Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - April 22, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cambodia Hires Brownstein Hyatt
Apr 19, 2019 | Politico - Politico Influence
By Theodoric Meyer
The government of Cambodia has hired Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck to lobby on its behalf in Washington. -
(ACC Mentioned) Administrator Wheeler is Hiding the Truth About Formaldehyde
Apr 19, 2019 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Genna Reed
In a letter sent this week, the Union of Concerned Scientists along with the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Protection Network asked EPA’s Scientific Integrity office to investigate what seems to be political interference that occurred at the EPA in its recent suspension of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) formaldehyde risk assessment. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Announces New Rule Aimed To Limit Use Of Asbestos In The US
Apr 19, 2019 | Tech Times
By Ted Ranosa
The Environmental Protection Agency is tightening its regulation on the manufacture and import of asbestos, almost completely banning its use in the United States. -
Connecting the Dots Between Plastic, Mercury, Asbestos and Pfas: A New Report Confirms PVC’s Toxic Lifecycle
Apr 19, 2019 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jim Vallette
Plastics production imperils life on earth in many ways, from the pursuit of fossil fuels to the pollution of the oceans. All petrochemical plastics exact some toll in their manufacture. -
Scientists Dig Into Hard Questions About The Fluorinated Pollutants Known As PFAS
Apr 22, 2019 | NPR
By Rebecca Hersher
Scientists are ramping up research on the possible health effects of a large group of common but little-understood chemicals used in water-resistant clothing, stain-resistant furniture, nonstick cookware and many other consumer products. -
Two States Ban PFAS in Firefighting Foam
Apr 20, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Two states have passed legislation banning the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams for training purposes. -
Environmentalists Seek Integrity Review of Shelved Formaldehyde Analysis
Apr 19, 2019 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists and former EPA staff are backing calls from Democrats for EPA's scientific integrity officer to review alleged political interference in top officials' decision to shelve the long-running draft formaldehyde assessment because it was no longer a priority to program offices, citing internal emails showing that top career staff believed it was a priority. -
Moms, Workers Sue EPA for Alleged Flaws in Paint Stripper Rule
Apr 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA’s final rule barring the production and sale of some paint strippers that contain a sometimes deadly solvent fails to protect public health, two mothers and nonprofit groups said in two lawsuits filed in the same federal court. -
US FDA Finalizes Hand Sanitizer Rule
Apr 21, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Manufacturers can no longer use 28 active ingredients, including triclosan and benzethonium chloride, in over-the-counter hand sanitizers sold in the US, under a rule finalized by the US Food and Drug Administration on April 11. Millions of consumers rely on hand sanitizers to reduce bacteria on their hands when soap and water are not available. -
Momentum Accelerates for Burgeoning U.S. LNG Industry
Apr 19, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne and Sergio Chapa
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the construction Thursday of two liquefied natural gas export terminals in Texas and Louisiana, adding to the momentum of an expected yearslong expansion of the burgeoning U.S. LNG industry. -
Chevron and Exxon Say They Can Turn Around the Failed Finances of Fracking Industry
Apr 18, 2019 | DeSmog Blog
By Justin Mikulka
After a decade of the American fracking industry burning through hundreds of billions of dollars more than it earned, this industry previously dominated by shale drilling specialists is entering a new phase. -
Americans' Energy Use Surges Despite Warming Concerns
Apr 22, 2019 | AP (In E&E Energywire)
By Ellen Knickmeyer and Seth Borenstein
Americans burned a record amount of energy in 2018, with a 10% jump in consumption from booming natural gas helping to lead the way, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says. -
Cap and Trade Migrates South
Apr 22, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Carbon cap-and-trade programs in America have long been limited to the Northeast and California. Now, they're headed south. -
Virginia Moves Ahead on Carbon Cap-and-Trade Plan
Apr 19, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Marr
Virginia regulators on April 19 approved a proposal to cap power plants’ carbon emissions and prepare the state to join a nine-state Northeastern trading program. -
EPA’s CCS Reversal In NSPS Could Face Hurdles From Technology Gains
Apr 19, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
A slew of environmentalists, legal experts and states are citing mounting evidence that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is becoming increasingly advanced, arguing that poses a major hurdle to EPA’s attempt to no longer base its greenhouse gas targets for new coal plants on CCS with partial capture. -
States’ View of Mercury Reporting Rule Flawed, EPA Tells Court
Apr 19, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
States mistakenly think a rule requiring manufacturers to report their mercury use to the EPA is intended to help reduce air and water contamination from the pollutant in their communities, the agency said in a court brief. -
Tlaib Rallies in Support of Green New Deal at Detroit Town Hall
Apr 20, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tal Axelrod
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) rallied her constituents Friday evening in a Detroit town hall to gin up support for the Green New Deal, a climate resolution favored by progressives to combat climate change.
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cambodia Hires Brownstein Hyatt
Apr 19, 2019 | Politico - Politico Influence
By Theodoric Meyer
BROWNSTEIN HYATT WILL LOBBY FOR CAMBODIA: The government of Cambodia has hired Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck to lobby on its behalf in Washington. “We’re going to be helping to forge and renew their relationship with the U.S. government,” Marc Lampkin, the managing partner of the firm’s Washington office, told PI in an interview. Al Mottur, Douglas Maguire, Ari Zimmerman, David Cohen and Brian McKeon will lobby for the country as well, according to Justice Department filings. The contract is worth $60,000 a month and lasts nearly a year.
— Cambodia has shelled out to bolster its representation in the U.S. over the past month. As PI reported earlier this month, the Cambodian government hired Doug Ericksen, a sitting Washington state senator, and Jay Rodne, a former state representative, to lobby on its behalf through their company, PacRim Bridges LLC. The contract is worth $500,000 a year. Ericksen praised the country’s widely criticized elections last year, calling them “amazingly transparent” and “incredibly well conducted.” Ericksen didn’t respond to PI’s request for comment, but he defended the arrangement in an interview with The Seattle Times. “We could have tried to skirt the rules and not file under FARA,” he said. “We are doing everything out in public. I am just trying to make my way in this world.’”
MORE NEW BUSINESS: The Carlyle Group has hired Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld to lobby on international reform, energy matters and infrastructure. The private equity giant spent $590,000 on Washington lobbying last year, according to disclosure filings, and also retains Polaris Government Relations and Steptoe & Johnson. American Continental Group has added several new clients, including Honeywell and Trade Works for America, a coalition urging ratification of President Donald Trump’s trade deal with Canada and Mexico. And Ken Wingert of Zillow, who joined the real estate website last year from the National Association of Realtors, has registered as the company’s first in-house lobbyist. Zillow also retains Monument Advocacy.
Good afternoon, and welcome to PI. Tips: tmeyer@politico.com. You can also follow me on Twitter: @theodoricmeyer.
SCOTT PRUITT REGISTERS TO LOBBY — IN INDIANA: Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt “registered Thursday as a lobbyist with state regulators,” The Indianapolis Star’s Emily Hopkins reports. “Pruitt's filings with the Indiana Lobby Registration Commission identify him as a self-employed consultant and list RailPoint Solutions LLC as his sole client. His lobbying topics include ‘energy’ and ‘natural resources.’”
— “It's unclear what, exactly, Pruitt is working on or who he is meeting with at the Statehouse, but he has ties to the Indiana coal industry. IndyStar's attempts to reach him Thursday afternoon were unsuccessful. RailPoint Solutions does not appear to have a web address, nor is a company by that name registered to do business in Indiana. A search of Delaware business records, however, shows an incorporation date of Jan. 22.”
— “The lobbying registration lists Heather Tryon as a responsible party. Heather Tryon is also the name of the chief financial officer of Sunrise Coal, Indiana's second largest coal producer, according to the company's website. Pruitt is not unfamiliar with Indiana coal interests. While working at the EPA, he met with Steven Chancellor, CEO of White Stallion Energy, which owns coal mines in the state, according to emails released through a Freedom of Information Act filed by the Sierra Club.” Full story.
BIJAN KIAN CASE SET FOR JULY TRIAL: "A federal judge said Friday he’s committed to launching a trial in July for one of the cases springing from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation: the prosecution of Bijan Kian, a business partner of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn," POLITICO's Josh Gerstein reports. "'We’re going to keep our July 15 trial date,' U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Trenga said emphatically during a brief hearing Friday morning in Alexandria, Virginia. 'Proceed in confidence that we will be going to trial on July 15.' Trenga made the comment after defense lawyers for Kian complained that the process of turning over investigative records to the defense has stalled for more than a month." Full story.
MORE DETAILS ON WHETHER BERNHARDT HELPED HIS FORMER CLIENTS: “Interior Secretary David Bernhardt began working on policies that would aid one of his former lobbying clients within weeks of joining the Trump administration, according to a POLITICO analysis of agency documents — a revelation that adds to the ethics questions dogging his leadership of the agency,” POLITICO’s Annie Snider reports. “Bernhardt’s efforts, beginning in at least October 2017, included shaping the department's response to a key portion of a water infrastructure law he had helped pass as a lobbyist for California farmers, recently released calendars shows.”
— “The department offered scant details at the time about meetings that Bernhardt, then the deputy secretary, held with Interior officials overseeing water deliveries to the farmers, leading many to believe he was steering clear of the issues he had previously lobbied on. But newly disclosed schedule "cards" prepared by Interior officials for Bernhardt show more than three dozen meetings with key players on California water issues, including multiple lengthy meetings on specific endangered species protections at the heart of his previous work. Those appointments were only vaguely identified on his official calendars.” Full story.
NEW JOINT FUNDRAISERS
Americans United for Freedom (Sens. Susan Collins, Cory Gardner and Thom Tillis, Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, John Katko and Elise Stefanik)
NEW PACSAlliance Party of Colorado (PAC)NEW LOBBYING REGISTRATIONS
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: The Carlyle Group
American Continental Group: Honeywell International Inc.
American Continental Group: Trade Works for America
Bergen & Parkinson, LLC: American Civil Liberties Union
Bergen & Parkinson, LLC: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Cavarocchi Ruscio Dennis Associates, L.L.C.: Sani Sport
Cozen O'Connor PC: Equifax, Inc.
Cozen O'Connor Public Strategies: Exelon Generation Company LLC
Cozen O'Connor Public Strategies: Madison Square Garden
Cozen O'Connor Public Strategies: Nellie Analytics US LLC
Deep Ocean Ventures LLC: Honolulu Seawater Air Conditioning LLC
DLA Piper LLP (US): Independence Blue Cross, LLC
Eaze Technologies Inc.: Eaze Technologies Inc.
FTI Government Affairs: Adtran
Gephardt Group Government Affairs: The O Team LLC (on behalf of Center for Discovery
Gordley Associates: Rural Media Group
Hogan Lovells US LLP: Dune Medical Devices
Hogan Lovells US LLP: EyePoint Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Hogan Lovells US LLP: Pelvalon Innovative
Federal Strategies, LLC: Perspecta Engineering
K&L Gates, LLP: Ajay P. Hinduja
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP: Burr & Forman LLP on behalf of American Cast Iron Pipe Company
Lobbyit.com: Fidelis Logistic and Supply Services
Lobbyit.com: RadiaBeam
Lucas | Compton, LLC formerly Madison Policy Group, LLC: Water-Gen, Inc.
Mr. Mark Micali: The Nonprofit Alliance
North Star Strategies, LLC: Kentucky Hemp Works
Strategic Marketing Innovations: Blue Ocean Capital Partners
The Cormac Group, LLC: Washington Area New Automobile Dealers Association
The Glover Park Group LLC: New Venture Fund
The Keelen Group, LLC: American Institute of Architects
The Keelen Group, LLC: Stillwater Solutions 23, LLC DBA National Child ID Program
The Raben Group: MB2 Solutions
United By Interest, LLC.: MNG Enterprises, Inc.
Zillow Group, Inc.: Zillow Group, Inc.
NEW LOBBYING TERMINATIONSAlpine Group, Inc.: Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc.
Arent Fox LLP: CSL Behring
Baker & Hostetler LLP: Children's Hospital Association
Baker & Hostetler LLP: Insmed Incorporated
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz /The Daschle Group: Earth Balance Corporation
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz /The Daschle Group: Fresenius Medical Care (D/B/A Bio-Medical Applications of MS Inc )
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz /The Daschle Group: Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz /The Daschle Group: Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz /The Daschle Group: The Summit Health & Rehab Services, Inc.
Ballard Partners: Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S.
Ballard Partners: The Suzanne Wright Foundation
Barnes & Thornburg, LLP: American Medical Response, Inc.
Barnes & Thornburg, LLP: North American Midway Entertainment
Blank Rome Government Relations: American Cruise Lines, Inc.
BlueWater Strategies: City of Camarillo
BlueWater Strategies: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Bockorny Group, Inc.: Allied Group
CJ Lake, LLC: Pacific Life Insurance Company
Clark Hill, PLC: ACA International
Cogent Strategies LLC: Gramercy Funds Management
Cogent Strategies LLC: SolarReserve
Communicating for America: Communicating For America
Constantinople & Vallone Consulting LLC: LGBT Network (Formerly Queens Lgbt Health And Human Services Network)
Cornerstone Government Affairs, Inc.: Access Community Health Network
David Gardiner & Associates, LLC: Alliance for Industrial Efficiency (informal coalition)
Dentons US LLP: Council for Responsible Nutrition
Dentons US LLP: Credit Union National Association
Edington, Peel & Associates, Inc.: Meggitt Training Systems (formerly Firearms Training Systems)
Efrus Federal Advisors LLC: Viptela A Cisco Company
Faegre Baker Daniels: Protective Life Corp.
FTI Government Affairs: AKJ Industries
FTI Government Affairs: Callwood Associates, LLC
FTI Government Affairs: Longview Power, LLC
FTI Government Affairs: Mountaineer NGL Storage
Gephardt Group Government Affairs: Broward County
Gordley Associates: Biobased Products Coalition
Gray Global Advisors, LLC.: Presence Health System
GuidePostStrategies, LLC: BMW of North America, LLC
HCM Strategists: Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation
Hogan Lovells US LLP: Construction Employers of America
Hogan Lovells US LLP: Northwestern University
Holland & Knight LLP: EtaGen, Inc.
Holland & Knight LLP: Keolis Rail Services America, Inc.
Holland & Knight LLP: Kratom Trade Association
Hurt, Norton & Associates, Inc.: Mitigation Management
Ice Miller Strategies LLC: Vertellus Specialties, Inc.
JMH Group, formerly Jamian McElroy & Hamlin, LLC: American Enginuity
Levine & Company: Express Scripts, Inc.
Lucas | Compton, LLC formerly Madison Policy Group, LLC: First Care Health Plans
McLarty Inbound LLC: Thayer Lodging Group / Thayer International
Michael Best Strategies LLC: Dober Chemical Corp.
Moore & Van Allen PLLC: Electrolux North American
Mr. H.R. Bert Pena: Edgar and Arturo Ruiz
Mr. H.R. Bert Pena: Hassan Mansur Family
NVG, LLC: Sanofi US
O'Brien, Gentry & Scott, LLC: World Housing Solution, Inc.
Peyser Associates LLC: City of Carlsbad, CA
Plurus Strategies, LLC: Charter Communications Operating, LLC
PricewaterhouseCoopers: Coalition for Effective and Efficient Tax Administration (CEETA)
PricewaterhouseCoopers: Rock Holdings
Rising Tide Associates: Revision Military Inc.
Robert J. Miller Consulting, LLC (fromly known as Robert J. Miller): Las Vegas Railway Express Inc.
Rock & Associates: Diamondback Drugs
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.: Renfro Corp.
Schramm, Williams & Associates, Inc.: U S Citrus Science Council
Sextons Creek: Institute for Affordable Transportation
SL Strategies, LLC: Helen Keller National Center
TCK International, LLC: DLA Piper LLP (US) (for LA 2028)
TCK International, LLC: DLA Piper LLP US (for Association of Banks in Lebanon)
The Charles Group, LLC: Newport Brain Research Laboratory, Inc.
The D Major Group: Lymphedema Advocacy Group
The Furman Group: Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
The Glover Park Group LLC: Horizon Pharma USA, Inc.
The Glover Park Group LLC: KIND Management Inc
The Glover Park Group LLC: McDonald's Corporation
The Keelen Group, LLC: Humane Society Legislative Fund
The Keelen Group, LLC: International Association of Fire Fighters
The Livingston Group, L.L.C.: American Humane Association
The Russell Group, Inc.: Food Safety Net Services
The Smith-Free Group, LLC: Harpeth Financial Services LLC
Townsend Public Affairs: City of Sanger
Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group, LLC: Altria Client Services LLC
Unified Solutions, LLC: North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center, Inc.
Vantage Knight, Inc.: LaLiga
Venable LLP: America's Homeowner Alliance
Venable LLP: American Chemistry Council
Venable LLP: Blockchain Token Association
Venable LLP: MidFirst Bank
Venable LLP: National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals
Venable LLP: National Pork Producers Council Venable LLP: National Propane Gas Association
Venable LLP: Personal Care Products Council
Venable LLP: Radian Group, Inc.
Venable LLP: Utility-Scale Solar Coalitionhttps://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2019/04/19/cambodia-hires-brownstein-hyatt-426839
-
(ACC Mentioned) Administrator Wheeler is Hiding the Truth About Formaldehyde
Apr 19, 2019 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Genna Reed
In a letter sent this week, the Union of Concerned Scientists along with the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Protection Network asked EPA’s Scientific Integrity office to investigate what seems to be political interference that occurred at the EPA in its recent suspension of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) formaldehyde risk assessment. In his responses to senators’ questions about the assessment earlier this year, Wheeler claimed that “Formaldehyde was not identified as a top priority.” Political appointees at the agency gave the same answer when asked by the GAO, in a recent report. But, in documents obtained through FOIA request, the Union of Concerned Scientists found evidence that EPA staff was not only interested in the formaldehyde risk assessment, but as of 2017 the air office had a “strong interest in the review and are anxious to see it completed” and told EPA’s acting science advisor, Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta that “we have consistently identified formaldehyde as a priority.” Thus, the glaring omission of formaldehyde among the EPA’s list of prioritized chemicals issued this month smells more like political interference than lack of importance to me.What happened to the formaldehyde assessment?
We know that the formaldehyde assessment was done and ready for review in the fall of 2017 and then all movement of the draft mysteriously stopped. In July 2017, the head of the National Center for Environmental Assessment which houses IRIS, Dr. Tina Bahadori, wrote to the former Office of Research and Development (ORD) head, Richard Yamada and other ORD staff to talk about a briefing that would occur that month on formaldehyde, and to inform them that “we have contracted the [National Academy of Sciences] to peer review this assessment. As a part of that agreement, we have requested that they convene a PUBLIC workshop in which they also gather data on NCEA/IRIS activities to be responsive to the NRC 2011 and 2014 recommendations to improve IRIS assessments.” The latter part of this agreement occurred in February 2018, but if the NAS was contracted to peer review the assessment, why did the EPA fail to follow through with moving the formaldehyde assessment to the next stage of the process if it was ready and the path was set?
Wheeler wrote this year that the EPA’s air and chemicals offices didn’t provide a list of priorities to him when he asked in 2018. But a non-response doesn’t mean the air office is lacking in priorities. A responsible administrator would follow-up with the program office pointing out the many hazardous air pollutants that have outdated risk values, including formaldehyde. Unless, of course, the administrator was actively working to keep formaldehyde off of the priority list to placate the chemical industry.
After all, the facts haven’t changed—formaldehyde is just as dangerous today as it was a year ago. It seems that political appointees at the EPA are playing a game of defeat-by-delay—willfully remaining ignorant of the facts by simply declining to to listen to the scientific opinions of their own staff experts.
Unfortunately for these appointees, they have a job to do—protect public health, based on the best available science. And they can’t evade their duties by pretending science doesn’t exist. That’s why we have scientific integrity policies in place—to make sure political interests don’t overrule the clear facts and the public good.Emails show experts’ concern—and political leaders’ indifference
In the aforementioned email from the director of the Health and Environmental Impacts Division at the Office of Air Quality and Planning Services (OAQPS), Erika Sasser, to Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, she lays out how an updated risk assessment for formaldehyde would help the air office better protect public health. According to her, “having a current cancer unit risk estimate for formaldehyde is critical for the agency’s air toxics program, for use in 1) the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), 2) the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112 risk and technology review (RTR) rulemakings, 3) evaluation of potential risks from on-road and nonroad mobile sources regulated under relevant sections of the CAA, and 4) regional and local-scale risk assessments.” Formaldehyde is not just an incidental air pollutant. Sasser wrote that, “more than 1.3 million tons of formaldehyde are emitted each year. While these emissions are from both natural sources and from stationary mobile anthropogenic sources, the [National Emissions Inventory] estimates that 42,000 industrial facilities emit formaldehyde. The National Air Toxics Assessments (NATA) shows that the entire US population is exposed to formaldehyde.” Sasser’s email was seen by politicals at the agency, forwarded to ORD’s Yamada by Bahadori.
In other documents we received from the EPA, it is clear that Dr. Bahadori spent months trying to get Yamada’s attention to the formaldehyde assessment and its release. In September, the American Chemistry Council wrote a letter to IRIS related to its draft formaldehyde assessment. NCEA’s Bahadori wrote back to the American Chemistry Council’s in October 2017 saying “we hope to complete the draft of this assessment as expeditiously as possible and make it available for public comment and peer review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)” and “the only way to demonstrate our commitment to a scientifically robust and transparent formaldehyde assessment is to present the document for public comment and rigorous peer review by the NAS.”
On December 7, 2017, Bahadori wrote to Orme-Zavaleta and Yamada, “Just checking to see if you have an update on path forward for formaldehyde?” She followed up on December 20, 2017: “I wanted to follow up on the path forward for formaldehyde.” After getting a non-committal response from Orme-Zavaleta, Bahadori followed up again on January 2, 2018, “I wanted to follow up and see what the timeline for next steps might be for formaldehyde.” Bahadori was clearly doing her best to push the study through the political roadblock and was ignored. Now, she is being moved away from the IRIS program through the Office of Research and Development reorganization, which sources have told InsideEPA (paywalled), is likely as a result of her “efforts to advance IRIS.” Only in today’s EPA is the penalty for defending one’s own scientific program to be moved far away from leading that very group.A risk assessment caught up in layers of interference
We know the draft is done and was completed using rigorous scientific review methods, so why not just move it to peer review and public comment? The answer is simple: industry doesn’t like the findings that formaldehyde is a carcinogen. This assessment has been held up for over a decade thanks to pushback from the American Chemistry Council, that we have documented as a part of our Disinformation Playbook. And now, thanks to corporate capture of the current administration, top political officials appear to be doing the same thing from the inside to benefit their former employers and cronies. Former ORD head, Richard Yamada, was previously employed by long-time IRIS and formaldehyde-study-critic Lamar Smith. Current ORD head, David Dunlap, is a former staffer with Koch Industries of which a major formaldehyde emitter, Georgia Pacific, is a subsidiary. He has recused himself from matters pertaining to formaldehyde, but the agency’s track record on sticking to ethics agreements doesn’t give me the utmost confidence in his pledge.
Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at EPA had a long list of industry clients (subscription required) at his lawfirm before joining the agency, and has been ignoring offers from his own scientists to brief him on the chemical. And let’s not forget Nancy Beck, a former American Chemistry Council staffer now responsible for implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) who has spent her tenure at the EPA checking industry’s demands of its wishlist. Formaldehyde will now be taken on by her office, which will mean a longer timeframe and a less comprehensive risk evaluation.EPA’s scientific integrity office must investigate
As we write in our letter, “The completion and release of the IRIS assessment on formaldehyde would help inform science-based EPA regulations to better protect public health from this chemical. Conversely, permitting the suppression of this study to persist unchecked normalizes political interference at the agency and sends a message to career staff that their knowledge and expertise is not valued.” The EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy “prohibits all EPA employees, including scientists, managers, and other Agency leadership, from suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific information.” The public has the right to know whether this has occurred in the suspension of the formaldehyde risk assessment at the EPA. Every day that goes by without the scientific information informing new technology and standards that could reduce formaldehyde exposure and related health risks is an egregious affront to the agency’s mission to protect public health.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/wheeler-hiding-truth-about-formaldehyde
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Announces New Rule Aimed To Limit Use Of Asbestos In The US
Apr 19, 2019 | Tech Times
By Ted Ranosa
The Environmental Protection Agency is tightening its regulation on the manufacture and import of asbestos, almost completely banning its use in the United States.
The federal agency announced on Wednesday that its Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) aims to limit the access of industrial companies to asbestos by requiring them to seek EPA approval first before they could locally manufacture or import the dangerous substance from outside the country.
Many safety advocates doubted the proposed rule’s ability to curb the continued use of asbestos. However, the EPA said the SNUR is its best shot at regulating the material, especially since the agency does not have authority to outright ban its use.
The SNUR also addresses loopholes in the EPA’s prior restrictions on asbestos use, which have been in place for several decades.
“We had a very dangerous loophole that we had not addressed,” said Alexandra Dunn, EPA assistant administrator on chemical regulation.
“We’re essentially closing the door on these products. We are making sure they cannot come into the marketplace without action from the EPA.”
The EPA’s Near Complete Ban Of Asbestos Use
When the SNUR was first proposed last summer, it was criticized for its provisions on allowing asbestos makers and importers to apply for an EPA permit. Safety advocates also raised concerns that the proposal construed the prohibited uses of the material.
The agency had received “extensive” feedback from several groups regarding the SNUR, and it had decided to expand its scope. The proposal now includes all uses of asbestos, even those that are not currently taking place.
American Chemistry Council, an industry trade association consisting of chemical companies, has expressed its support of the EPA’s SNUR, claiming that the proposal will help the agency better regulate asbestos use.
Requests for ban exceptions will have to go through rigorous safety review, regulation, and restrictions, according to the ACC.
Meanwhile, former EPA official Gary Timm welcomed the agency’s final rule, calling it as a positive move by the agency under the Trump administration.
He said the EPA should now work toward declaring a complete ban on asbestos use.
Despite the SNUR announcement, some advocacy groups were still not convinced that the EPA has done enough to address the issue.
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, a nonprofit group that looks after the rights of mesothelioma victims, said the agency’s proposal was “deeply disappointing”. It is now urging the U.S. Congress to step in and declare a complete ban on the dangerous material.
Dunn pointed out that the EPA is already looking into current uses of asbestos, which could lead to additional restrictions on the substance. She said several laws and regulations are already in place pertaining the processing and clean-up of structures built using asbestos.
Dangers Of Using Asbestos
Asbestos is a mineral fiber that naturally occurs in soil and rock, according to the EPA. Construction companies have used its fiber strength and heat resistance to produce insulation and fire retardants for buildings.
The material is commonly found in paper products, roofing shingles, ceiling and floor tiles, and fire-resistant cement. It is also used as part of heat-resistant fabrics and friction products, including car brakes, clutches, and transmission parts.
Exposure to asbestos in the air can result in a number of health risk, particularly to lung disease. The longer people are exposed to the substance, the more likely they are to develop serious illnesses.
Three of the most common diseases associated with asbestos are:
Lung cancer
Mesothelioma
AsbestosisAsbestosis is a serious progressive, non-cancer lung disease, where it can often take 10 to 40 years before the illness manifests in patients. Its symptoms include shortness of breath, dry cough, weight loss due to a loss of appetite, and chest tightness or pain.
The illness can also result in a condition known as clubbing, where the fingertips and toes appear rounder and wider than normal.
Patients diagnosed with asbestosis can worsen their health condition if they engage in smoking. This could cause them to develop lung cancer.
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/241853/20190419/epa-announces-new-rule-aimed-to-limit-use-of-asbestos-in-the-us.htm
-
Apr 19, 2019 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jim Vallette
Plastics production imperils life on earth in many ways, from the pursuit of fossil fuels to the pollution of the oceans. All petrochemical plastics exact some toll in their manufacture. But there is one type of plastic that is particularly harmful: polyvinyl chloride, commonly known as vinyl or PVC.
A new catalog of the world’s chlorine and related plastics industry confirms PVC’s long-standing status as the “poison plastic.” PVC can’t be made without using and releasing some of the world’s most toxic substances, including asbestos, mercury, and PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).An Open Access Global Inventory of the PVC Plastics Industry
Healthy Building Network (HBN) just completed an 18-months-long research project called Chlorine and Building Materials: A Global Inventory of Production Technologies and Markets. Building product manufacturers, wanting to better understand their supply chains, financially supported this initiative but had no editorial control over it. The end results – spreadsheets, a Google map, and reports – are open access data, and are free to use with attribution to HBN.
The project spotlights the world’s largest chlorine and PVC factories. It details the owners, capacities, technologies, and markets served by 146 chlorine producers. It reveals the chlorine sources for 113 PVC plants. It also considers the pollution caused by this production. The bottom line is that all PVC resins are produced with one form of toxic technology or another, whether it be asbestos, mercury, or PFAS.Step 1: Making Chlorine – A Toxic Soup
The first step of production – turning brine into chlorine and caustic soda at chlor-alkali plants – is highly energy intensive. The largest chlor-alkali plant in Germany – Dow’s plant in Stade – for example, consumes 1% of Germany’s electricity. In China, the government has built some of the world’s largest chlor-alkali plants in the country’s coal mining regions. It also built alongside these plants huge coal-fired power plants to fuel the chlor-alkali process.
Almost half of the world’s chlorine is used to make PVC. Despite this dependence, life cycle analyses of PVC have not included its share of the energy consumed in the chlor-alkali process. This is not just a technical point: Because of this omission, climate change studies undercount PVC’s contribution.
Every chlor-alkali plant in the world uses either mercury, asbestos, or PFAS.
Mercury: About 3% of the world’s chlor-alkali capacity uses mercury cells, a technique that dates to the 1800s. Two mercury cell plants still operate in the United States: Westlake Chemical’s plant in Proctor, West Virginia, and Ashta Chemical’s plant in Ashtabula, Ohio. The US, Germany (where BASF and Evonik run mercury cell units), and Russia, are the world’s leading mercury cell laggards.
Asbestos: About 18% of chlorine is produced using asbestos diaphragms. The U.S., Germany, and Russia are also among the last countries to be using asbestos diaphragms in the production of chlorine. Dow operates the largest chlor-alkali plant in Europe using asbestos diaphragms. Producers in the U.S. are particularly dependent upon asbestos. Most of these plants are in Louisiana and Texas. For years, the U.S. chemical industry imported asbestos from Brazil. The mine in Brazil closed in February; now, the industry depends upon an asbestos mine in the Ural Mountains of Russia that is owned by a friend of President Vladimir Putin. Close relations between the petrochemical industry and the current administration in Washington appear to be forestalling possible restrictions through the new TSCA process. The EPA soon will release its draft Risk Evaluation for asbestos. So far, the agency has ignored concerns raised by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, Environmental Health Strategy Center, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, and many others.
PFAS: The alternative to mercury or asbestos is PFAS. Over 40 million tons of production capacity in HBN’s inventory comes from PFAS membranes or diaphragms. That’s nearly 80% of all chlorine production. Concerns about this class of substances are growing by the day. The deliberate production of long-chain PFAS – PFOA and PFOS – is being regulated but the rest is not. In a new Frontiers in Chemistry journal article, Matthias Kotthoff and Mark Bücking warn that “the ban or restrictions of individual molecules will lead to a replacement with substitutes of similar concern.” They point out how little is known about the PFAS class a whole and the “Dark Matter” that arises from its production and use. “The amount, identity, formation pathways, and transformation dynamics of polymers and PFAS precursors are largely unknown,” they write.
In Cape Fear, North Carolina, Chemours manufactures a PFAS membrane called Nafion that’s used in chlor-alkali production. EPA recently discovered byproducts of Nafion in the Cape Fear River and in groundwater near the Chemours plant. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) ordered Chemours to stop the release of fluorinated compounds including Nafion byproducts. The DEQ said, “little information is known about the potential health effects of GenX [another PFAS produced at the Chemours plant] and less is known about the Nafion byproducts.”
About half of the world’s Nafion membrane resins are used in chlor-alkali production, the other half in fuel cells. According to manufacturers, between 4 and 6.7 grams of “membrane resin” are released per ton of chlorine produced. Worldwide, with PFAS-based production capacity of over 40.4 million tons per year, the chlor-alkali industry may be releasing over 161 tons of membrane resin per year. No public information could be found that addresses the fate of Nafion and “dark matter” released from chlor-alkali production. There are no regulations or reporting requirements on the discharge of Nafion or any other PFAS from chlor-alkali plants into water. Environmental health groups like SCHF say this is a major regulatory gap that EPA must fix.Step 2: The Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM) Process
The next step in the PVC supply chain – the production of vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) – introduces even more toxic pollution and fossil fuel consumption. In these processes, chlorine is reacted with a carbon source. There are two ways industry does this: the ethylene and acetylene routes.
Ethylene, Dioxins, and PCB’s: Outside of China, the ethylene process is almost always used. In this process, chlorine is reacted with ethylene (usually obtained from fracking sites in the US) to produce ethylene dichloride, which is processed to form VCM. The ethylene route of production releases a wide range of toxic chlorinated pollutants — including dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, carbon tetrachloride, and hexachlorobutadiene — that are among the public and environmental health community’s top priorities for elimination.
Acetylene and Mercury: In China, the acetylene process dominates production, and is quite different. Coal, not gas, is the carbon source. Combining coal with chlorine requires a series of reactions, the last of which uses a mercury-based catalyst. Over 80% of China’s PVC is made using mercury catalyst. In addition to the suite of chlorinated pollutants usually associated with VCM, the acetylene process releases mercury. The PVC industry is now one of the two largest consumers of mercury in the world due to this process. Coal-to-PVC plants have proliferated in interior China in the past 15 years. China exports acetylene-based PVC to the US in the form of building products, like vinyl floors, and other consumer products, including toys.
China has surpassed the US as the world’s leading producer of PVC. Due to cheap coal and, in the US, fracking, these two countries dominate the global industry. They produce more than half the world’s PVC.Step 3: Accountability in the marketplace
HBN’s Chlorine & Building Products research provides a platform for a full accounting which the industry – including retailers that sell PVC products – has avoided. PVC is prevalent because it is cheap. It is cheap because it consumes the lowest-cost fuels on earth, in places where the lines between industry and government have nearly vanished and regulations are thin. Societal and environmental costs are not built into the price of PVC. But it is possible to consider these negative externalities in the marketplace.
Fortunately, safer alternative products, with far less toxic life cycles than PVC, exist. HBN’s Home Free project provides guidance for many types of building materials. Other good resources for avoiding PVC (and potentially regrettable substitutions) include the Healthier Hospitals Initiative’s list of interior finishes and the Ecology Center’s HealthyStuff product database, and CHEJ’s Back-to-School Guide to PVC-free School Supplies. And Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families’ Mind the Store campaign is constantly identifying toxic products in retail stores and pressing for their removal. Each of these initiatives reveals that safer products are widely available. When you must shop, please take this information into account.
https://saferchemicals.org/2019/04/19/connecting-the-dots-between-plastic-mercury-asbestos-and-pfas-a-new-report-confirms-pvcs-toxic-lifecycle/
-
Scientists Dig Into Hard Questions About The Fluorinated Pollutants Known As PFAS
Apr 22, 2019 | NPR
By Rebecca Hersher
Scientists are ramping up research on the possible health effects of a large group of common but little-understood chemicals used in water-resistant clothing, stain-resistant furniture, nonstick cookware and many other consumer products.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are generally referred to by their plural acronym, PFAS. PFAS are resistant to water, oil and heat, and their use has expanded rapidly since they were developed by companies in the mid-20th century. Today, PFAS' nonstick qualities make them useful in products as diverse as food wrappers, umbrellas, tents, carpets and firefighting foam. The chemicals are also used in the manufacture of plastic and rubber and in insulation for wiring.
In short, they are all around us. And as a result, they've found their way into the soil and, especially in some regions, into our drinking water.
"We're finding them contaminating many rivers, many lakes, many drinking water supplies," says Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program. "And we're finding them not only in the environment, but we're finding them in people."
"Essentially everyone has these compounds in our blood," she explains.
That's in part because PFAS don't break down easily — a quality that has earned them the nickname "forever chemicals." Some varieties have been found to stick around in the human body for years, if not decades. Others accumulate in soil or water, creating a continuous source of exposure.
Despite their ubiquity, however, scientists know relatively little about the health effects of most types of PFAS.
No PFAS legal safety limit yet
"Despite their everyday use, the body of science necessary to fully understand and regulate these chemicals is not yet as robust as it needs to be," acknowledged the assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water, David Ross, at a congressional hearing on PFAS in March.
This year, the EPA signaled that it is considering setting a legal safety limit for some PFAS in drinking water, but it hasn't acted yet.
Meanwhile, public spending on research of the chemicals has gone up. The National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and multiple state university systems have all increased their funding for PFAS studies in recent years.
"We have more and more of our grantees who are looking at PFAS in their studies — both mechanistic studies and animal studies," as well as epidemiological studies that analyze large populations, explains Birnbaum. But the work is slow going.
"These are a very broad class of chemicals — probably 5,000 or more — and it seems like new ones are being produced all the time," she says.
In most cases, U.S. chemical regulations do not require that companies prove a chemical is safe before they start selling it. It's up to the EPA to determine whether a substance is unacceptably dangerous and under what circumstances, and typically such analyses begin only after public health concerns are raised.
As a result, "we really don't know much about the great majority of these chemicals," says Birnbaum.
One approach that scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health are taking is to analyze hundreds of PFAS varieties at once. The goal is to identify subgroups of PFAS with similar characteristics, so scientists won't have to do a battery of toxicity tests on each individual chemical.
"There's no way that we'll ever be able to test 5,000 or more PFAS," Birnbaum explains.
Early studies suggest some health risks
Some of the most large-scale PFAS epidemiology research in the U.S. was conducted by a science panel starting in 2005 as part of a class action lawsuit against the chemical company DuPont. The case alleged that thousands of people in West Virginia and Ohio were hurt by industrial releases of a PFAS chemical called PFOA.
The panel — made up of three career epidemiologists whom both sides of the court case agreed to have evaluate the scientific evidence — found a "probable link" between long-term exposure to the chemical and certain medical conditions, such as kidney cancer and thyroid disease.
Additional studies of both humans and rodents have found similar associations.
"I think we have growing information that at least some members of this class can be problematic," says Birnbaum.
Those findings have raised a host of new questions, first about mechanism: How do PFAS chemicals act in the body? It's one thing to see an association between exposure to a substance and disease. It's much more difficult to determine a likely path from chemical exposure to disease symptoms.
"We still don't know the precise molecular ways that they produce toxicity," explains Jamie DeWitt, a toxicologist who studies PFAS at East Carolina University.
For example, DeWitt and others have published studies of both humans and rodents that suggest exposure to one PFAS chemical — PFOA — can suppress the body's response to vaccines.
"I'm pretty sure that a type of immune cell called a B cell is involved" in that suppression, says DeWitt. "But I don't know why the B cell doesn't produce enough antibody. Is it signaling molecules that say, 'Hey, B cell, make antibody?' Is it something wrong inside the B cell itself? Is it the amount of energy that the B cell has? These are these molecular mechanisms that we're still trying to figure out."
Knowing those mechanisms for PFOA might help scientists estimate the potential risks of other PFAS that have a similar structure, she says. "Honestly, I think we're still at the very beginning."
At the current rate of research, Birnbaum says, it will take about two years to get a basic handle on the toxicity of the whole PFAS group. But there will still be many questions for both scientists and regulators.
"Realizing that these chemicals have escaped into the environment, how are we going to remediate those problems? How are we going to get rid of these chemicals?" she says.
"A question that we all need to be asking is: What's essential?" she says. "Do we really need it? Are there some places where we need to have this class of chemicals to be safe? But if that's the case, we would like them used in closed systems so they don't escape and end up contaminating the whole world."
Asked to comment on how essential PFAS are, a spokesperson for the FluoroCouncil, part of the main trade group representing chemical companies in the U.S., defended their widespread use in consumer products.
"PFAS are an essential enabling technology that play a vital role in products ranging from lifesaving applications in pacemakers and defibrillators, to the design of lower-emissions automobiles with improved auto safety, to the manufacturing of semiconductors, solar panels and high-performance electronics," a spokesperson for the FluoroCouncil wrote in an emailed statement to NPR.
"The vast differences within the PFAS family of chemistry are not immediately obvious to many people," the statement continues. "While some of the names sound the same, PFAS have differing characteristics, formulations, intended uses, and environmental and health profiles."
Living with uncertainty
While two years is not very long in the world of basic scientific research, it can feel like an eternity to people who are worried about their health. In response to public concern, some states already are taking action on their own, both to regulate PFAS emissions and exposure and to gather public health information in communities where the water is known to be contaminated.
"For people who live in areas where one of their drinking water sources has a level [of PFAS] that was high enough to raise concern, there's a really strong demand for information," says Alissa Cordner, a sociologist at Whitman College and one of the organizers of a nationwide PFAS contamination list.
"There's so much uncertainty around what the scale and the consequences of contamination are," she explains, and that uncertainty makes people afraid. "In terms of individuals wanting to know 'What's in my drinking water?' the testing is still prohibitively expensive."
And even when scientists or officials test water in a community, the lack of scientific evidence gathered, so far, about PFAS and health makes it difficult for people to know how to react. Most in-home water filters don't remove the chemicals effectively, according to the CDC.
"I think it's confusing, because you have so many chemicals about which we know so little, other than they're a member of this large class," says Birnbaum. "I think that is confusing, but it's also frustrating. So we're trying to address those problems right now." Regulators, scientists and citizens all agree: Research results can't come soon enough.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/04/22/708863848/scientists-dig-into-hard-questions-about-the-fluorinated-pollutants-known-as-pfa
-
Two States Ban PFAS in Firefighting Foam
Apr 20, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Two states have passed legislation banning the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams for training purposes. Kentucky’s ban begins in July 2020 and allows use only in emergencies. Virginia’s ban is similar and goes into effect in July 2021. Fluorosurfactants in the foam are a major vector for the release of fluorochemicals into drinking water, where their presence is associated with disease. Congress ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to allow civilian airports to use PFAS-free foams by 2021.
https://cen.acs.org/business/specialty-chemicals/Two-states-ban-PFAS-firefighting/97/i16
-
Environmentalists Seek Integrity Review of Shelved Formaldehyde Analysis
Apr 19, 2019 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists and former EPA staff are backing calls from Democrats for EPA's scientific integrity officer to review alleged political interference in top officials' decision to shelve the long-running draft formaldehyde assessment because it was no longer a priority to program offices, citing internal emails showing that top career staff believed it was a priority.
“Significant evidence that is already public -- combined with information recently obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists [UCS] through the Freedom of Information Act -- suggests that significant and sustained political interference in the risk assessment process is harming public health by preventing communities throughout the United States from reducing exposure to the chemical,” the groups write in an April 16 letter to Francesca Grifo, EPA's scientific integrity officer.
Its signatories include officials from UCS, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Protection Network and Natural Resources Defense Council.
Their letter follows a March 4 letter from top congressional Democrats seeking a similar review.
Both requests came on the heels of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that found top Trump EPA officials eliminated as many as nine of 22 pending assessments from the influential Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program's agenda, including the long-pending formaldehyde assessment, but did not provide adequate written instruction to staff and appears to preclude some office leaders from its final decisionmaking.
In subsequent hearings before lawmakers, Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the formaldehyde assessment was dropped from IRIS' agenda because it was not a priority to any of the agency's program offices. It has since been included in the nascent toxics office's new chemical assessment program, where Wheeler says it can be addressed more quickly through regulation if its uses are found not to meet statutory risk standards.
UCS adds further evidence of alleged political interference in the form of a November 2017 email from a career air official, asking about the formaldehyde assessment's status.
In the email, Erika Sasser, a division director in the Office of Air Quaity Planning & Standards, tells EPA's acting research chief “we have a strong interest in this [formaldehyde IRIS] review and are anxious to see it completed.”
Sasser explains that having “a current cancer unit risk estimate for formaldehyde [one of the risk values IRIS provides] is critical for the agency's air toxics program for use in: 1) the National Air Toxics Assessment, 2) the Clear Air Act section 112 risk and technology review rulemakings, 3) evaluation of potential risks from on-road and nonroad mobile sources … and 4) regional and local-scale risk assessments.”
Sasser adds that “we greatly value the rigor of the IRIS program' unit risk evaluations, and we appreciate the intense effort that has already gone into the formaldehyde review. We look forward to updates from [the research office] as the review progresses.”
The email chain indicates IRIS chief Tina Bahadori forwarded the email in January 2018 to Richard Yamada, then the top Trump political appointtee in the research office.
“Since senior EPA staff knew of the air program’s keen interest in the status of the formaldehyde assessment, its exclusion from the list of prioritized chemicals appears to be political,” the groups write Grifo. “EPA must conduct an investigation to find out why the scientific opinions of staff at OAR were not considered when prioritizing IRIS assessments to release.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-seek-integrity-review-shelved-formaldehyde-analysis
-
Moms, Workers Sue EPA for Alleged Flaws in Paint Stripper Rule
Apr 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA’s final rule barring the production and sale of some paint strippers that contain a sometimes deadly solvent fails to protect public health, two mothers and nonprofit groups said in two lawsuits filed in the same federal court.
Petitioners Lauren Atkins and Wendy Hartley each lost a son following his exposure to a paint or coating stripper containing methylene chloride. Vermont Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., are joining Atkins and Harley in challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s March rule(RIN 2070–AK07).
EPA’s rule banned the manufacture and sale of paint strippers containing methylene chloride to consumers.
But the rule still allows production and sale of paint and coating strippers containing methylene chloride, and that endangers workers, Robert M. Sussman, the Washington, D.C., attorney representing the mothers, Vermont PIRG, and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, told Bloomberg Environment.
The attorney representing the labor council and NRDC couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
The cases are Vermont Pub. Interest Research Grp.v EPA, 2d Cir., No. 19-1044, filed 4/18/19
and Labor Council for Latin Am. Advancement v. EPA, 2d Cir., No. 19-1042, filed 4/18/19https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/moms-workers-take-paint-stripper-rules-alleged-flaws-to-court
-
US FDA Finalizes Hand Sanitizer Rule
Apr 21, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Manufacturers can no longer use 28 active ingredients, including triclosan and benzethonium chloride, in over-the-counter hand sanitizers sold in the US, under a rule finalized by the US Food and Drug Administration on April 11. Millions of consumers rely on hand sanitizers to reduce bacteria on their hands when soap and water are not available.
The FDA stopped short, however, of banning the use of three active ingredients—benzalkonium chloride, ethyl alcohol, and isopropyl alcohol—in hand sanitizer products. Instead, the agency will continue to seek additional safety and effectiveness data for those three chemicals to determine whether they are generally recognized as safe and effective for use in consumer hand sanitizers.
“We believe industry has made good progress toward providing data and we will continue to provide updates to the public about the progress of collecting this data,” Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement, referring to the three chemicals that the FDA deferred from further regulation.
The FDA proposed the rule in 2016 and requested data on the three ingredients at that time. Manufacturers are welcoming the additional time to generate the data.
“Consumers can continue to use hand sanitizer products with confidence as this regulatory process moves forward. We will work to ensure that these products remain available,” Richard Sedlak, executive vice president of technical and international affairs at the American Cleaning Institute, which represents the US cleaning products industry, said in a statement.
Most consumer hand sanitizers sold in the US contain ethyl alcohol, according to the FDA. Consequently, the FDA predicts that banning the 28 chemicals will affect less than 3% of the US hand sanitizer market. Retailers have stopped selling hand sanitizers that contain triclosan, and a small number of products still contain benzethonium chloride, the agency says.
Manufacturers who wish to continue using any of the 28 chemicals in hand sanitizers will need to have their products approved as new drugs by the FDA to be legally sold in the US.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/consumer-safety/US-FDA-finalizes-hand-sanitizer/97/i16
-
Momentum Accelerates for Burgeoning U.S. LNG Industry
Apr 19, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne and Sergio Chapa
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the construction Thursday of two liquefied natural gas export terminals in Texas and Louisiana, adding to the momentum of an expected yearslong expansion of the burgeoning U.S. LNG industry.
The commission, in a 3-1 vote, approved Driftwood LNG in Calcasieu Parish, La., and the Port Arthur LNG in Southeast Texas. The developers of the projects, Tellurian of Houston and Sempra Energy of San Diego, respectively, plan to make final investment decisions this year.
“We are one step closer to reaching a final investment decision and delivering low-cost, reliable and clean U.S. natural gas to world markets,” said Carlos Ruiz Sacristán, CEO of Sempra North American Infrastructure, a unit of Sempra Energy. “Port Arthur LNG should help us achieve our goal to become one of the largest exporters of North American liquefied natural gas.”
The Driftwood and Port Arthur projects are the latest LNG export terminals to move ahead. In February, FERC approved a Calcasieu Pass LNG project, which is being developed in Cameron Parish, La., by the Venture Global LNG of Arlington, Va. On Wednesday, the Houston pipeline company Kinder Morgan Houston said the the first of 10 production units at its Elba Island LNG export terminal in Savannah, Ga., is expected to be placed into service by May 1.
FERC also gave Kinder Morgan’s proposed Gulf LNG export terminal in Pascagoula, Miss., the green light in a final environmental impact statement released Wednesday. FERC is expected to make a final permit decision on the project in July.
The LNG boom is driven by the flood of cheap natural gas from U.S. shale basins and growing demand for natural gas as customers around the world seek cleaner-burning alternatives to coal and other fuels that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. Natural gas is considered a bridge fuel to renewable energy as governments seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change.
The approval of the Driftwood and Port Arthur projects signaled that FERC commissioners have reached a lasting resolution on their disagreement earlier this year over accounting for he impact of LNG projects on climate change. That disagreement had delayed a decision on the Calcasieu Pass project earlier this year.
“Today’s orders show that FERC is making a lot of headway on processing LNG applications in a more efficient manner, ” FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said in a statement. “LNG exports can help increase the availability of inexpensive, clean-burning fuel to our global allies who are looking for an efficient, affordable, environmentally friendly source of generation. “
The Driftwood LNG facility in Louisiana is expected to reach a capacity of 27.6 million metric tons of LNG per year. The Port Arthur Liquefaction Project, which is to be built on the site of an LNG import facility, is projected to have an export capacity of 13.5 million metric tons per year.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Momentum-accelerates-for-burgeoning-U-S-LNG-13779985.php
-
Chevron and Exxon Say They Can Turn Around the Failed Finances of Fracking Industry
Apr 18, 2019 | DeSmog Blog
By Justin Mikulka
After a decade of the American fracking industry burning through hundreds of billions of dollars more than it earned, this industry previously dominated by shale drilling specialists is entering a new phase. The oil majors — a group of multinational companies that typically have divisions throughout the oil supply chain — now are investing heavily in fracked oil and gas operations.
The latest development is Chevron acquiring shale oil and gas company Anadarko for $33 billion. One of Chevron’s current“human energy” ads uses the catchphrase “We do difficult.” Which is good for Chevron if the oil major hopes to profit off this investment, because making money on U.S. shale oil has proven very difficult for the current players.
Why would major oil companies choose to invest in an industry that has failed to turn profits in the past decade? It helps to consider the state of the broader oil and gas industry.
Oil producers working in Canadian tar sands have been losing money for years, a trend that continues. The natural gas industry in Canada is in even worse shape.
In the U.S., natural gas prices are so low that in areas flush with it like the Permian Shale in Texas, gas is selling for negative amounts — meaning gas producers have to pay someone to take it. Norway’s state-owned investment fund — an international leader with approximately a trillion dollars under management — recently announced its divestment from U.S.shale oil and Canadian tar sands oil companies.
Chevron CEO Mike Wirth recently told investors of the shale decision, “There’s nothing we can invest in that delivers higher rates of return.”To put that in perspective, Reuters recently concluded, “U.S. shale producers last year again spent more money than they collected.” Chevron’s top executive says the company’s best investment option is a business model that consistently has delivered negative returns.
Not to be outdone, ExxonMobil is also making a big move into U.S. shale, with plans focused on the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico. As DeSmog reported, Exxon is selling the idea that a partnership with Microsoft and the use of cloud computing will help it unlock the secret to profits in the Permian. Reuters reported that Exxon CEO Darren Woods “said on March 6 that Exxon would change ‘the way that game is played’ in shale.”
The way the game is played now involves spending more money to produce shale oil than companies have been making selling that oil.
Without a doubt, the Permian Shale produces a lot of oil via horizontal drilling and fracking. And oil companies are in the business of producing oil, even if that means losing money doing it. This business has no guarantee of profits but has very strong evidence that oil is present in shale basins and can be produced by fracking. However, the steeply declining production rates of fracked oil wells raises the question of how long U.S. shale basins will continue producing record amounts of oil.
Chevron’s CEO says fracking is the best option right now for delivering higher rates of returns. Chevron also has stated it doesn’t expect to make money on shale oil production in 2019 but that should change in 2020. The refrain of “we’ll make money next year” is one constant in the shale oil industry.Betting That Bigger Is Better
This week the Permian region hosted an annual conference where the unconventional oil and gas industry gathers to talk shop. (Horizontal drilling and fracking for oil and gas is considered “unconventional” by traditional standards for accessing these fossil fuels.) And the message coming from the conference supports the latest approach the oil majors are embracing: scale.
The promise to investors is that the oil majors will use economies of scale plus technologies like artificial intelligence and cloud computing to finally make a profit — at some point in the future. There are a few obvious flaws with the idea that bigger is better in shale oil.
The first is a limited supply of what the industry calls “sweet spots,” or “good rock,” the areas with highly productive, and even profitable, wells. The oil majors have acquired the rights to large amounts of land in shale basins to frack but how much of that area holds sweet spots? History indicates the answer to that question comes on a well-by-well basis and a company can’t know for sure until it drills.
Scott Sheffield has a long history in the shale oil business and was the founder of Pioneer Resources — a company working in the Permian for decades. Sheffield recently returned from retirement to take the helm again at Pioneer.
Reuters recently reported that in Sheffield’s opinion, the majors “are eventually going to run out of inventory.” Buying more inventory could be an option, but what is the quality of that inventory, that rock? There are plenty of signs that the shale industry has already tapped out many of the known shale sweet spots in shale plays like the Eagle Ford and the Bakken.
This week the industry publication Natural Gas Intelligence reported on a new analysis by the financial services firm Raymond James & Associates Inc., which warned that not only might the rapid ramp-up in U.S. shale oil production be slowing — it may be ending:
“….it is important to note that there is a very high likelihood that well productivities turn negative in the next few years as parent-child, and core acreage issues overwhelm the industries ability to complete longer laterals with more sand.”
DeSmog covered the issue of parent-child wells in August 2018 (a “parent well” is the primary test well and “child wells” are drilled around it). We also have noted that the shale industry is running up against the limits of fracking and horizontal drilling technology and the way these issues contribute to industry losses.
However, this latest prediction by Raymond James & Associates is a first. The fracking industry has proven it can produce large amounts of oil and gas but, overall, has lost money doing that. This new warning questions the industry’s ability to produce ever-increasing amounts of oil from shale.
Raymond James summed up the issue, saying, “To simplify, as each play/basin’s sweet spot is drilled out, it’s reasonable to assume that well productivity will eventually be hampered by a shift to tier two acreage.”
Author Bethany McLean wrote about a similar sentiment in her book Saudi America about the failed finances of the fracking industry.
In the book, McLean quotes one industry investor, whose words presaged the warning from Raymond James.
“Our view is that there’s only five years of drilling inventory left in the core,” one prominent investor told McLean, whose book was published in September 2018. “If I’m OPEC, I would be laughing at shale. In five years, who cares?”
The major oil companies are making big predictions about how much oil they will be producing in five years, even though right now, Chevron admits it won’t make any money on shale this year.
The mantra of the shale industry to investors has been one asking for patience because payoff is still coming. But payoff, after a decade, has yet to arrive. Now major oil companies are making the same claim.
Will Hickey, the co-CEO of Permian oil producer Colgate Energy LLC, this week explained to Reuters the reality of producing shale oil: “You’re at the mercy of what your acreage produces.”
Do the oil majors own enough sweet spots and will those areas produce prolifically for the next five to 10 years? Unlikely, based on history, but as Chevron’s CEO has explained, right now this is their best bet.Alta Mesa: A Cautionary Tale
Anadarko is not only in the news this week because of the Chevron deal. Another reason tells a cautionary tale for the industry.
Jim Hackett was the CEO of Anadarko before he retired in 2013. However, in 2017 he was lured back to the shale patch with a billion dollars of investor money, which he used to form the company Alta Mesa Resources. Who better to start a new oil fracking company than a former shale company CEO?
Hackett spent the billion dollars, but it was not on “good rock.” His move led the Wall Street Journal to now call this “one of the more spectacular failures met chasing the next big thing in the American shale boom.”
In 2017 Alta Mesa told investors “its average well would produce nearly 250,000 barrels of oil over its life.” In 2018 the new number was 120,000 barrels, and now Alta Mesa is in the midst of investor lawsuits, layoffs, and financial reporting issues. In about two years, a billion dollars is gone and Hackett is borrowing more to try to keep the company afloat.
The Wall Street Journal calls this “[a] cautionary tale for investors chasing wealth in the U.S. energy boom,” but this is just the latest high-profile example of how shale oil is a capital destruction machine and how sweet spots can make or break a business.
However, Chevron, Exxon, and other oil majors are ignoring these cautionary tales and believe that this time, with them, it will be different because as Chevron puts it, “We do difficult.”
That may be true, but so far, trying to make money on shale oil production suggests requiring, “They do the impossible.”
https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/18/oil-majors-distraction-failed-finances-fracking
-
Americans' Energy Use Surges Despite Warming Concerns
Apr 22, 2019 | AP (In E&E Energywire)
By Ellen Knickmeyer and Seth Borenstein
Americans burned a record amount of energy in 2018, with a 10% jump in consumption from booming natural gas helping to lead the way, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says.
Overall consumption of all kinds of fuels rose 4% year on year, the largest such increase in eight years, a report last week from the agency said. Fossil fuels in all accounted for 80% of Americans' energy use.
That's despite increasingly urgent warnings from scientists that humans are running out of time to stave off the harshest effects of climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions from consuming coal, oil and natural gas.
A 2018 National Climate Assessment involving scientists from 13 government agencies and outside experts warned that climate change already "presents growing challenges to human health and quality of life, the economy, and the natural systems that support us."
Last month was the second-hottest March globally on record, with an average temperature of 56.8 degrees Fahrenheit, nearly 2 F warmer than the 20th-century average, behind only March 2016, according to NOAA.
Alaska had its warmest March by far, nearly 16 F above normal and 3.7 F warmer than the previous record set in 1965.
"Globally, the long-term pattern, of which March 2019 is an exclamation point ... is almost entirely related to increased greenhouse gases," said Deke Arndt, climate monitoring chief for NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information.
Last week's report says the 2018 weather led Americans to turn on their furnaces and air conditioners more often. With the U.S. shale oil and gas boom helping make natural gas increasingly affordable, and with more power plants running on natural gas, natural gas consumption by the national electrical grid rose 15% from 2017, the EIA said.
Renewable energy consumption also hit a record high, led by a 22% jump in the use of solar power, the agency said.
Chris Field, a climate scientist and director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, says the EIA's breakdown of last year's energy use shows the U.S. has abundant fuel — but lacks the kind of policy levers that would make sure it's clean renewable fuels that Americans burn as energy demand rises.
"Renewables are increasingly rapidly, but not as rapidly as necessary to drive down total emissions," Field said.
Coal consumption fell for a fifth straight year nationally, flailing in market competition against natural gas and renewables despite pledges from Donald Trump, as a candidate and then as president, to bring back the coal industry and coal jobs.
The Trump administration has played down the peril from climate change. EPA chief Andrew Wheeler said last month that "most of the threats from climate change are 50 to 75 years out."
Trump and his government have encouraged increased oil, gas and coal development in the country overall, saying they want the U.S. to be independent and globally dominant in energy production.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/22/stories/1060196277
-
Apr 22, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Carbon cap-and-trade programs in America have long been limited to the Northeast and California. Now, they're headed south.
Virginia regulators voted 5-2 Friday to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade regime covering the power sector in nine East Coast states. The only step remaining: a decision from Gov. Ralph Northam (D).
Republican lawmakers inserted language in the state budget barring the commonwealth from participating in the program, meaning a veto from Northam is needed for Virginia to move forward.
It's unclear if the governor intends to wield his veto pen. But Northam campaigned on a pledge to join RGGI, as the program is commonly known. He even made it a feature of his first address to the General Assembly (Climatewire, Jan. 26, 2018).
Yet Northam has been tight-lipped on a variety of issues, RGGI included, ever since he became embroiled in a scandal earlier this year over a racist photo in his medical school yearbook. He remained coy in the wake of Friday's vote.
"The governor applauds the board's action and is in the process of reviewing pending legislation, including the budget," said Ofirah Yheskel, a Northam spokeswoman, in an email. She noted that Northam has until May 3 to veto the language.
Friday's vote, which came nearly two years after former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) proposed joining RGGI, was laden with symbolism. Virginia would become the first state to join RGGI since its inauguration in 2009.
The emissions impact could also be considerable. Virginia would immediately become RGGI's largest emitter, eclipsing the likes of New York and Maryland. The rule approved by the Virginia regulators calls for reducing emissions from the commonwealth's power plants by 30% between 2020 and 2030. In 2016, Virginia's power sector emitted 33.6 million tons of carbon, according to federal data.
"It's a recognition that climate change is real. It's a first step in a process," said Michael Dowd, who leads the Department of Environmental Quality's air division. "Budget language aside, it's a big step forward. And we'll just have to see how the rest of it plays out. But it certainly does put Virginia in among the leaders in climate regulation."
Dowd said DEQ has not had any communication with the governor's office over Northam's plans.
On a practical level, much of the carbon-cutting will fall on Dominion Energy Inc., the state's largest utility. The Richmond-based power company did not respond to requests for comment but has repeatedly said it will support the state's ultimate decision.
But filings with state regulators have contradicted that stance. Dominion has adopted an increasingly skeptical tone since the Virginia DEQ recommended lowering the state's carbon cap from the 33 million tons proposed in the draft rule to 28 million tons in the final version. The Air Pollution Control Board, which oversees DEQ's air division, voted to support that recommendation.
The company has echoed concerns raised by the State Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities, that RGGI will lead to an increase in fossil fuel-generated power imported from states outside the program while saddling Virginians with higher electric bills.
"We remain concerned that the commonwealth's linkage to the RGGI program through the Virginia cap and trade proposal with its now significantly lower proposed starting emissions cap would disadvantage Virginia generation relative to other states and result in an undue burden on its customers with no real mitigation of GHG emissions regionally," Dominion wrote in comments submitted to DEQ prior to the vote.
Dominion is likely to account for 80% of the carbon credits allocated under the program, according to state regulators' estimates, meaning it will have a cap of roughly 22 million tons when the program begins in 2020.
The company has overhauled its generation fleet in recent years. It has recently announced the permanent closure of a series of coal plants, including two units at the Chesterfield Power Station, the largest coal plant in the state, as well as the Mecklenburg Power Station and the Yorktown Power Station. Dominion's most recent plans call for retiring the remaining Chesterfield units and the Clover Power Station by 2025. That would leave the company with the Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center as its only coal plant in the commonwealth.
The coal retirements have coincided with the shutdown of a series of old natural gas- and oil-fired units. They have been replaced by a series of new large natural gas plants. But while new gas facilities emit less than their coal-fired counterparts, they remain significant sources of CO2.
The company's projections show it well in excess of the proposed emissions cap it will face under RGGI, said Karl Rábago, executive director of the Pace Energy and Climate Center in White Plains, N.Y. Dominion estimates put the company's emissions at 25.9 million tons in 2020, he said. Between 2020 and 2030, Dominion's projected emissions will exceed the RGGI cap by an average of 5.3 million tons.
That would turn Dominion into a buyer of carbon credits generated in other states. On its face, there is nothing wrong with buying credits generated by other RGGI members, Rábago said. The problem is the company has not modeled whether it would be cheaper to increase its build-out of renewables and deploy energy efficiency measures to curtail its emissions.
"The one thing not going through their heads is planning for a compliance strategy that does not expose them to allowance prices, and most importantly high volatility and high allowance prices," said Rábago, who is serving as an expert witness for an environmental group in a case concerning Dominion's long-term plans before the State Corporation Commission.
DEQ officials and environmentalists argue Virginia consumers will actually save money if the company doubles down on emission reductions. They point to the existing RGGI states that have cut emissions without raising power prices (Climatewire, Nov. 28, 2016).
And they tout a 2018 state law, which places 5,000 megawatts of new wind and solar in the public interest. Building out renewables should make it easier to comply with the RGGI cap, they said.
"Virginia is not out on a limb. We're connected to a larger marketplace that's proven to work," said Lee Francis, deputy director of the Virginia League of Conservation Voters. "Those states' economies have outpaced the rest of the nation. They're seeing cleaner air and greater public health benefit. These programs are functional, and help generate their own headwinds."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/04/22/stories/1060196195
-
Virginia Moves Ahead on Carbon Cap-and-Trade Plan
Apr 19, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Marr
Virginia regulators on April 19 approved a proposal to cap power plants’ carbon emissions and prepare the state to join a nine-state Northeastern trading program.
The regulation receiving the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board’s approval April 19 sets up the state to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an emissions-trading program including nine northeastern and mid-Atlantic states.
Virginia would be the second-largest state by carbon emissions in the program, behind New York.
“Today’s historic vote sets the Commonwealth on a path to slow global warming, and signals to clean energy businesses that Virginia is poised for a significant expansion of solar and wind power.” Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources Matthew J. Strickler said in a statement.
Two Years in WorksThe Virginia carbon-trading regulation—two years in the works since former Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) called for its development in an executive order—will set 28 million tons as the base level of annual emissions in 2020.
Power companies will then be required to lower emissions or else purchase credits from other companies as the cap decreases each year until 2030, when it reaches 19.6 million tons.
“The RGGI states applaud Virginia for today’s historic step forward in combating climate change and preparing for future participation in our successful regional initiative,” Maryland Environment Secretary Ben Grumbles, chairman of the initiative’s board of directors, said in a statement.
In addition to Maryland and New York, the states in the initiative are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. New Jersey, which once belonged to the group, is seeking to rejoin under Gov. Phil Murphy (D).
Dominion SupportDominion Energy, the state’s largest power provider, had filed public comments in support of joining an emissions trading program but argued the base line emissions figure should be higher.
Setting it too low would encourage more importing of carbon-intensive electricity from neighboring states, instead of in-state development of clean energy, the company said in its comments.
The Natural Resources Defense Council praised the state’s move toward lowering carbon emissions, but urged Virginia to remove language from the regulation that encourages generating electricity by burning wood, which the council said also contributes to climate change.
The carbon-trading plan also faces a hurdle in the state legislature’s budget package. Lawmakers included a provision to block Virginia from joining the initiative. Gov. Ralph Northam (D) has promised to veto that measure, and the state Senate isn’t likely to override his veto given the close 20-19 vote when it first passed the legislation.
“Dropping the flawed promotion of biomass and vetoing the anti-RGGI measure are all that stand in the way of Virginia taking a huge leap forward combating the growing dangers of climate change,” said Walton Shepherd, Virginia policy director for the NRDC, in an April 19 statement.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/virginia-moves-ahead-on-plan-to-cap-trade-power-plant-co2
-
EPA’s CCS Reversal In NSPS Could Face Hurdles From Technology Gains
Apr 19, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
A slew of environmentalists, legal experts and states are citing mounting evidence that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is becoming increasingly advanced, arguing that poses a major hurdle to EPA’s attempt to no longer base its greenhouse gas targets for new coal plants on CCS with partial capture.
The Trump EPA is seeking to reverse the Obama administration’s determination that partial CCS is the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) at a new coal plant because it is “adequately demonstrated.” In doing so, it would dramatically loosen GHG standards for new plants by setting standards based on the use of conventional coal technology along with best operating practices.
The agency has strong support for its proposed changes to the 2015 new source performance standards (NSPS) from the power sector, mining and other industry groups, which argue that removing the CCS-based standards from the rule is legally correct.
Yet the agency will have to contend with critics’ arguments that CCS has advanced exponentially in the nearly four years since the original rule was issued, including the deployment of Petra Nova, a major CCS retrofit project near Houston. The NSPS had largely relied on the Boundary Dam CCS plant in Canada that had just begun operation when the rule was completed.
EPA “has presented no evidence that the standards has affected the viability of any potential new” coal plant project, argues the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in March 18 comments. “At the same time, two coal-fired power plants have instituted CCS since the 2015 NSPS became applicable, demonstrating the commercial availability of CCS technology. In this context, EPA has an especially high burden to reverse course.”
CARB adds that the Administrative Procedure Act’s “arbitrary and capricious” test applies to rescissions of prior agency rules, yet the Trump EPA “relies on factual findings that contradict, without adequate support, the 2015 NSPS.”
Also, the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University asserts in March 18 comments that CCS is “now being successfully deployed on a large scale to capture and permanently store [carbon dioxide] emissions from power plants,” including projects that combine all elements of CCS -- post-combustion capture, pipeline transport and deep saline storage.
The center adds that smaller plants and industrial boilers employ CCS systems that capture 20 to 75 percent of what would have to be captured from a 500-megawatt plant under the 2015 standard. “The successful operation of these facilities further supports EPA’s conclusion about the viability of CCS as an emissions control measure for power plants.”
Near-certain Litigation
EPA will face near-certain litigation over the issue after it finishes the rule, possibly this summer. While the significance of any court fight remains murky -- since parties on all sides readily acknowledge that no new coal plants are planned in the United States -- the NSPS is a legal prerequisite for GHG regulation of existing power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the issue could become increasingly relevant for new natural gas-fired power plants, even though EPA is not proposing to change the Obama administration’s GHG limits for gas plants under the same rule. Those are based on the use of combined cycle technology. The agency is required to review its NSPS standards every eight years, meaning it could face pressure in 2022 to impose CCS-based requirements for gas plants as well.
The Obama EPA’s BSER determination for coal plants -- which is based on a CCS system that could capture about a third of a plant’s emissions -- was never resolved legally because the Trump EPA persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to pause litigation over the rule, North Dakota v. EPA, while it revised the standards.
That case had been fully briefed before it was put on hold, and many of the legal arguments on both sides of the CCS debate reemerged in formal comments on the proposed NSPS revisions. For example, the Obama EPA’s brief in support of the rule had been considered a road map for states and environmentalists that took over defending the rule after the Trump administration halted its defense.
In that December 2016 brief, EPA defended the costs of CCS as “reasonable” and said it considered them “carefully and conservatively.” The Obama NSPS rule remains in effect while the new rule is being promulgated.
EPA accepted comment on its proposed revision through March 18 and has signaled it plans to complete changes to the companion GHG rule for existing power plants by late June. It might finalize the NSPS changes at the same time.
When the agency issued its proposed revisions Dec. 6, it said BSER for new coal units is the most efficient demonstrated steam cycle in combination with the best operating system. “The primary reason for this proposed revision is the high costs and limited geographic availability of CCS,” EPA said last year.
But a group of science and technology experts argue in March 18 comments that the proposal is not based on sound analysis and does not meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The comments note that Congress intended section 111 of the air law to “reduce emissions to the maximum practicable degree and reflect the latest available pollution control methods. The D.C. Circuit has upheld such standards before. Technology need not have actually been adopted by sources prior to a standard’s enactment so long as it will be available to new sources.”
They add that the proposal, “which incorporates only efficiency improvements and not adoption of CCS, is arbitrary and capricious. EPA cannot reasonably determine that [BSER] is an outdated system that achieves substantially less emission reduction than the 2015 standard.”
A coalition of environmental groups also takes issue with EPA’s new CCS assumptions in March 18 comments, arguing that costs have dropped so much that full capture could be justified, especially considering federal tax credits enacted in early 2018 that boost the economics for CCS.
Also, the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University says in March 18 comments that EPA fails to support its claim that partial CCS is not adequately demonstrated. The argument was made “in part because the technology might be costlier to implement in some parts of the country than in others. But geographic cost variation alone cannot support a conclusion that partial CCS is not adequately demonstrated. Nor does the Proposed Rule demonstrate that partial CCS will be physically or economically infeasible in any particular area, much less in a significant enough proportion of the country to support a determination that partial CCS is not adequately demonstrated.”
The Environmental Defense Fund’s comments charge that EPA’s CCS cost analysis “contains fatal errors, including use of transportation and storage costs and capacity factors that artificially inflate the costs of partial CCS.”
‘Market Viability’
In addition, some commenters that have historically supported coal plants are voicing support in CCS technology, even as they argue it should not be BSER. For instance, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon (R) argues that while he “agrees with the contention that CCS is an emerging technology, there are strides being made toward market viability and commercialization. Wyoming fully supports these efforts. CCS will be a crucial part of a power production portfolio.”
Also, the Unions for Jobs & Environmental Protection says it strongly supports the commercial deployment of CCS. “Subsequent NSPS revisions may reflect CCS technologies when they have been adequately demonstrated at commercial scale.”
Many industry group comments support EPA’s CCS reversal, echoing the points made in briefing in North Dakota, though most of those lack the same level of detail provided by supporters of the Obama rule.
“By removing the unachievable CCS-based standard, EPA’s revised BSER ensures that the market, not the government, will determine the future viability of new coal-fired” plants, the National Mining Association (NMA) says. “Then, when the next unanticipated market shifts occur, the industry can be ready to respond by building units capable of efficiently utilizing the nation’s most abundant natural resource capable of providing dispatchable electricity generation -- coal.”
Groups supporting EPA’s CCS reversal include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Class of 85 Regulatory Response Group, the Air Permitting Forum, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, America’s Power, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Edison Electric Institute, Murray Energy, TriState Generation and Transmission Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, North Dakota, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Wyoming, and a West Virginia-led coalition of states that challenged the 2015 NSPS.
America’s Power charges that the agency is precluded from determining CCS is BSER because of “the exorbitantly high costs of installing and operating any carbon capture system.” Those costs are proven by the Petra Nova and Boundary Dam facilities, the group adds.
Murray Energy argues that CCS cannot be BSER because it “relies on unregulated third parties” and the air law limits NSPS standards to measures that can be applied to or at an individual source. “It is unlawful for EPA to rely on a system that cannot be applied by a regulated source, at the source, to reduce emissions. . . . Carbon capture alone does not reduce ambient CO2. The gas must be permanently sequestered. This cannot be done on-site and cannot be done by the regulated facilities.”
The coalition of states led by West Virginia adds that EPA is barred from considering CCS as BSER because Congress in the 2005 Energy Policy Act barred it from considering facilities that receive certain forms of government funding when making such a determination.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa%E2%80%99s-ccs-reversal-nsps-could-face-hurdles-technology-gains
-
States’ View of Mercury Reporting Rule Flawed, EPA Tells Court
Apr 19, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
States mistakenly think a rule requiring manufacturers to report their mercury use to the EPA is intended to help reduce air and water contamination from the pollutant in their communities, the agency said in a court brief.
“Congress did not direct EPA to design a reporting rule to achieve that objective,” the Environmental Protection Agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. “The mercury inventory reporting rule’s purpose is to assist EPA in the creation of its mercury inventory.”
The EPA—not the states—would use that inventory to recommend measures for curbing mercury use, the agency said. Exposure to mercury, particularly methylmercury, can cause neurological problems including loss of peripheral vision, muscle weakness, lack of movement coordination, and impaired speech.
The EPA’s brief, posted online April 18, presents its legal rationale for exempting some manufacturers and importers from mercury-use reporting obligations. The EPA detailed those reporting requirements in a June 2018 rule (RIN 2070–AK22).
The 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments required the EPA to issue the rule collecting information from “any person who manufactures mercury or mercury-added products or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process.”
The range of companies that might be affected included weapons, pharmaceutical, medical device, household appliance, costume jewelry, and other manufacturers that aren’t typically covered by the Toxic Substances Control Act, the nation’s primary commercial chemicals law.
Heart of Case: ExemptionsVermont and the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the rule in court. saying it exempts so many industrial sectors that not enough information will be collected to be useful in protecting public health and the environment.
Eleven states—Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, Minnesota, and Hawaii—filed friend of the court briefs in support of the lawsuit.
The three categories of manufacturers that the EPA exempted from the reporting requirements are:
importers of assembled products: for example, watches with button cell batteries, that contain mercury;companies that assemble products: for example, domestic watchmakers producing mercury-containing batteries; andcompanies that already report their use of mercury under a separate TSCA regulation called the Chemical Data Reporting rule.The types of companies that would have to report their mercury use to the EPA include importers of batteries containing mercury and pharmaceutical companies that add Thimerosal—a mercury-based preservative to prevent bacterial growth—into vaccines.
Congress did not require the EPA to create a reporting system that identifies and tracks all products that contain some mercury, the agency said.
Instead, the agency was charged with identifying manufacturing processes and products that intentionally add the metal and develop an inventory of mercury in commerce.
The EPA used the broad discretion Congress provided and developed a rule that would allow it to get sufficient information for the inventory, which will inform future decisions the agency could make about mercury-containing products, it said.
The case is Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 2d Cir., No. 18-2121, 4/17/19
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/states-view-of-mercury-reporting-rule-flawed-epa-tells-court
-
Tlaib Rallies in Support of Green New Deal at Detroit Town Hall
Apr 20, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tal Axelrod
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) rallied her constituents Friday evening in a Detroit town hall to gin up support for the Green New Deal, a climate resolution favored by progressives to combat climate change.
“A Green New Deal is not bold or radical. This is our life. If there is anybody who deserves a seat at the table it is us in Wayne County! We can’t sit back and let corporate greed tell us this is not possible!” Tlaib said, referencing opposition to the plan.
Tlaib kicked off the event by explaining her personal connection to climate change and how polluted air and water impacted her neighborhood growing up in Detroit.
"When I talk about the Green New Deal, our right to breathe clean air, clean water, I always say to people 'you want to see what doing nothing looks like, come to the neighborhood I grew up in,' where I smelled like hydrosulfide from playing outside, a rotten egg smell," she said adding that one in five children has asthma in her district.
"There's three times the high rate of asthma hospitalization among adults in one of my zip codes. When they say there's 12 years (to cut emissions in half), I say our 12 years is here today. When you think about Wayne County and Metro Detroit, it is here today."
Tlaib's comments came on the Detroit stop of the Road to the Green New Deal Tour, which was hosted by the Sunrise Movement. The congresswoman was joined by Abdul el-Sayed, a former Michigan gubernatorial candidate and fellow progressive who would have been the first Muslim governor in the U.S. if elected last year.
The eight-city tour seeks to highlight the need to combat climate change by underlining how a Green New Deal would benefit communities. Friday's town hall in Detroit drew approximately 400 people, according to The Detroit News.
Supporters of the Green New Deal kicked off the tour after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a Green New Deal resolution in the House and Senate in February.
The resolution has failed to pass the Senate, and isn't likely to be taken up in the House. Supporters of the plan have since called it a “vision” that was never intended for a vote.
The Green New Deal has become a hot button issue within the Democratic presidential primary, with moderates expressing skepticism about the plan’s cost and feasibility while some progressives have thrown their weight behind the proposal.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/439841-tlaib-rallies-in-support-of-green-new-deal-at-detroit-town-hall
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested