more than a dozen people signed up to speak during the teleconference, scheduled to run from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern time.

    The bulk of them will be critical, according to a sampling of advance copies of their remarks also posted on the committee's website.

    The preliminary report "is a product unmatched in CASAC's history for its inappropriate content and lack of adherence to CASAC's mandate," says Lianne Sheppard, a former member and public health professor based at the University of Washington.

    If the draft report "is finalized without major changes to its core conclusions, EPA should ignore CASAC's flawed recommendations," Allen says.

    Under the Clean Air Act, particulate matter is among a half-dozen pollutants for which EPA is supposed to periodically review and, if needed, tighten the National Ambient Air Quality Standards based on what's known about their health and ecological effects. EPA last strengthened the benchmarks for fine particulates, often dubbed soot, in 2012.

    CASAC is statutorily required to assist in that process. But the current panel, made up entirely of appointees named by Wheeler and his predecessor who generally lack specialized expertise in air pollution research, is facing scrutiny about its ability to carry out the current review, which is supposed to conclude late next year, under a timetable set by then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.

    Traditionally, the teleconference would conclude with the committee's unanimous approval of a "signoff" letter forwarding its report to Wheeler. In this instance, the committee could run out of time and have to resume deliberations later, Chris Frey, a former CASAC chairman who is also critical of the current panel, said in an email yesterday. It is also possible, Frey said, that members "could approve the letter with a majority but not unanimous vote."

    https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/27/stories/1060131317
    

    Return to headline | Return to top