Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/1/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Nylon 6 Prices Rise, Bucking Trend of Dropping Prices for Other Resins
Dec 1, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Changes to demand and feedstock costs sent North American prices for several commodity resins lower in November. Meanwhile, feedstock tightness has sent regional prices for nylon 6 resins in the other direction since August. -
Trump Names Fracking Fan to Agency Team
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Trump transition officials have selected a second critic of U.S. EPA's policies to work on the transition team for that agency. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Raises CBI Concerns in EPA Snur Proposal
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Several industry groups have raised concerns about disclosure of confidential business information (CBI) under proposed changes to the US EPA’s regulations governing significant new use rules (Snurs) under TSCA. -
(ACC Mentioned) 1, 4-Dioxane, Asbestos Make EPA's List of High Priority Chemicals
Dec 1, 2016 | Michigan Radio
By Rebecca Williams
The Environmental Protection Agency just put out a list of ten high priority chemicals. -
Senators Call on Trump Administration for Smooth TSCA Transition
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
A bipartisan group of senators has urged Vice President-elect Mike Pence to ensure the Trump administration “vigorously implement” the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. -
Bipartisan Group of Senators Urges New Administration to Ensure Strong Implementation of New TSCA
Dec 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Yesterday a bipartisan group of nine Senators who were deeply involved in passage of the Lautenberg Act wrote to President-Elect Trump’s transition team to urge that EPA under the next Administration “vigorously implement the new law.” -
NICEATM and EPA Publish Androgen Receptor Model
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
A US team has built an in vitro and computational model to predict androgen receptor (AR) activity, based on Tox21 and ToxCast assays. -
Plan Sought to Reduce Flame Retardant Toxins in Great Lakes
Nov 30, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Associated Press
A U.S.-Canadian agency says both nations should develop a plan for dealing with flame-retardant chemicals that have turned up in the Great Lakes. -
Climate: EPA Promulgates Second SNAP Rule Targeting HFCs
Dec 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has published its final rule delisting a second round of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerant chemicals due to their high global warming potential (GWP), a move that would bring the regulation into effect at the end of the month. -
US EPA Round-Up
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for three substances that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). -
DG Sante Defends Revised Draft EDC Criteria
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Members of the European Parliament’s Environment Committee (Envi) have told the European Commission’s health directorate (DG Sante) of their frustration with its revised draft criteria proposal for the identification of endocrine disruptors (ED). -
Tesco to Eliminate Microbeads from Own-Label Products
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
UK retailer Tesco has pledged to remove microbeads from its own-label products by the end of the year. -
Policy Makers Seek Consistency Between OELs and REACH
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission is seeking to develop a pan-EU methodology for defining what is an “acceptable level of risk” of workers and consumers getting cancer from exposure to different carcinogenic chemicals, present in the workplace or in products. -
REACH Registrants Could Omit Acute Oral Toxicity Tests
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Chemicals showing low oral toxicity in sub-acute tests may not require additional acute oral tests, according to an Echa study. -
Echa Expert Group Focuses on Long-Range PBT Transport
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
The siloxane D4 has the potential for long-range transport in the environment, according to Echa's expert group for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBT EG). -
Echa Round-Up
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The first report on exchanging information about chemicals exported under the prior informed consent (Pic) Regulation is available on the agency's website. It cover 2014 and 2015 and summarises, for example, the number of export notifications submitted to third countries. -
Obama Admin, Challengers to Battle Over BLM Rule's Future
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration and its critics will square off next month over the Bureau of Land Management's new rule for slashing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. -
New Texas Terminal Would Send First LNG Cargo in 2023
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Sempra Energy has filed an application to build a new liquefied natural gas export plant in Port Arthur, Texas, for proposed service starting in 2023. -
Bill to Improve Rail Hazmat Response Training Clears House
Dec 1, 2016 | Safety and Health Magazine
A bill intended to improve training for workers who engage in emergency response to rail incidents involving hazardous materials was approved by the House on Nov. 29. -
Trade Consequences On Tap if U.S. Exits Paris
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
How are members of the World Energy Council reacting to President-elect Donald Trump's transition and possible actions on energy and climate?
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Nylon 6 Prices Rise, Bucking Trend of Dropping Prices for Other Resins
Dec 1, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Changes to demand and feedstock costs sent North American prices for several commodity resins lower in November. Meanwhile, feedstock tightness has sent regional prices for nylon 6 resins in the other direction since August.
Regional polypropylene prices took the biggest slide, declining by an average of 6 cents per pound. All grades of polyethylene in the region saw prices dip by 3 cents, while average selling prices for solid polystyrene and suspension PVC each were down an average of 2 cents per pound, according to market sources recently contacted by Plastics News.
PP prices settled downward for the second straight month after falling 1.5 cents per pound in October. Prices continue to fall as inventories of propylene monomer feedstock grow, sources said. Prior to these two price drops, prices had soared a total of 9.5 cents per pound in August-September as inventories tightened. Taking into account prior increases and decreases, regional PP prices now are down a net of 4 cents per pound since Jan. 1.
North American PP sales essentially were flat in the first 10 months of 2016, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic sales were down almost 2 percent for that period, while export sales surged almost 49 percent.
Dropping PE prices
The 3-cent drop on all grades of high, low and linear low density PE was tied to lower prices for ethylene feedstock. The drop comes after prices were flat in October and in five of the previous six months overall. The only change in that period took place when prices jumped an average of 5 cents per pound in September. Sources attributed that move to an inventory correction connected to several maintenance turnarounds and unplanned outages.
U.S./Canadian PE demand growth was mixed in the first 10 months of 2016, according to ACC. Regional sales of HDPE were up almost 2 percent, while sales of LLDPE fell 0.5 percent and those of LDPE declined almost 3 percent.
Domestic HDPE sales growth of almost 1 percent was boosted by export sales growth of more than 4 percent in the 10-month period. For LLDPE, a domestic sales jump of almost 1 percent was lessened by a drop of almost 4 percent in the export market. The regional LDPE field saw domestic sales growth of more than 1 percent wiped out by a drop of 14 percent in export sales.
PVC, PS down by 2 cents
PVC makers in November essentially gave back a 2 cent increase they had won in October. As in PE, lower ethylene feedstock prices played a role. Prior to that October increase, prices had been flat for four consecutive months.
Through October, U.S./Canadian PVC sales were up more than 5 percent, according to ACC, with domestic sales growth of almost 5 percent augmented by a surge of almost 7 percent in export sales. Sales of the material into its flagship rigid pipe and tubing sector were up almost 7 percent in that period.
The downward 2-cent move on PS for November comes after prices were flat in October. Prices had climbed a total of 5 cents in August-September. Regional prices for benzene feedstock — used to make styrene monomer — were down almost 4 percent in November after falling almost 8 percent in October. Short-term production issues for PS in October had prevented prices from following benzene.
Regional PS prices are up a net of 4 cents per pound since Jan. 1. North American PS sales through October were down almost 1 percent compared to the same period in 2015, according to ACC. Sales into food packaging and food service — its largest end market — were up almost 1 percent.
Nylon rises
North American nylon 6 resin prices have surged an average of 10 cents per pound since August, due in part to tightness of caprolactam feedstock. German plastics and chemicals giant BASF SE in September announced plans to remove more than 200 million pounds of annual caprolactam production in Europe by early 2018. This move already has caused some tightness in global markets for that material, sources said.
“Things have become bad and complicated in [nylon 6] pricing,” one industry contact added. “It’s opened the door for European and Asian producers to sell into North America.”
2016 demand for nylon 6 in the North American automotive market has been good, but now “is tapering off a little,” the contact said, while demand in carpet fibers has been down.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20161201/NEWS/161209979/nylon-6-prices-rise-bucking-trend-of-dropping-prices-for-other-resins
-
Trump Names Fracking Fan to Agency Team
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Trump transition officials have selected a second critic of U.S. EPA's policies to work on the transition team for that agency.
Amy Oliver Cooke, executive vice president and director of the Energy Policy Center for the Colorado free-market think tank Independence Institute, will be joining Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute on the so-called EPA landing team.
Cooke has been a staunch critic of the Obama administration's environmental policies. She wrote in a blog post yesterday that "elections have consequences," and in "2017 the EPA will be very different under a President Trump administration. During the campaign, Mr. Trump said the Clean Power Plan is DOA."
According to her profile on the Independence Institute webpage, she became "famous for her provocative messaging like 'Mothers In Love with Fracking' and 'I'm an energy feminist because I'm pro-choice in energy sources.'"
She has collaborated with CEI — the conservative think tank where Ebell works — to "expose Colorado's phantom carbon tax and the real cost of the state's renewable energy mandate," the website says.
The Trump team also announced today that Martin Dannenfelser Jr., formerly of the Energy Innovation Reform Project, has been added to the Energy Department transition team.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/01/stories/1060046510
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Raises CBI Concerns in EPA Snur Proposal
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Several industry groups have raised concerns about disclosure of confidential business information (CBI) under proposed changes to the US EPA’s regulations governing significant new use rules (Snurs) under TSCA.
In a 28 July proposed rule, the EPA suggested modifying several provisions covering Snurs in order to ensure consistency with other agency regulations and to “make clarifications, based on its experiences in issuing and administering over 2,800” of them.
But one change – revising the bona fide procedure to include coverage of situations where the significant new use terms are confidential – was criticised by industry.
Under existing law, an entity which intends to manufacture or import a substance that is not listed in the public portion of the TSCA inventory can ask the EPA if the substance is listed in the confidential portion. To do this, that person must demonstrate a bona fide intent to manufacture or import that substance.
If that substance is also subject to a Snur which treats the significant new uses as confidential, the EPA then must determine if the proposed use of the substance will be considered new, and inform the submitter accordingly.
In its proposal, the EPA suggested amending its regulations to allow it to disclose a substance’s confidential significant new use designations to a submitter, once it has demonstrated bona fide intent to manufacture or import.
But, in written comments to the agency, the American Petroleum Institute (API) says this goes too far in disclosing CBI.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) agrees the change would result in “unnecessary and unjustified” disclosure of the confidential Snur provisions, regardless of whether the requester intends to engage in those uses. It recommends the EPA simply respond yes or no as to whether a submitter's use would be considered a significant new use.
And law firm Bergeson & Campbell, in comments submitted on behalf of its clients, said it “strenuously objects” to the proposed changes and called for them to be withdrawn.
“We do not read provisions in either old or new TSCA to authorise EPA to disclose CBI in the way that is proposed,” it says.
Revisiting CBI claims
More broadly, the ACC said the EPA should seek voluntary withdrawal of confidentiality claims for Snur chemicals.
“EPA’s bona fide notice procedure takes time and resources that would be unnecessary if the chemical identity and/or significant new uses were no longer considered confidential by the original submitter,” said the ACC.
Many of the 2,800-plus Snurs, it said, have either the chemical identity or the significant new use, or both, as confidential – with some dating to the 1980s and '90s. “The original need for confidentiality may have changed in some cases.”
Hierarchy of controls
Outside of CBI concerns, the majority of comments to the agency focused on its proposal to make not implementing a hierarchy of controls (HOC) to protect workers a significant new use.
This revision would require persons subject to applicable Snurs to use engineering and administrative controls before using personal protective equipment (PPE) for worker protection, in line with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) requirements.
Several NGOs and trade unions support the proposal. Osha also submitted comments to “strongly encourage” implementation of the proposed changes.
Some in industry, however, cautioned that they duplicate – and, in some cases, are “lengthier or more complicated” than – Osha requirements.
And the ACC was among those in industry which expressed concern that retroactively applying HOC provisions to existing Snurs could “throw hundreds or thousands of manufacturers and processors into immediate non-compliance”.
The API also noted that because the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act directs EPA to consult with Osha prior to adopting prohibitions or restrictions to address workplace exposure to chemicals, the agency needs to be generally more transparent about how it is collaborating to develop the rulemaking.
"EPA needs to begin now in giving the public more information about how it is working with Osha to ensure consistency in efforts to address workplace chemical health and safety issues,” said the API.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51325/industry-raises-cbi-concerns-in-epa-snur-proposal
-
(ACC Mentioned) 1, 4-Dioxane, Asbestos Make EPA's List of High Priority Chemicals
Dec 1, 2016 | Michigan Radio
By Rebecca Williams
The Environmental Protection Agency just put out a list of ten high priority chemicals.
These are the first chemicals the agency will review for risks to human health and the environment under a new law that Congress passed this summer.
The law is an overhaul of the nation’s chemical safety regulations – it’s called the Toxic Substances Control Act or TSCA. It covers chemicals in all kinds of consumer products. (It doesn’t cover food, drugs, cosmetics or pesticides - those come under other regulations.)
Jim Jones is the assistant administrator with the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
“The old law put us in the position of, if we saw something that gave us concern, we could stop its entry into the market. It was somewhat of a defensive posture," he says.
He says the previous law was much weaker and it limited EPA’s authority to restrict chemicals that aren’t safe.
“The new law requires us to make an affirmative finding that it’s safe to go onto the market, which is a very different kind of finding,” says Jones.
So, now, he says EPA is conducting safety reviews of chemicals already on the market. These first ten chemicals come from a list of 90 chemicals EPA considers a priority to study first.
“They were selected because of known hazards and known exposures associated with them,” he says.
Asbestos is on this list, and so is 1, 4-dioxane. 1,4-dioxane is the same chemical that’s contaminating groundwater in Ann Arbor. The EPA has classified 1,4-dioxane as a likely human carcinogen. Jones says this safety review could have an effect on the future of that cleanup.
“It certainly could influence it in the sense that the science that we’re going to develop to evaluate 1,4-dioxane would be completely relevant to a cleanup standard. It doesn’t create a cleanup standard per se but it would certainly be relevant to it.” he says.
The state of Michigan recently issued an emergency rule to tighten up the cleanup standard for 1,4-dioxane.
The American Chemistry Council represents chemical manufacturers. ACC did not make anyone available for a taped interview for this story, but sent this email statement:
“It is important to note that a chemical's inclusion in this first group of ten chemicals does not in and of itself indicate anything about the safety of the chemical. Its listing is simply an acknowledgment by the Agency that it plans to conduct risk evaluations on these ten chemicals before others. Under the new law, we expect EPA to conduct risk evaluations using a tiered approach that includes an initial screening-level evaluation. If necessary, a more detailed evaluation to quantify potential risks will be conducted. Under the new law, when EPA conducts risk evaluations it must consider a chemical’s conditions of use and its hazard and exposure potential. The Agency is also required to base its risk evaluations on the highest quality, most relevant scientific data and the weight of the scientific evidence. In order to help ensure the most credible results, it is imperative that EPA engage stakeholders early and often throughout the risk evaluation process, including through peer review and public comment."
Under the old law, EPA couldn't ban asbestos
Rebecca Meuninck is the deputy director of the Ecology Center in Ann Arbor. She says the updated chemical safety law gives EPA more power to regulate chemicals that are shown to cause harm.
“For example, in the '90s, there were attempts to ban asbestos, which we know is a known human carcinogen, causes mesothelioma and asbestosis. But EPA couldn’t ban all uses of asbestos under [the] previous TSCA. Now, they are looking at asbestos again, and we are hopeful that they can really slam the door on this nasty chemical and get it out of commerce,” she says.
Meuninck says the new law makes it easier for the EPA to do risk assessments on chemicals.
"There’s no cost-benefit analysis, I guess is the best way to explain it. So [if] the hazard is high enough, the risk is high enough after the risk assessment for a chemical like asbestos, they can ban it. Whereas that was not possible previously,” she says.
And that’s a huge change.
“It puts health in the forefront, and not the economic question, in terms of regulating chemicals,” says Meuninck.
http://michiganradio.org/post/1-4-dioxane-asbestos-make-epas-list-high-priority-chemicals
-
Senators Call on Trump Administration for Smooth TSCA Transition
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
A bipartisan group of senators has urged Vice President-elect Mike Pence to ensure the Trump administration “vigorously implement” the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act.
“It is essential to maintain momentum during the presidential transition and in the early months of the new administration, to ensure that this new law is successful," said the nine senators in a letter to Mr Pence, chair of the Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee.
The signatories – which included senators central to passing the legislation to reform TSCA – committed to working with the new administration to see the law succeed. But “in order for that to happen,” they wrote, “we urge that you begin working with the [EPA] to communicate on critical steps that are underway and to get a full appreciation of the new law’s deadlines.”
The senators also urged that Mr Pence view appointments, funding and staffing to the agency “with utmost importance”.
The letter was signed by senators Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia), Tom Carper (D-Delaware), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts), Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island).
It came one day after the US EPA selected the first ten existing chemicals that will be subject to risk evaluation under the new TSCA, three weeks ahead of schedule. The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act required the agency to begin the evaluations for at least ten TSCA workplan chemicals, within six months of the law’s passage.
Stakeholders viewed the naming of the first substances as a “welcome sign of timely implementation of the new law”. But the EPA continues to face a daunting implementation schedule, with a number of six-month and one-year deadlines.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) said, last month, that the agency is “very confident” it will be able to stay on track with its statutory obligations.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51346/senators-call-on-trump-administration-for-smooth-tsca-transition
-
Bipartisan Group of Senators Urges New Administration to Ensure Strong Implementation of New TSCA
Dec 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Yesterday a bipartisan group of nine Senators who were deeply involved in passage of the Lautenberg Act wrote to President-Elect Trump’s transition team to urge that EPA under the next Administration “vigorously implement the new law.” The Lautenberg Act amended the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) and was signed into law by President Obama on June 22, of this year.
The group went on to state that strong implementation “includes moving expeditiously to identify and address chemicals with the greatest potential impact on public health, especially those affecting vulnerable populations. … Successful implementation of this law will also help ensure there is certainty and restore confidence in the marketplace for manufacturers, consumer product producers, and the public.”
The Senators urged that the transition team work with EPA “to communicate on critical steps that are underway and to get a full appreciation of the new law’s deadlines. We urge that you view appointments, funding and staffing to this office with the utmost importance. It is essential to maintain momentum during the Presidential transition and in the early months of the new Administration to ensure that this new law is successful.”
The signatories to the letter are Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM), James Inhofe (R-OK), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Tom Carper (D-DE), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/12/01/bipartisan-group-of-senators-urges-new-administration-to-ensure-strong-implementation-of-new-tsca/
-
NICEATM and EPA Publish Androgen Receptor Model
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
A US team has built an in vitro and computational model to predict androgen receptor (AR) activity, based on Tox21 and ToxCast assays.
With up to 10,000 chemicals in the environment currently lacking data on their potential AR bioactivity, such screening methods are considered much needed.
Scientists from the US National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) and the US EPA based the AR design on an oestrogen receptor model.
Developed by Richard Judson at the EPA, this model also used ToxCast and Tox21 data. It is now used in the EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), which recently replaced some tier 1 in vivo tests with in vitro high-throughput (HTS) screening assays.
The plan is eventually to use the AR model to replace a different set of tier 1 tests for:
AR binding;
male rat pubertal study;
Hershberger bioassay in rats; and
a short-term reproduction study in fish.
Agonists and antagonists
AR tests and models are trickier to build and understand than those for oestrogen receptors, explains Warren Casey, NICEATM director. Oestrogen receptor tests look for positive, agonist responses. When a chemical interacts with a receptor, it causes a detectable signal increase.
But most chemicals interacting with AR pathways are antagonists, so they bind and stop things from happening.
AR assays get around this by inducing a signal gain before a test chemical is added so that a loss can be recorded. But that creates problems, explains Dr Casey, because the loss of signal "can be caused by anything, not necessarily a specific interaction with the androgen receptor".
Creating the AR model is “definitely a step up in complexity”, he adds.
Led by Nicole Kleinsteuer from NICEATM, the AR team used data from 11 Tox21 and ToxCast in vitroassays and an additional antagonist confirmation assay. They used the in vitro AR battery to screen 1,855 chemicals, collecting assay activity patterns. These included no assays activated, all agonist assays activated, and all antagonist assays activated.
To deal with such complex data, the scientists developed a computational model to decide whether chemicals activating specific patterns are more likely to be AR agonists, AR antagonists, false positives or true negatives.
Validation
Validating the AR pathway model also has proven difficult. The AR pathway does not have a standard set of well-characterised reference chemicals, unlike that of the oestrogen receptor.
Instead, the researchers identified a set of chemicals with reliable and reproducible in vitro results from non-ToxCast/Tox21 literature, and put the chemicals into potency categories.
Validating the AR model against the reference chemicals showed it to be over 95% accurate for predicting both AR agonism and antagonism. The team identified a number of environmental chemicals as potential AR antagonists.
Next, it will submit the proposed reference chemical list and potency categories to the OECD.
The scientists suggest that the HTS results, and computer model predictions, should be integrated with exposure studies for "decision making in a risk assessment framework".
The AR model is published in Chemical Research in Toxicology.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51336/niceatm-and-epa-publish-androgen-receptor-model
-
Plan Sought to Reduce Flame Retardant Toxins in Great Lakes
Nov 30, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Associated Press
A U.S.-Canadian agency says both nations should develop a plan for dealing with flame-retardant chemicals that have turned up in the Great Lakes.
The chemicals are polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs. They're found in electronic devices, appliances, carpets and a variety of other products.
Many have been banned or are being phased out. But they still are being detected in the Great Lakes at levels that could endanger human and wildlife health.
The International Joint Commission advises both nations on boundary water issues. It says a strategy should be developed over the next year to reduce the presence of the chemicals in the lakes.
The commission says the plan should include further restrictions on making, using or selling the chemicals and measures for eliminating releases during recycling and disposal.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/AP376ae8baa55a4b58bcca857714c0283e
-
Climate: EPA Promulgates Second SNAP Rule Targeting HFCs
Dec 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has published its final rule delisting a second round of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerant chemicals due to their high global warming potential (GWP), a move that would bring the regulation into effect at the end of the month.
While several appliance manufacturers appear willing to tolerate the rule, it is likely to face legal challenges over EPA's authority to address climate effects under the program, which critics say was originally intended to address chemicals over their ozone-depleting effects. And the regulation faces an uncertain future under the Trump administration.
The rule in question removes several HFCs from a list of acceptable substances under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program due to their global warming effects, and also approves several low-GWP alternatives for use. It will take effect 30 days after its publication in the Register. It is the second such rulemaking addressing HFCs under the SNAP program, with the first promulgated in July 2015.
EPA finalized the SNAP rule Sept. 26 as part of a package of measures addressing HFCs. The agency also finalized updates to refrigerant management and handling guidelines under section 608 of the Clean Air Act, which appeared in the Nov. 18 Federal Register.
The SNAP rule's publication also opens the door to potential legal challenges, starting the 60-day clock for parties to sue. EPA in the final version rejected several requests from the refrigeration industry to extend by as many as one to three years the deadlines by which companies must phase out some of the chemicals – a point of contention that could prompt a lawsuit.
The home appliance sector – which under the final rule is required to meet a 2021 phaseout deadline, three years earlier than its requested date – had previously not ruled out legal action. “We're not currently planning to sue the agency,” Rob McArver of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers told InsideEPA though he noted the group's concerns that delisting HFCs “is not really something [EPA has] the authority to do.”
He added: “If the impact to our industry is too severe, we're keeping open the possibility that we might have to challenge the rule” on its legal basis.
Several chemical companies are already challenging EPA's first SNAP rule on the grounds that the agency does not have the authority to phase out HFCs, which are greenhouse gases, under the SNAP program, which was originally created to address ozone-depleting substances.
The suit, Mexichem Fluor Inc. v. EPA, is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and has been fully briefed, though oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.
While EPA is strongly defending its legal authority, the ongoing litigation has become a source of uncertainty, particularly as the Obama administration comes to a close. If oral arguments in that case do not occur before Obama leaves office in January, it is unclear whether Trump would defend EPA's SNAP authority, would seek a settlement or take another approach, Steve Yurek, president of the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute told InsideEPA earlier this month.
http://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
-
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations
The US EPA has issued section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for three substances that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). These are:
generic polyester-amide polymer of 'isophthalic acid' with diamino-alkane, cyclohexanedialcohol,alkanetriol, di-isocyanate and acrylic acid-ethylene copolymer, intended for use as a polymeric dye carrier;
generic diamine substituted arylimidazole, intended for use as an additive; and
generic substituted siloxane polymer, intended as a device chemical.
In each case, the substance was determined not likely to present an unreasonable risk, based on low human health and environmental hazard.
Receipt of voluntary requests to cancel pesticide registrations
The EPA has received voluntary requests to cancel the registrations of certain products regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (Fifra).
The request for propoxur, if granted, would cancel the last indoor use of aerosol, spray and liquid formulations, and terminate the last uses in food handling establishments and for indoor crack and crevice treatment.
The agency has also received requests for certain products containing the active ingredients dimethomorph, metiram, profenofos and sodium acifluorfen, and to amend certain captan product registrations to terminate certain uses.
According to a notice in the Federal Register, the EPA will proceed with the cancellations on 22 December, provided no substantive comments are received.
Grant for safer alternatives
The EPA is soliciting grant applications for a four-year cooperative agreement to create a Center of Excellence for Chemical Alternatives Assessment. The agency expects to award up to $800,000.
The center will work to promote chemical safety and informed chemical substitution for products and processes.
The application period closes on 17 January.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51136/us-epa-round-up
-
DG Sante Defends Revised Draft EDC Criteria
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Members of the European Parliament’s Environment Committee (Envi) have told the European Commission’s health directorate (DG Sante) of their frustration with its revised draft criteria proposal for the identification of endocrine disruptors (ED).
One of the main arguments, some Envi members put to DG Sante’s deputy director-general, Ladislav Miko, is that the Commission has not stuck to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an ED, despite saying that it has.
“The Commission always said it has to stick to the WHO definition [but] when we look at ... the proposal, the Commission uses 'it shows an adverse effect' – according to the WHO, it should be 'causes or is presumed to cause an adverse effect'," said committee vice chair Pavel Poc.
“Don’t you think the Commission’s changes [from the WHO definition] could keep dangerous and suspicious compounds outside the scope of the proposed criteria?”
The change to “shows an adverse effect”, said Piernicola Pedicini of the Eurosceptic EFDD group, “flies in the face of the precautionary principle - the Commission is asking us not to respect [that]. But we are going to stick to our guns and not sell ourselves to industry.”
Bas Eickhout (Greens–European Free Alliance) echoed the criticism: “Why is the Commission using a different form of formulation than the WHO? Why is the Commission refusing to follow decent, normal WHO procedure?”
DG Sante’s ‘interpretation’
Mr Miko said the Commission “follows the principle of the WHO definition”, and it is not true that it demands that negative health effects must be proven on humans.
“We go for the same level of proof ... It may be based on animal or in vitro tests. It is there explicitly, but because the previous draft was written in a way that was not apparent from the first sentence, [in the revised draft] we made what we mean clearer.”
He appeared to contradict his earlier statement that “the Commission follows” the WHO definition, by later saying its criteria are an "interpretation” of it.
“We had to work in the existing framework of the PPP and biocides Regulations, to link what was there already with the definition it proposed. What is there is a direct and fair proper interpretation of the WHO definition, which is then implementable within the European legislation.”
Others urge acceptance
Not all Envi members demanded further revision. Right wing MEPs Julie Girling (European Conservatives and Reformists) and Jens Gieseke (Christian Democrats) called for a swift adoption of the revised criteria.
“If we reject this [revised criteria], we would revert back to the interim criteria and nobody liked those,” Ms Girling said. “This is a significant improvement and in the spirit of compromise I think people need to [...] accept that the Commission has now fulfilled its legal obligation.”
The deadline for member states to submit comments on the new draft was 30 November. Next, the standing committee on plants, animals, food and feed (PAFF) and the expert group of competent authorities for biocides will revisit discussions at their yet to be confirmed upcoming meetings.
Once they accept the proposals, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the revised draft Regulation. After its three-month scrutiny period, if Envi objects to the final draft proposals they go to plenary where Parliament will vote. If more than half its members vote against them, they cannot enter into force.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51340/dg-sante-defends-revised-draft-edc-criteria
-
Tesco to Eliminate Microbeads from Own-Label Products
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
UK retailer Tesco has pledged to remove microbeads from its own-label products by the end of the year.
From 2017, any new formulations in personal care and household products will be free from microbeads. The store will also “encourage” brands it sells to phase them out.
The ban was announced by the retailer's group quality director, Tim Smith, at a Greenpeace sponsored event last week.
A Tesco spokesperson said: “All own-label products are now being made free of microbeads and we expect all previous stock to be off our shelves by the end of the year. We are also actively encouraging brands to match our commitment.”
The move follows an announcement by fellow UK retailer Waitrose, earlier this year, that it would not stock any cosmetic products containing the beads from September. According to the retailer, its own-label products have never contained them.
Greenpeace oceans campaigner, Elisabeth Whitebread, said Tesco was “taking the lead and showing that companies can commit to a complete ban”.
She added: "It's only through this kind of concerted action from companies and governments that we'll tackle the urgent problem of ocean plastic pollution."
UK ban
In September, UK environment secretary, Andrea Leadsom, announced plans to ban the sale and manufacture of cosmetics and personal care products containing microbeads.
Ms Leadsom said: “Most people would be dismayed to know the face scrub or toothpaste they use was causing irreversible damage to the environment, with billions of indigestible plastic pieces poisoning sea creatures.
“Adding plastic to products like face washes and body scrubs is wholly unnecessary when harmless alternatives can be used.”
The government will consult industry, environmental groups and other relevant parties to establish how and when a ban could be introduced, aiming to change legislation next year. It will also gather evidence on the environmental impact of microbeads in household and industrial cleaning products.
But NGOs have criticised the government plans for focusing solely on personal care products and called for a comprehensive ban on all products containing them.
Ms Whitebread said: "Marine life doesn’t distinguish between plastic from a face wash and plastic from a detergent, so it's important that the government ensures we end up with a world-leading ban that covers all household products.”
Many cosmetics and toiletries companies have already taken steps to voluntarily phase out microbeads from their products by 2020.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51332/tesco-to-eliminate-microbeads-from-own-label-products
-
Policy Makers Seek Consistency Between OELs and REACH
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission is seeking to develop a pan-EU methodology for defining what is an “acceptable level of risk” of workers and consumers getting cancer from exposure to different carcinogenic chemicals, present in the workplace or in products.
It is also hoping to reach agreement on a consistent regulatory framework and policy measures that can be applied to both REACH authorisations and restrictions on the one hand, and to EU occupational exposure limits (OELs) on the other.
As part of this process, the Commission held a workshop, last week, so that delegates could learn about existing national approaches, including those of the Netherlands and Germany, designed to reduce workplace exposures to non-threshold carcinogens, and to hear people’s ideas for the way forward.
A particular problem, the workshop heard, is that Echa’s Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) and the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limit Values (Scoel) sometimes give the Commission inconsistent advice on acceptable levels of risk and exposure for the same substance.
“It’s well-known,” DG Environment’s Cristina de Avila told the meeting, “that on some occasions Rac and Scoel have applied different dose response curves which result in ... different levels of risks. As this poses consistency problems for us as regulators, the Commission has given a mandate to both committees to analyse together their methodologies and to resolve as far as possible their methodological differences.”
The two committees are due to conduct and complete this work over the course of next year.
Another problem is that non-threshold carcinogens, for which no OELs have been set, may be subject to REACH authorisation. In such cases, the Commission has accepted the level at which workers are exposed to these substances, following the set of particular risk management measures and operational conditions linked to specific authorised uses and workplaces. Moreover, different national occupational exposure limits might have been set for such substances by the member states.
In some cases, said Aart Rouw of the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Baua), the conditions suggested for an authorisation would permit the substance to be used in a way which allows a greater risk of workers getting cancer than if Germany’s national system took precedence.
“If you look at some authorisations, it’s very easy to create a case [using the] cost/benefits ratio, especially if you have a risk which is still pretty high but you don’t have that many people working with the substance, and you have a high value business - you can easily create a case where the benefits of continuing the use of the hazardous carcinogen are much higher than the costs, even though the individual risk is higher than what our model would allow...
“So you may end up in a situation where Echa tells you yes, fine, you can use this, and the national authorities will say no, you have to make big improvements or you can only continue using it in this way for three years. It’s still an open question, how such conflicting cases will be dealt with.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/51338/policy-makers-seek-consistency-between-oels-and-reach
-
REACH Registrants Could Omit Acute Oral Toxicity Tests
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Chemicals showing low oral toxicity in sub-acute tests may not require additional acute oral tests, according to an Echa study.
The agency estimates that registrants of about 550 chemicals will be able to omit in vivo acute oral studies, ahead of the 2018 REACH registration deadline.
REACH requires information on this endpoint for substances produced or imported in quantities greater than one tonne per year. However, after analysing information in the REACH database, Echa has recommended that registrants use results from a 28-day oral toxicity study as part of a weight-of-evidence approach for covering acute toxicity.
There are three OECD animal test guidelines for acute oral toxicity: TG 420, TG 423 and TG 425. Meanwhile, two OECD test guidelines are used for sub-acute toxicity: repeated dose 28-day oral toxicity study in rodents and a combined repeated-dose toxicity study.
Echa analysed the REACH database to identify over 1,000 substances with suitable studies of both acute oral and sub-acute oral toxicity. More than 400 of the substances had low toxicity in the sub-acute study. Of these, 98% also had low acute toxicity.
The results suggest that low acute oral toxicity can be predicted from the results of low toxicity in oral sub-acute toxicity studies.
Registrants wishing to use information from such studies in their registration dossier will need to report findings as part of a weight-of-evidence approach, writes Echa. Additional independent pieces of evidence such as cytotoxicity tests, Qsar and physico-chemical information will also be required.
In addition, the no observed adverse effect level (Noael) obtained in sub-acute studies needs to be at or above 1,000mg/kg body weight, it adds.
Echa anticipates that about one third of a forecast 5,200 substances will need information for the acute oral toxicity endpoint, in time for the 2018 deadline.
The study is published in Altex.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51342/reach-registrants-could-omit-acute-oral-toxicity-tests
-
Echa Expert Group Focuses on Long-Range PBT Transport
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
The siloxane D4 has the potential for long-range transport in the environment, according to Echa's expert group for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBT EG).
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) is known to be both PBT and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB). Echa's Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis Committees (Rac and Seac) have already recommended restrictions on D4 and D5 in wash-off personal care products, such as shampoos, following a UK proposal.
The European Commission has sought the PBT EG's advice on D4's potential for long-range transport, as it drafts a dossier to propose identification of the substance as fulfilling Annex D criteria of the Stockholm Convention.
During a meeting on 22-23 November, most of the group agreed that it travels significant distances in the environment, based on its intrinsic properties and measured data from remote regions.
D4's long-range transport is difficult to assess. Remote locations for the substance may not be the same as those for “classical” persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as PCBs, Johanna Peltola-Thies, co-chair of the PBT EG, told Chemical Watch. “[It] is used so widely that even at some locations perceived as remote, there may be point sources.” Additionally, avoiding sample contamination is a real challenge.
Screening strategy
The EG also discussed Echa's proposals for a new screening strategy for potential PBTs, as part of the SVHC roadmap to 2020. Echa's Jane Caley explained that the agency has looked at traditional PBT properties and criteria and are "now starting to think about using more data, maybe outside of the registration dossier."
For this, Echa is currently focusing on ways to assess the bioaccumulation potential of substances in terrestrial organisms.
Screening criteria could be partly based on physico-chemical properties, using octanol-water and octanol-air partition coefficients, said Ms Caley. “These parameters are easy to measure or predict, using Qsars, and give an indication that a substance may bioaccumulate in air-breathing organisms such as mammals.”
But Ms Caley said there is no clear testing strategy for that at the moment. "There is no clear criterion in Annex XIII of REACH [for air-breathing organisms]. That is a challenge for the future and needs a lot more discussion,” she added.
Non-PBTs
At its meeting, the group decided that alcohols, lanolin is not PBT. Such a cut and dried decision is becoming rare for the group. “It shows how targeted we are. We used to conclude much more often on substances that are not PBT,” said EG co-chair Ms Peltola-Thies.
The EG has deliberately sought complex cases needing further investigation. “We are very focused on those hard nuts,” she added.
Finally, updated PBT guidance is still on target to be published by the end of May 2017.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51324/echa-expert-group-focuses-on-long-range-pbt-transport
-
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
First report on information exchange under Pic
The first report on exchanging information about chemicals exported under the prior informed consent (Pic) Regulation is available on the agency's website. It cover 2014 and 2015 and summarises, for example, the number of export notifications submitted to third countries.
Updated guidance on data-sharing
Echa has released its Guidance on data-sharing (version 3.0). This is a full revision to take into account and implement the provisions laid down in the Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2016/9 on joint submission and data sharing. Key aspects that have been reviewed include cost-sharing mechanisms, joint submission obligations, cooperation agreements and disputes.
Presentations available from Exchange Network on Exposure Scenarios
The presentations from Exchange Network on Exposure Scenarios (Enes) 10 are now available. The meeting focused on the generation of use maps and exemplifying safe use information for mixtures, to improve supply chain communication.
Webpage on the joint submission obligation
A new webpage clarifies what registrants have to do to be in line with the joint submission obligation, introduced by the implementing Regulation on joint submission of data and data sharing.
Echa advises that it is looking at existing registrations and contacting those registrants which breach the joint submission obligation. These companies will be given sufficient time to comply. If they do not act, their registrations may be revoked, it says.
The agency also points out that dossiers can no longer be submitted through REACH-IT individually if a registration for the same substance and same registration type already exists.
Q&As on legal entity changes in authorisation
Echa needs to be notified of changes related to the legal entity applying for an authorisation, or to the holder. The agency has a new section of Q&As, providing guidance on this.
Stakeholders' Day 2017
Echa has announced its 12th Stakeholders' Day conference on 4-5 April 2017 in Helsinki. Delegates will hear the latest news and updates from the agency, European industry associations and NGOs. In addition, they will have the chance to receive training on Echa's IT tools.
The main focus of the day will be on preparing for the 31 May 2018 REACH registration deadline, offering a platform for registrants, in particular SMEs, to receive last-minute advice and guidance.
Participation is free of charge, and registration opens shortly.
51st meeting of Member State Committee - draft agenda
Echa has issued a provisional draft agenda for the meeting on 12-16 December in Helsinki.
Agency closure
Echa has announced it will be closed on the following dates:
6 December 2;
23 December – 2 January 2017; and
6 January 2017.
The first working day of the new year is 3 January.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51278/echa-round-up
-
Obama Admin, Challengers to Battle Over BLM Rule's Future
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration and its critics will square off next month over the Bureau of Land Management's new rule for slashing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming announced yesterday that BLM and its industry and state challengers will have a chance to make their cases for and against the rule on Jan. 6. The rule is scheduled to take effect Jan. 17.
Two industry groups — the Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance — sued over the rule immediately after its release in November. Wyoming and Montana quickly followed suit, joined by North Dakota last week. The states and industry groups argue that the rule — which aims to cut methane emissions from venting and flaring at oil and gas sites on public and tribal lands — is costly, duplicative and beyond BLM's authority.
All challengers to the rule asked the district court to issue a preliminary injunction, blocking it from taking effect while the litigation plays out.
In briefs last week, the industry groups argued they will face irreparable harm if the rule takes effect as scheduled. Kathleen Sgamma, vice president for government and public affairs for Western Energy Alliance, said BLM has vastly underestimated how much it will cost industry to comply with the new standards. While the agency expects the industry to face $114 million to $279 million in compliance costs per year, industry estimates put the number much higher at $1.26 billion, including $114 million in lost state and federal tax revenue.
States, meanwhile, argue enforcement of the rule will undermine their own regulatory measures.
"This rule exceeds the Bureau's statutory authority, and if it goes into effect next month, it will cause irreparable harm to Wyoming and Montana's sovereignty by undermining the states' air quality control programs and the states' ability to regulate the production of state minerals," the two states told the court this week.
While the states have argued that the rule amounts to an air quality regulation that falls on states' and U.S. EPA's turf, BLM has maintained that its mandate to prevent waste of oil and gas resources is part of the rule's foundation.
The rule was finalized just months after EPA rolled out its own regulation to slash methane emissions from new oil and gas sources. That rule is also being challenged in court.
The two sides will face off next month before Judge Scott Skavdahl, the same judge who froze and ultimately struck down BLM's hydraulic fracturing rule earlier this year. Each side will have two hours to make its case.
The court date is just two weeks before the Trump administration takes the reins. Trump is expected to try to loosen regulations on the oil and gas industry, and it's unclear how vigorously his administration will defend finalized rules. Environmental groups plan to intervene in the litigation in support of the rule.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/01/stories/1060046448
-
New Texas Terminal Would Send First LNG Cargo in 2023
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Sempra Energy has filed an application to build a new liquefied natural gas export plant in Port Arthur, Texas, for proposed service starting in 2023.
The project, Port Arthur LNG, would encompass two natural gas cooling facilities capable of producing up to 13.5 million metric tons per year of LNG, as well as about 30 miles of associated connecting pipeline, three LNG storage tanks and a natural gas power generator to run the facility.
In 2006, Sempra received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to build an LNG import terminal on the same site, which was previously used by the Army Corps of Engineers to dispose of dredged material. That project was authorized just as domestic natural gas production began to grow with the use of hydraulic fracturing, and the import facility was not built.
Now Sempra is asking to build a facility that would take in pipeline gas and liquefy it for export. The company also owns the Cameron LNG facility, which was completed as an import terminal and is currently being redeveloped to allow for LNG exports.
Sempra aims to secure the key regulatory approvals for Port Arthur LNG by the summer of 2018. It says it would bring the two LNG production trains online five years later.
That timeline would bring the new LNG export capacity to market around the time many analysts see global markets calling for new supply.
The last year has seen the first modern U.S. LNG export plant, Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass plant, come online just as world LNG prices collapsed through a combination of unexpectedly low demand and low prices under long-term contracts that link LNG rates to crude oil. A major wave of new LNG capacity is also coming online in Australia, with the result that world supply is expected to exceed demand for five years or more, as global thirst for the fuel slowly catches up to the supply surge.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/01/stories/1060046455
-
Bill to Improve Rail Hazmat Response Training Clears House
Dec 1, 2016 | Safety and Health Magazine
A bill intended to improve training for workers who engage in emergency response to rail incidents involving hazardous materials was approved by the House on Nov. 29.
The RESPONSE Act of 2016 (S. 546) modifies the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to create a temporary subcommittee under FEMA’s National Advisory Council. According to a press release from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the act will improve availability of training to emergency responders, update training content about incidents involving hazardous materials on railroads, and develop strategies for using relevant data.
The bill states that members of the subcommittee will come from various government agencies – including FEMA, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration – as well as people outside of government, such as technical experts and providers of emergency responder training.
“Rail safety is critical to the transport of goods and services through our country,” Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA), chairman of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, said in the release. “I believe the RESPONSE Act will succeed in improving the safety of our nation’s rail network.”
The committee approved the legislation with an amendment in September. The bill will return to the Senate for additional consideration.
http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/14998-bill-to-improve-rail-hazmat-response-training-clears-house
-
Trade Consequences On Tap if U.S. Exits Paris
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
How are members of the World Energy Council reacting to President-elect Donald Trump's transition and possible actions on energy and climate? During today's OnPoint, Barry Worthington, executive director of the U.S. Energy Association and the U.S. representative in the World Energy Council, discusses his conversations with his international counterparts on the future of energy, trade and climate action. He also explains how he believes the U.S.-China relationship will develop under the Trump administration.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Barry Worthington, executive director of the U.S. Energy Association. Barry, thank you for joining me.
Barry Worthington: Thank you for having me. It's good to see you.
Monica Trauzzi: Good to see you as well. Barry, you represent the U.S. at the World Energy Council, and you can provide a unique perspective on what some of the international conversations are specific to energy relating to the incoming Trump administration. What conversations have you had with your counterparts on the World Energy Council, and what is the sentiment sort of internationally as this new administration comes in?
Barry Worthington: Well, I think people in other countries, particularly Europe, who pay attention to U.S. elections were surprised as any of us at the outcome. They were getting the same information we all were, they were hearing the same polling information, and they were just very, very surprised. Additionally I think I would say that, while we don't have a full understanding yet exactly what to expect, they have even less of an understanding of what to expect. And keep in mind, one of the things that's hugely different is the Europeans particularly generally operate parliamentary systems, and over the years, they've always been baffled when we've had an executive branch pronouncement and then Congress does something different because in their system, the government is the Parliament. And so there's great concern over the unknown.
Monica Trauzzi: With energy and climate being so interconnected, we've heard President-elect Trump suggest that he might want to exit the Paris Agreement. He's walked back some of his comments, or at least said that he would like to take a second look and give it a little more consideration, but if the U.S. were to pull out of the Paris Agreement or simply refuse to meet its target, how might that shake things up internationally and what have you heard internationally specific to the Paris Agreement?
Barry Worthington: Well, I think countries, and again, particularly Europeans because they're more concerned over climate issues than people from other continents, they would be very surprised because, again, they don't understand as clearly as we do the notion that you have one administration that can do one thing, Congress can do something else, the next administration, the next Congress can do something completely — completely different. I will say they see the Paris Agreement as a commitment of the United States. They don't see the Paris Agreement as a commitment of the Obama administration. And again, it's just their nature of looking at our set of governance versus what they're familiar with. So if there's a pullback, they would be very disappointed because, again, they would see it as a lack of commitment on the United States of America, not a lack of commitment from one administration versus the other.
Monica Trauzzi: And how might they react in response?
Barry Worthington: Well, it's difficult to say, and they're keeping their cards close to their vest. None of them are willing to talk about what their reaction might be. Their first reaction would be disbelief, but it certainly would have repercussions on other aspects of the United States-European relationship. It would be very much more difficult to get a favorable E.U.-U.S. trade agreement, for example. They would hold hostage a trade agreement if we renege on the Paris Agreement. Now, it's very possible that an E.U.-U.S. trade agreement's a bad idea anyway, like we've learned from other trade agreements, the devil's always in the detail, and until you can see exactly what the nuances are, it's very difficult to tell what the reaction would be. But, you know, we have diplomatic interests, we have national security interests, we have military interests, we have economic interests, we have trade interests with Europe. All of those are going to be affected if we pull out of the Paris Agreement. Now, having said that, let me also say though, from an industry standpoint, we're on path to meet the Paris commitments already. We've had emissions reductions in the energy sector of 18, 19 percent from 2005. We're continuing to reduce emissions. The automobile efficiency standards, the building efficiency standards, appliance standards, lighting standards are all going to contribute to driving our emissions down.
Monica Trauzzi: Which industries — are there industries within your association that are expressing great concern about some of the potential trade consequences that we might see develop?
Barry Worthington: Well, I think any corporation that's engaged in international trade, which is certainly the majority of our members, certainly our larger international companies, they're concerned, again, over the unknown. Now, Mr. Trump, though, is a negotiator and he may end up with things like a Trans-Pacific Partnership, a U.S.-E.U. agreement, even NAFTA. He may negotiate a better deal than what is on the table now. I think we have to take a little bit of a wait and see.
Monica Trauzzi: We spoke a lot about Europe, but the U.S.-China relationship that's evolved over the last few years has been very interesting and dynamic one to watch. President-elect Trump has had some harsh words for China. How do you view the relationship between the U.S. and China specific to energy and climate developing under the next administration?
Barry Worthington: Well, I think that if you look at the messages in the campaign, he was not so much critical of China as he was the prior administration dealing with China. He actually expressed admiration for Chinese negotiators. His view that he expressed was China was getting a better deal than the United States was, and he was committing to negotiate our relationship with China in such a way that it improved the outcomes for U.S. companies and for U.S. citizens. So I can't remember him being critical of China as a country as much as the relationship that we've gotten to with China.
Monica Trauzzi: So, but do you predict a willingness to work with China in a similar way that the Obama administration has?
Barry Worthington: I think that you're going to see it even in a way that benefits Americans more. He expressed that the largest bank in China has their U.S. headquarters in the Trump Tower. He's expressed admiration for Chinese leadership. He, I think, was — expressed admiration for their negotiating capability as opposed to the prior administration. So I spoke at the Tulane Law School a week ago, and I was asked specifically about the Trump administration's trade dealings with China, and I said if we convene here in four years' time, I think you're going to find that there's a better relationship between China and the United States in four years than what there is now, and a relationship that benefits both parties.
Monica Trauzzi: How can investments in Mexico be impacted, not only with potential changes to immigration policy but also changes on trade that we might see coming?
Barry Worthington: Well, that's a really good question because, you know, we have NAFTA in place. NAFTA has a provision that governs energy trade and investment in the energy sector between Mexico and China. Mexico is, for the first time, appearing more and more open for foreign investment. And those investment decisions are made by the U.S. private sector, not the U.S. government. Mexico, in the energy sector particularly, they need our capital, they need our technology, they need our know-how, and I don't think that the Mexican government will allow political rhetoric to get in the way of doing what's best for Mexico.
Monica Trauzzi: Want to get one final question in. You have been in touch with the Trump transition team. In your view, is there clarity on a specific direction this administration will take on energy matters here in the U.S.? We've heard a lot about coal, we've heard a lot about oil and gas development. Is there more clarity on where this is going?
Barry Worthington: I think what you're going to see is a significant loosening of regulation, and what that's going to do, it's going to allow all the energy sources, all the fuels to compete on a more even playing field. And, you know, U.S. Energy Association is certainly market-focused. We think the market should make decisions regarding fuels, regarding selection of technology. Let's level the playing field and have everybody go at it in the marketplace.
Monica Trauzzi: So not a giant influx heading back to coal.
Barry Worthington: Well, coal has to get there on a market basis, and can they do things that reduce costs? Yes, you're seeing cost reductions. Three out of the four largest coal producers went through bankruptcy. They've significantly reduced their costs in that process. We're exporting coal right now. With some changes in environmental regulations, we can export more coal than what we are now. So I think coal has a bright future. I don't think we're going to build a whole slew of new coal plants anytime soon. And again, to the degree that we can, let's have that be a market-based decision.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We will end it right there. Thank you so much for your thoughts.
Barry Worthington: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2183/transcript
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested