Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/12/2017
-
Conflicts of Interest, Sanctions, Climate Dominate Tillerson Hearing
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Rex Tillerson, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to lead the State Department, displayed the steadiness under pressure for which he's widely known as the former CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp. at yesterday's daylong appearance before a Senate confirmation panel. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes Further Restrictions on Carcinogen
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA yesterday proposed further restrictions on the carcinogen trichloroethylene, or TCE, prohibiting its use in vapor degreasing. -
(ACC Mentioned) First-Ever Rules on Nanoparticles Come Into Force
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA yesterday finalized a rule on nanoscale chemical particles that will force companies to disclose information on the extent of such compounds in the marketplace. -
US EPA Moves to Ban Additional Use of TCE
Jan 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has proposed prohibiting the use of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) in vapour degreasing applications. -
EPA Proposes Second Rule to Ban More Uses of Toxic TCE
Jan 12, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took another significant step yesterday to protect against exposures to the highly toxic chemical, trichloroethylene (TCE), proposing a rule to ban its use as a vapor degreaser. -
US EPA Issues Final Nano Reporting Rule
Jan 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The US EPA has finalised its nanoscale materials reporting rule, completing a process that began more than 11 years ago. -
First-Ever Nanoscale Chemical Reporting Rule Finalized
Jan 12, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
A first-ever federal nanoscale chemical rule will require manufacturers and companies that import or process nanomaterials, now and in the future, to report certain information to the EPA. -
US EPA Round-Up
Jan 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for seven substances that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). -
Reviewers Raise Concerns with EPA Model for Crafting Perchlorate MCLG
Jan 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Experts peer reviewing an EPA model that will shape the agency's drinking water goal for perchlorate are raising concerns about the model's scope, construction and validation, which could complicate EPA's ability to apply the model to set a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for the rocket fuel ingredient within a court-ordered time line. -
Echa Gives Update on Regulatory Strategy
Jan 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa plans to screen and conduct compliance checks on the registration dossiers for all substances over 100tonnes - some 4,200 - by the end of 2020. It will decide which may need regulatory risk management measures and which are of "no or low concern". -
Echa Round-Up
Jan 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has added four substances of very high concern (SVHCs) to the candidate list. This now contains 173 substances. -
Massachusetts to Examine Conflict Minerals Procurement Policies
Jan 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has signed into law a resolve to examine the state’s procurement policies with regard to so-called conflict minerals that might be sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). -
Litigation: CEI Outlines Trump Options to Defeat Advocates' GHG Lawsuits
Jan 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
President-elect Donald Trump has multiple options to defeat potential lawsuits in the coming months and years from environmentalists to preserve Obama-era greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations that the new administration is expected to target, according to an analysis by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a free-market think tank. -
NAS Offers Framework for Carbon Cost Updates Amid Trump Threat
Jan 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is offering a framework for continuous improvement of the social cost of carbon (SCC), the metric used to quantify the benefits of EPA and other agencies' greenhouse gas (GHG) control policies, with NAS panel members arguing continued use of the SCC is inevitable. -
Accident Prevention Overhaul May Face Legal, CRA Challenges
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is poised to formally issue an overhaul of its accident prevention program for thousands of chemical plants, refineries and other industrial facilities, opening the door to potential legal challenges. -
No Injuries Reported After Storage Tank Explodes
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
An explosion yesterday at an oil well site near the Montana-North Dakota border was felt nearly 4 miles away. -
Experts Predict More 'Bad Surprises' from Digital Hostage-Takers
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
While Americans fret about Russian hackers exposing private information, seeking to sway elections or even switching off the lights on the electric grid, Marcelo Branquinho warns of a much simpler cyberthreat that may be worming into critical computer systems. -
Trump Taps Giuliani to Lead Cybersecurity Effort
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President-elect Donald Trump today named former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to lead a White House team on cybersecurity after Giuliani was passed over for a top Cabinet position. -
Alaska Highway Crash Spills More Than 4,000 Gallons of Diesel
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Thousands of gallons of diesel reportedly spilled on an Alaska highway after a double tanker-trailer rolled into a ditch Monday afternoon. -
Tillerson: 'The Risk of Climate Change Does Exist'
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson made recovering American leadership the theme of his secretary of State confirmation hearing yesterday, but he argued against the United States getting out ahead on climate change.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Conflicts of Interest, Sanctions, Climate Dominate Tillerson Hearing
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Rex Tillerson, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to lead the State Department, displayed the steadiness under pressure for which he's widely known as the former CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp. at yesterday's daylong appearance before a Senate confirmation panel.
Yet on day one of his confirmation, Tillerson struggled to satisfy concerns that the oil giant's lucrative exploration deals in Russia cloud his view on U.S. sanctions targeting President Vladimir Putin and the Russian economy. Senators urged Tillerson to keep the U.S. seat at the table for implementation of the global Paris climate agreement, and they sought assurances he would align with broad U.S. interests around the world.
Tillerson retired from Exxon after a 42-year career at the company and a decade as its CEO. Democrats and Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), pressed Tillerson on his past criticism of U.S. sanctions against Russia that, if kept in place, would keep on ice Exxon's projects in the Russian Arctic and its remote eastern oil fields.
During more than eight hours of testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Tillerson criticized the Obama administration's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. He said the White House should have responded to the incursion with a show of military force that would have been "a powerful response that indicated that 'Yes, you took the Crimea, but this stops right here.'"
Instead, Tillerson said, the United States' weak, sanctions-based response further emboldened Russia.
Still, Tillerson described sanctions as a powerful foreign policy tool that, if "badly designed," can be worse than using none at all.
"I think it's important to acknowledge that when sanctions are imposed, they either harm or are designed to disrupt American business," he said.
President Obama recently imposed new sanctions on Russia in response to intelligence reports that it was responsible for hacking into U.S. computer systems to interfere in the election. Trump has signaled he may reverse those once he takes office later this month. A bipartisan group of senators is also working on a measure that could make sanctions mandatory, rather than subject to executive reversal.
Tillerson said he would oppose rescinding the new sanctions on Russia until the incoming administration has completed a thorough review of the U.S.-Russia relationship. Rather than imposing a new, automatic sanctions regime targeting individuals or groups that hack into U.S. systems, he said, the administration should conduct a "comprehensive review of our cybersecurity policy."
A flashpoint in the hearing came early, during a series of questions from Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) on Iran and Russia. "To my knowledge, Exxon never lobbied against sanctions," Tillerson asserted.
But committee staff, reporters and others following the session quickly pulled up electronic filings of more than a dozen disclosure reports over the last decade in which Exxon showed it lobbied on sanctions. Tillerson also acknowledged that he had talked with Obama administration officials about the issue.
When presented with the lobbying reports, Tillerson said he did not know whether Exxon lobbied against sanctions bills or just a discussion of their structure and effects.
Another committee Democrat, Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, questioned Tillerson on how he would interact with Exxon officials as secretary of State.
"I would not extend to the new chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil any courtesies that I would not extend to anyone," Tillerson said, adding that he was unlikely to receive phone calls directly from business leaders. When he was Exxon's CEO, he said, he usually spoke with undersecretaries.
Later in the hearing, though, he alluded to speaking directly with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew about problems he saw with the Russian sanctions regime.
Tillerson said that if confirmed, he would recuse himself from issues affecting Exxon for one year, as required by law, but said after that, he would consult with the State Department ethics office and act on its guidance.
Speaking more broadly of his years in the energy industry, during which he served on the board of the American Petroleum Institute, Tillerson said it wouldn't conflict directly with State business. "The scope of that is such that I would not expect to have to recuse myself," he said.
Finding the line on climate
Tillerson repeatedly leaned on his training as an engineer, demurring that he would need more information or access to classified files to consider all the facts before answering a question.
However, on the question of climate, he embraced his scientific background to reveal a clear split with Trump and other Cabinet nominees.
"I came to my personal position over about 20 years as an engineer and a scientist," Tillerson said. "The risk of climate change does exist, and the consequences of it could be serious enough that action should be taken. The type of action seems to be where the largest areas of debate exist in public discourse."
Tillerson questioned one element of climate science, saying that while the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is having an effect on the Earth, "our ability to predict that effect is very limited."
When asked how the United States should proceed with regard to the U.N.-brokered Paris Agreement on climate change, Tillerson deflected specific questions about funding commitments and other measures. But in language that seemed to address questions over whether he would recommend withdrawing from the pact, which imposes few concrete obligations on the countries that signed it, he said, "I think it's important that the United States maintain its seat at the table on the conversations around how to address threats of climate change, which do require a global response."
In a tacit acknowledgement of the space between his own views on climate and those of the president-elect, Tillerson said Trump has sought out his opinion on the matter: "He has asked, and I feel free to express those views," he said. Tillerson also offered assurances that he would not lead any retaliation against State Department employees who have previously worked on climate policy, as some feared from an early line of transition team questioning, quipping, "That would be a pretty unhelpful way to get started."
Tillerson's testimony apparently did little to sway numerous climate activists present at the hearing, including four people who rose at different points in the proceedings and called loudly for senators and the public to "Reject Rex" before being escorted away by security. "Please don't put Exxon in charge of the State Department," one woman implored before she was led to the door.
Voting outlook
As the hearing wrapped up yesterday evening, committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) praised the factual fluency evidenced in Tillerson's ability to answer wide-ranging questions for hours without turning to written responses or notes.
While several senators in the minority challenged Tillerson with tough questions, Rubio of Florida was notable among the majority for the tough stance he took with the nominee.
Throughout the day, Rubio used his turns for questioning to press the nominee hard on subjects including Putin's knowledge of Russian election hacking, its role in committing war crimes in Syria, the U.S. relationship with Cuba, and human rights violations in China and the Philippines. In a closing tirade, Rubio said his main concern was that throughout the day, Tillerson failed to show that he would take firm, principled stances on important issues.
"I was very pleased when you used the term 'moral clarity,' because that's something we've been missing for the last eight years," Rubio said, turning to a phrase he has used often over the past year to describe an ideals-based foreign policy he wants to move toward.
"I have no questions about your character, your patriotism. You don't need this job; you didn't campaign for this job," Rubio said. "But I also told you when we met that the position you have been nominated to is, in my opinion, the second most important position in the U.S. government," he continued, leaving open to question whether Tillerson had met Rubio's standards to fill it.
Rubio's opinion, and committee vote, could be crucial in advancing Tillerson's candidacy to consideration by the full Senate and ultimately in approving him. The Foreign Relations Committee is balanced 11-10 in favor of Republican members, so a single defection could keep the nomination from moving forward if Democrats act together to block it. In the larger Senate, Rubio is considered to be one of three Republican lawmakers, along with Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who could bolt from a party-line vote.
Still, the broad consensus in Washington over the past several weeks has been that Tillerson is likely to be confirmed, given his reputation as a smart, charismatic leader who is skilled at winning people over.
As the hearing yesterday wrapped up, Corker told reporters that Rubio's doubts did not necessarily indicate an intention to vote against the nominee, especially because Tillerson would use the coming days to meet with members again to discuss specific concerns. Ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) noted outstanding concerns over issues including tax form disclosure and Russian sanctions, but in a warm tone assured Tillerson he would "look forward to working with you, if you're confirmed."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/12/stories/1060048269
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes Further Restrictions on Carcinogen
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA yesterday proposed further restrictions on the carcinogen trichloroethylene, or TCE, prohibiting its use in vapor degreasing.
The proposed rule follows close on the heels of the agency's other TCE rule, which would ban the compound in aerosol degreasing and dry cleaning operations (Greenwire, Dec. 7, 2016). EPA's December move was the first time in 27 years the agency had proposed banning a chemical.
The Toxic Substances Control Act reforms, signed into law last summer, give EPA the power to restrict hazardous chemicals. The agency included TCE on its list of priority compounds in the fall (E&E News PM, Nov. 29, 2016).
Coupled with the December proposal, yesterday's proposed rule would effectively neuter the largest remaining application of TCE — that of degreasing. Public health advocates have long called for a full ban on TCE.
The rule would prohibit the manufacture, processing and distribution of TCE for vapor degreasing.
In addition to cancer, TCE causes liver and kidney damage, as well as developmental and neurological impairments. The contaminant is found at hundreds of toxic sites across the country.
However, the twin proposals do not address all of TCE's uses. It is still used in the manufacture of other chemicals, especially refrigerants, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Environmental groups praised the proposal.
"Today's announcement is another important milestone for public health," said Liz Hitchcock, legislative director of the nonprofit Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, in a statement. "EPA is proposing to prohibit industrial use of known toxic chemical TCE for vapor degreasing and is also proposing to require manufacturers, processors, and distributors to notify others in their supply chains of the prohibitions.
"Along with EPA's December announcement of a ban on several consumer uses of TCE, this is the kind of common sense action to protect public health that is 40 years overdue, and it is only possible because of the recent reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act," she continued.
The American Chemistry Council declined to comment specifically on the proposed rule but said it would provide feedback to EPA. Environmental groups have long charged the trade group with attempting to block TCE regulation.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/12/stories/1060048271
-
(ACC Mentioned) First-Ever Rules on Nanoparticles Come Into Force
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA yesterday finalized a rule on nanoscale chemical particles that will force companies to disclose information on the extent of such compounds in the marketplace.
The new rule marks the first time EPA has used the Toxic Substances Control Act — overhauled by Congress last year — to target nanoscale materials that are already in use.
The regulation is over 11 years in the making. Advocates first urged EPA to mandate reporting of nanoscale chemicals in 2005, according to Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Nanoscale materials — also known as nanoparticles — are microscopic substances that some studies suggest are hazardous to human health. Some scientists say nanoparticles may be able to infiltrate cell walls and penetrate the blood-brain barrier.
However, the compounds are difficult to study because they do not obey traditional laws of physics. They have a greater surface area than regular particles and are, thus, much more chemically reactive.
The compounds are found in toothpaste, food additives, cosmetics and other products.
Last year, a report from nonprofit Friends of the Earth found nanoscale particles in baby formula and called for increased regulatory oversight (Greenwire, May 18, 2016). Such products are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, however, and will not be affected by EPA's rule.
When companies develop micro-sized versions of existing chemicals, EPA does not consider those products to be new chemicals — a procedure that advocacy groups say opens up a regulatory loophole. But yesterday's rule solves that problem, as it applies to "nano-sized versions of chemicals that are already in the marketplace."
Under the rule, the agency is forcing chemical companies to disclose:
Specific chemical identities for all nanoparticles.
Production volume.
Manufacturing methods.
Data on processing, use, exposure and release.
Health and safety metrics.
EPA said the rule will "facilitate innovation while ensuring safety of the substances."
Denison with EDF said the rule was "strong" and "very welcome."
"This rule is critical in ensuring that EPA understands when new nano forms of chemicals" are manufactured, he said. But he noted the rule does not apply to nanoparticles used to form film, which is a primary application of the compounds.
Jay West, senior director of chemical products and technology at the American Chemistry Council, said that EPA made "positive" changes to the rule following industry feedback.
"While we have not had a chance to analyze all legal and technical aspects of the final rule, [ACC's] Nanotechnology Panel notes that EPA made some important clarifications in response to our and others' comments," West said. "At the same time, many of the issues the Panel raised in comments on the proposed rule were not addressed sufficiently in the final rule. We are compiling a list of topics that we believe require additional explanation, and we will share that list with the agency."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/12/stories/1060048291
-
US EPA Moves to Ban Additional Use of TCE
Jan 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has proposed prohibiting the use of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) in vapour degreasing applications.
The move comes a month after the agency issued a separate proposalto prohibit its use as an aerosol degreaser and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities. Together, the efforts represent the EPA’s first attempt to ban uses of a substance under section 6 of TSCA in 27 years.
The proposal largely aligns with that issued for TCE’s other uses. It calls for:
a prohibition on the manufacture (including import), processing and distribution in commerce of TCE for use in vapour degreasing;
a prohibition on commercial use in this application;
a requirement that manufacturers, processors and distributors (except for retailers) provide downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; and
recordkeeping requirements.
Although the EPA issued the proposals separately, it intends to finalise both in a single rule.
Its action on TCE comes after its workplan risk assessment identified cancer risks and non‐cancer risks – including developmental and reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity – for workers.
The specific uses evaluated in the assessment were expected to involve frequent or routine use in high concentrations or have high potential for human exposure, says the agency.
The substance’s full range of uses will be assessed during the EPA’s forthcoming risk evaluation of TCE – a substance named among the first ten it will address under the new TSCA.
Risk management under new TSCA
Liz Hitchcock, legislative director at NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, called the proposal a “common sense action to protect public health [that] is only possible because of the recent reform to TSCA”.
Prior to reform, TSCA’s risk management abilities were hamstrung by a 1991 court ruling in Corrosion Proof Fittings v EPA. In it, the court struck down the EPA’s section 6 rule banning asbestos, citing the agency’s failure to adequately consider the costs and alternatives to the regulation.
In drafting the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, lawmakers ensured that a provision cited in the court’s ruling – that the EPA implement risk management rules “using the least burdensome requirements” – was eliminated.
The new law, instead, explicitly blocks consideration of costs or other non-risk factors during a substance’s risk evaluation. Risk management rules must ensure that a chemical no longer presents an identified unreasonable risk.
However, the statute retains several TSCA requirements that the EPA must consider “to the extent practicable” when issuing a rule. These include:
the benefits of the substance;
economic consequences of the rule;
the costs and benefits, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulatory action, and of the alternative regulatory actions the agency considered; and
when considering a ban or prohibition, whether technically and economically feasible alternatives that benefit health or the environment will be reasonably available as a substitute.
The proposed rule says alternatives to TCE with similar performance characteristics are readily available, and that costs are likely to be borne by commercial users’ switching to alternatives and potentially changing equipment.
But early indications suggest industry groups may resist the proposals, while some legal experts say such bans may be tougher to pass under a Trump administration.
A third proposed section 6 rule for methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in paint stripping remains under inter-agency review.
TCE global view
In 2011 – the more recent year for which EPA has available CDR data – global consumption of TCE was 945m pounds (roughly 430,000 tonnes); consumption in the US was 255m pounds. The EPA estimates that vapour degreasing represents up to 14.7% of use.
In the EU, TCE has been banned since last April - except for specific uses where authorisation has been granted or applied for.
Last November, the REACH Committee, which is made up of member state officials, agreed to grant two companies authorisation for its use as a process solvent for the manufacturing of modules, containing hollow fibre gas separation membranes; and as an extraction solvent for the purification of caprolactam from caprolactam oil.
But the REACH Committee decided it needed further discussion on the application made by Romanian company, Chimcomplex, for the industrial use of TCE as a closed system vapour degreasing agent.
The committee cited Echa's Socio-economic Analysis Committee (Seac), which had previously said although the suitability of alternatives, from the perspective of the applicant, was not addressed in the application – on the basis of information it already had, “there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility for the applicant for the use applied for.”
The non-confidential part of the analysis of alternatives contains a list of alternative solvents, comprising:
perchloroethylene;
methylene chloride;
n-propyl bromide;
hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), such as ethyl nonafluorobutyl ether;
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), such as decafluoropentane;
modified alcohols, such as isopropyl alcohol;
ethers, such as n-butyl acetate; and
amides, such as 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP).
Additionally, the company says in the analysis that “numerous proprietary solvents are available from international suppliers, often based on azeotropic mixtures of pure solvents, and blended for specific applications. These can be further refined and adjusted to achieve specific performance characteristics”.
Canada added TCE to its schedule 1 list of toxic substances in 2013. Its 2003 Solvent Degreasing Regulations address releases from solvent degreasing facilities using more than one tonne/year.
In Japan, the Chemical Substances Control Law considers it a class II substance. The country has control measures in place that govern air emissions and water discharges, as well as aerosol products for household use and household cleaners containing the substance.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52106/us-epa-moves-to-ban-additional-use-of-tce
-
EPA Proposes Second Rule to Ban More Uses of Toxic TCE
Jan 12, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took another significant step yesterday to protect against exposures to the highly toxic chemical, trichloroethylene (TCE), proposing a rule to ban its use as a vapor degreaser.
The proposed rule is the second issued under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as amended by last year’s Lautenberg Act. It follows on EPA’s proposed rule last month to ban the use of TCE as an aerosol degreaser and spot cleaning agent in dry cleaning facilities. Both proposed rules on TCE are critical to protecting consumer and worker health from the harmful effects of TCE and should move swiftly toward finalization.
TCE is a volatile organic compound, produced in huge volumes (255 million pounds in the US). It is highly toxic, with identified health effects ranging from skin and eye irritation and dizziness to cardiac malformations in the developing fetus and cancer. TCE is fat-soluble, easily crosses biological membranes, and has been detected in breast milk and maternal and fetal blood.
In vapor degreasing TCE is boiled in a degreasing unit, creating a hot vapor that upon contact with fabricated parts, condenses and absorbs and carries contaminants away. Vapor degreasing is conducted in many settings, such as electronics assembly and repair shops. EPA’s 2014 risk assessment of TCE found that current levels of exposure to the chemical from its use as a vapor degreaser pose unacceptably high levels of risk to workers and occupational bystanders.
The proposed ban on TCE’s use as a vapor degreaser would eliminate those risks and provide for healthier workplaces.
More specifically, EPA’s proposed rule:
prohibits the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of TCE for use in vapor degreasing;
prohibits commercial use of TCE in vapor degreasing; and
requires manufacturers, processors, and distributors except for retailers, to provide notification of this prohibition throughout the supply chain and to keep records.
Notably, EPA estimates the proposed rule would result in monetized benefits ranging from $65 to $443 million at a 3% discount rate on an annualized basis over 20 years based on reductions in cancer risks alone. The agency did not have sufficient information to additionally quantify the benefits of the non-cancer health impacts.
Lest anyone think that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has adequate workplace standards to mitigate such risks, think again: OSHA’s permissible exposure limit (PEL) for TCE was set way back in 1971. OSHA acknowledges that many of its PELs, including that for TCE, are not protective of worker health. It has noted that:
“with few exceptions, OSHA’s PELs, which specify the amount of a particular chemical substance allowed in workplace air, have not been updated since they were established in 1971 under expedited procedures available in the short period after the OSH Act’s adoption…Yet, in many instances, scientific evidence has accumulated suggesting that the current limits are not sufficiently protective.”
EPA’s proposed rule to eliminate the use of TCE in vapor degreasing is supported by strong science as necessary to protect the health of workers—a subpopulation specifically called out in the Lautenberg Act as “potentially exposed or susceptible” and required to be considered and protected in all chemical risk evaluation and risk management decisions.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/01/12/epa-proposes-second-rule-to-ban-more-uses-of-toxic-tce/
-
US EPA Issues Final Nano Reporting Rule
Jan 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The US EPA has finalised its nanoscale materials reporting rule, completing a process that began more than 11 years ago.
The rule will require one-time reporting for existing nanoscale materials and for new discrete nanomaterials before they are manufactured or processed. Manufacturers, importers and processors must electronically report certain information, such as production volume and method of manufacture, of covered substances one year from the rule's effective date.
The US position contrasts with that of the European Commission, which has rejected the idea of a specific mandatory reporting obligation for nanomaterials. Instead it insists such data can be collected under REACH's registration rules for substances in general. It has told Echa to develop 'nano observatory' pages on its website with existing nanomaterial information. Meanwhile, Canada set its reporting requirements in 2015.
The US rule, which comes under section 8(a) of TSCA, will take effect 120 days after publication in the Federal Register.
It defines nanomaterials as chemical substances that are:
solids at 25 degrees Celsius at standard atmospheric pressure;
manufactured or processed in a form where any particles, including aggregates and agglomerates, are between 1 and 100 nanometers (nm) in at least one dimension; and
manufactured or processed to exhibit one or more unique and novel property.
The rule does not apply to chemical substances manufactured or processed in forms that contain less than 1% by weight of any particles between 1 and 100nm.
Taking account of comments received on the rulemaking, the EPA made three changes to the proposed definition:
it added the definition of unique and novel properties to help identify substances that act differently at nano sizes;
it clarified that a substance is not a nanomaterial if it fits the specified size range, but does not have a size-dependent property that differs from the same chemical at sizes greater than 100nm; and
it eliminated part of the nanomaterial definition that had said a reportable chemical may not include a substance that only has trace amounts of primary particles, aggregates, or agglomerates in the size range of 1 to 100nm.
However, the final rule states that the parameters it lays out are for identifying chemical substances that are subject to this rule and not to establish a definition of nanoscale materials.
In addition to the one-time reporting of nanomaterials already in commerce, the rule imposes a standing reporting requirement for organisations intending to manufacture or process a discrete form of a reportable chemical substance on or after the effective data of the rule. These must report to the EPA at least 135 days before manufacture or processing of that form.
This will be in addition to the agency's current practice of reviewing new nanomaterials prior to their introduction into the marketplace under section 5 of TSCA.
The rule does not aim to restrict the use or manufacturing of nanomaterials, says the EPA. Instead, it is intended for gathering information on nanomaterials currently in use. This will be used to determine if further action is needed under TSCA, including additional information collection. It will also help the EPA's assessment of risks and risk management, examination of the benefits and costs of further measures and making future decisions.
The agency says it will not develop an inventory of nanoscale materials based on the reporting.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52087/us-epa-issues-final-nano-reporting-rule
-
First-Ever Nanoscale Chemical Reporting Rule Finalized
Jan 12, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
A first-ever federal nanoscale chemical rule will require manufacturers and companies that import or process nanomaterials, now and in the future, to report certain information to the EPA.
These substances are nano-sized versions of chemicals and are now subject to EPA regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The rule, finalized yesterday, defines reportable chemical substances as those that are:
solids at 25 degrees Celsius at standard atmospheric pressure;
manufactured or processed in a form where any particles, including aggregates and agglomerates, are between 1 and 100 nanometers (nm) in at least one dimension; and
manufactured or processed to exhibit one or more unique and novel property.
The rule does not apply to chemical substances manufactured or processed in forms that contain less than 1 percent by weight of any particles between 1 and 100nm.
It also imposes one-time reporting and recordkeeping requirements on nanoscale chemical substances. It requires companies to notify the EPA of:
specific chemical identity;
production volume;
methods of manufacture; processing, use, exposure, and release information; and,
available health and safety data.
Companies also must keep records of this information for three years.
The agency says it will use the information gathered to determine if any further action under the Toxic Substances Control Act, including additional information collection, is needed. It expects the new rule to cost companies about $27.79 million in total in the first year and $3.09 million in subsequent years, requiring about 360,000 in the first year and 40,100 hours thereafter. The agency notes that this is a conservative estimate.
Attorney James Votaw, an environmental partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, said the final rule, six years in the making, is controversial because the EPA’ s 2015 proposal was criticized by industry as being too broad in its coverage and stigmatizing nanoscale materials.
“Industry asked EPA to reopen the dialog on the proposal to resolve these and other issues,” Votaw said in an email. “EPA declined. The final rule addresses some of those concerns, but has created new ones, in part because EPA has included wholly new terms in the final rule that were not subject to prior public review and comment and which in some cases are flawed or unworkable and which may be the basis for legal challenges.”
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/01/first-ever-nanoscale-chemical-reporting-rule-finalized/
-
Jan 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations
The US EPA has issued section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for seven substances that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). These are:
generic depolymerised waste plastics, intended for use as an intermediate in the manufacture of water-borne polyurethane coatings; and
six polymers (generic hydroxyl alkyl acrylate ester, polymer with acrylates, aromatic vinyl monomer, cycloaliphatic lactone and alkyl carboxylic acids) intended for use in coatings.
The substances were determined not likely to present an unreasonable risk, based on low human health and environmental hazard.
The agency also made "not likely" determinations for four microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs).
Final test guidelines
The agency issued 14 final test guidelines under the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) series 850, group A – ecological effects.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52086/us-epa-round-up
-
Reviewers Raise Concerns with EPA Model for Crafting Perchlorate MCLG
Jan 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Experts peer reviewing an EPA model that will shape the agency's drinking water goal for perchlorate are raising concerns about the model's scope, construction and validation, which could complicate EPA's ability to apply the model to set a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for the rocket fuel ingredient within a court-ordered time line.
Panelists during a two-day peer review meeting held Jan. 10-11 in Arlington, VA, raised concerns that EPA's model does not address what is considered the most sensitive lifestage to perchlorate exposure -- the fetus of an iodine-deficient pregnant woman. Perchlorate is one of several chemicals known to be inhibitors of the iodine uptake, which helps to regulate thyroid hormones. If the thyroid is sufficiently altered for too long during sensitive developmental stages, this can lead to neurodevelopmental and other effects, such as a goitre.
Clinicians on the panel questioned one of the studies that is critical to the model's performance, an old study they said insufficiently sensitive and doesn't accurately predict certain pregnancy hormone changes as a result. Panelists also questioned EPA's validation process and discussed the challenges of defining the endpoint EPA based the model upon, at the direction of its science advisors.
But the panel also appeared split, with some members, largely those with modeling or risk assessment experience rather than clinical backgrounds, suggesting the model may be adequate for some applications with limited improvements. They noted that models can always be improved, but that large scale revisions are time-consuming. They questioned whether some of the changes other panelists recommended would be worth undertaking.
As a contractor-managed panel, the experts are not required to reach consensus on their answers to EPA's charge questions. Instead, the contractor will provide EPA with a report including a common summary of the panel's discussion written by its chairman and individual reports from each reviewer answering the charge questions. The result is a document that could provide EPA varying opinions. This may complicate EPA's ability to respond to certain recommendations, or make it easier for the agency to dismiss some challenging recommendations.
One particularly challenging recommendation came from panelist Dale Hattis, a research professor at Clark University, who asked why the model does not link the mechanism for perchlorate from iodine uptake inhibition to neurodevelopmental effects -- an approach considered by an earlier advisory panel but dismissed as too complex and time consuming. The panel instead recommended in 2013 that EPA “use the existing model to estimate iodide uptake inhibition and empirical observations to relate iodide uptake inhibition to thyroid hormone perturbations” and then link this to to research “to identify the degree of iodide uptake inhibition required for onset of hypothyroxinemia in a pregnant woman.”
But Hattis warned that “Anything short of neurodevelopmental representation of IQ effects is not going to fly because it'll be too [difficult] for cost-benefit folks to use ... There is no reason to suspect that the future [White House Office of Management and Budget] will be less interested in cost-benefit analysis than the current one in my judgment.”
Modeling Efforts
Peter Grevatt, director of EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, responded in remarks to the panel Jan. 11 that the model is the first step in a two step process to complete the cause-effect linkage. He said that EPA's planned use of the model and the data it is connected to will be peer reviewed at a later date by a second peer review panel. Grevatt told the panelists that EPA views the model “as a very, very important step in developing a proposed regulation for perchlorate. . . . This is one of two peer reviews that we’re doing in this process that will lead to an MCLG, the health-based goal. As you’re having your deliberations . . . part of the conversation yesterday is we need to tie this ultimately to the health impacts, you may not see that all in the model. That is in part by design.”
Grevatt acknowledged that some of the panelists “may be feeling some frustration” with the limited nature and use of the model, but he assured them that “we’re going to get there, but that’s really a second step, another peer review. I just wanted to emphasize that point.”
A peer review panel from EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) of EPA's analysis about perchlorate's effects on sensitive lifestages recommended in 2013 that EPA craft a model to assist the agency in determining an appropriate MCLG, or a health-based goal for perchlorate. They recommended this approach over the traditional algebraic approach used to set drinking water standards per the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) because the approach would have “much greater scientific rigor.” The modeling, however, took longer than SAB anticipated.
Half of the members of the latest peer review panel also served on the 2013 SAB perchlorate panel, including Stephen Roberts, a toxicology professor at the University of Florida who also served as the chairman of the SAB panel. Roberts was joined by Hugh Barton, a research fellow at Pfizer, Inc. and Claude Emond of the University of Montreal, both modeling experts who served on the 2013 panel. The fourth member returning peer reviewer is Joanne Rovet, a senior scientist in the neuroscience and mental health program at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children.
EPA's efforts to advance the MCLG are operating within a court-ordered time line following a lawsuit last winter from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which successfully argued that EPA missed a 2-year statutory deadline to propose an MCLG after making a determination that the contaminant should be regulated under SDWA. Former Administrator Lisa Jackson set that clock in motion in February 2011 by reaching that determination.
Judge Edgardo Ramos last October approved a settlement in the case NRDC v EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that requires EPA to propose an MCLG by by Oct. 31, 2018, and sign the final version in December 2019. The settlement says the agency intends to complete by Oct. 18, 2017, a peer review of materials that will inform the SDWA rulemaking.
Limited Scope
But during the first day of the meeting, panelists outlined a series of concerns with the model in their opening remarks -- including two key issues that have also been raised by environmentalists, other agencies and industry.
“The existing work is a start, a good start, but it needs to be helped a lot further,” Hattis said. “The authors focused on where they had data, not on where they needed information. . . . You need to change the focus of the population. To me, the important lifestage is early pregnancy.”
Barton, chairman of the panel, and panelist Elizabeth Pearce, an associate medical professor at Boston University's medical school, agreed with Hattis' concern about the model's exclusion of early pregnancy. Barton called the exclusionn of pregnancy from the model “a substantial issue.”
Rovet declared herself “quite disappointed in the end it was so limited in the time period and scope.” She said that the literature search that preceded the modeling work begun in 2013 “could have gone a lot further into pregnancy. They missed that whole first part of pregnancy.”
The panelists' concerns are serious because EPA is considering the fetuses of women with low iodine levels to be most at risk from perchlorate exposure, and therefore, a sensitive lifestage that any future MCLG or regulation must address. Panelists noted that fetuses are at greatest risk of neurodevelopmental effects when they receive insufficient thyroid hormones during the early stages of pregnancy.
The concern also echoed environmentalists' public comments on the model. The Environmental Defense Fund and NRDC in joint comments last November said EPA's model is an improvement over a 2013 model from FDA but add they "have serious concerns that the model does not address the first and second trimesters of pregnancy . . . We maintain that in setting an MCLG EPA must consider the impacts on a pregnant women's fetus during the first two trimesters and on pregnant women with serious iodine deficiency and hypothyroidism . . ."
The groups say EPA in correspondence with them has said the first two trimesters are not included "due to data limitations," but this "means that the life stages of greatest risk are not modeled.” They argued that “[a]s EPA moves forward with perchlorate drinking water regulations, this shortcoming must be addressed.”
Industry Concerns
NASA and industry groups, meanwhile, have questioned the endpoint that is the basis for the model, the fetus of the hypothyroxinemic women. This endpoint, recommended by the 2013 SAB panel, is a change from the endpoint of the fetus of the hypothyroid women recommended by a 2005 National Academy of Sciences panel that undertook a dose-response analysis for EPA and produced a risk estimate that EPA could use to set the MCLG if it adopted a more traditional approach to setting that health goal.
In its Nov. 25 comments NASA writes that, "The first major issue is EPA's fundamental assumption of using hypothyroxinemia as the end point. NASA understands that the SAB took this very conservative approach to target a specific condition not directly associated with a health impact. However, EPA's use of this endpoint in the proposed model lacks any substantiation in the available literature, especially for critical criteria, such as the Mode of Action (MOA), links to a disease state, or key thyroid endpoints."
Clinicians on the panel acknowledged similar concerns with the proposed endpoint. “A lot of my concern is how we're defining hypothyroxinemia,” Pearce said. “Hypothyroxinemia we don't really understand . . . It's very hard to define.”
The other two clinicians on the panel appeared to concur, but none suggested a different endpoint for EPA to use. In fact, when Roberts asked what an appropriate endpoint would be, Pearce replied, “EPA has picked the best . . . we have, but we just really have limited data.”
Model Validation
Pearce and other panelists also questioned various aspects of the model authors' attempts to validate the model. As one example, Pearce noted that the dataset used to calibrate the model's approach to a lactating mother “is a really tiny dataset of [the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] of lactating women,” and she encouraged EPA to consider using non-pregnant age-matched women to validate this aspect of the model.
Roberts agreed that he “didn’t find supporting data in Appendix F to be reasonable. That makes me wonder whether that aspect of the model is accurate.”
Broadly, Roberts asked other panel members “is this model level of uncertainty acceptable?” Hattis replied that he had insufficient information about how the model will be used to answer.
But Emond replied that it is. “This is the best we have right now. Yes, it can be improved. When I compare the prediction with some biomonitoring, it gave reasonable prediction. It’s not a real human model with all the biology behind it. But we can define what is the variability in the population . . . on this step, you will not a find a better [model] right now.”
We’re used to just finding a POD and dividing by 300,” Roberts said, seeming to agree with Emond's points. “We should acknowledge that we’re used to dealing with uncertainty in these kinds of situations.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/reviewers-raise-concerns-epa-model-crafting-perchlorate-mclg
-
Echa Gives Update on Regulatory Strategy
Jan 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa plans to screen and conduct compliance checks on the registration dossiers for all substances over 100tonnes - some 4,200 - by the end of 2020. It will decide which may need regulatory risk management measures and which are of "no or low concern".
The agency says its ambition to track this "universe of registered substances" will reduce the pool of substances of potential concern and decide for as many substances as possible those needing further action and those that are of low priority for further work.
The goal appears more ambitious than that outlined a year ago to "give priority to full registrations from lead and individual dossiers of chemicals produced in volumes over 100tpa – focusing on substances with potential concern that may require substance evaluation or risk management measures."
Echa's implementation is built on its compliance check strategy adopted in 2014. December's Management Board meeting discussed details of its progress so far.
According to the published preliminary conclusions of the meeting, members made comments on incentives for regulatory compliance, the optimal use of regulatory data and the definition of substances of no or low concern.
The board's chair, Sharon McGuinness, head of the chemicals division in Irelands Health and Safety Authority, told Chemical Watch the discussion on incentives centred on the fact that updated dossiers are a benefit to registrants as they are less likely to be singled out for checking.
"Speaking as a member state competent authority, we often say to industry it's important to keep your information up to date because the more relevant it is, it's of benefit to you. If the quality of your dossier isn't appropriate, clearly you're more likely to be targeted. It's about encouraging companies to do what they're meant to do, which is take responsibility for the data and keep data and information up to date."
Substances of no or low concern
Although the board discussed the question of how to define the term "no or low concern", the agency has yet to publish a definition. "Clearly such a definition would be useful," said Ms McGuinness. "Can you say 'no concern'? As a toxicologist, we would always say there's no such thing – as the dose makes the poison – so probably the more realistic [phrase] maybe is 'lower concern', but that's debatable."
Some organisations have called for Echa to revoke the registration numbers given to companies that failed to bring their dossiers into compliance. According to the agency's update to the board, some of the dossiers for which it completed a retroactive completeness check last year may lead to revocation "if meaningful information is not provided".
To help registrants improve their dossiers, Echa is commissioning a study on best practices in dossier updating. It hopes this will be completed by June. Two thirds of the dossiers submitted under the first two registration deadlines have not been updated. The agency has also suggested that legislation be passed to ensure mandatory reporting of use and exposure information in registration dossiers on a regular basis.
Working with sectors
As well as introducing improvements to IT tools such as Iuclid and REACH-IT, and encouraging downstream industries to adopt the sector use maps devised by Echa's European Network for Exposure Scenarios (Enes), the agency is working on a number of projects to improve the quality of dossiers:
an approach on how to identify and assess petroleum and coal stream substances has been developed with industry and member states. Uses have been clarified and a group of substances chosen for further scrutiny.
Echa is working with Eurometaux to clarify the groups of substances covered by the metals sector, the quality of dossiers submitted so far and the quality of the supply chain information. This will help clarify whether the necessary information is there to prioritise or de-prioritise substances.
the agency is working with Cefic sector groups representing plastic additives manufacturers, Plastics Europe and the European plastic converters association to achieve similar aims to those for metals. The first meeting took place in November and the bodies are developing a more detailed project description for implementation this year.
Echa has proposed to industry and member states a pilot programme for a 'cooperative sectoral approach' to dossier quality. The aim is to get volunteering sectors to commit to improving their dossiers, and come up with a binding update plan by which evaluation decisions could be potentially avoided. It is consulting member states on the proposal to see if any are interested in taking a leading role in the pilot. There have been preliminary discussions with industry associations on possible sectors or groups of substances that could be addressed in such a pilot. No firm commitments have yet been made.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52091/echa-gives-update-on-regulatory-strategy
-
Jan 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Four substances added to candidate list
Echa has added four substances of very high concern (SVHCs) to the candidate list. This now contains 173 substances.
The substances are:
bisphenol A as toxic for reproduction;
nonadecafluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) and its sodium and ammonium salts as toxic for reproduction and for PBT properties;
p-(1,1-dimethylpropyl)phenol for equivalent level of concern having probable serious effects to environment; and
4-heptylphenol, branched and linear [substances with a linear and/or branched alkyl chain with a carbon number of 7 covalently bound predominantly in position 4 to phenol, covering also UVCB- and well-defined substances, which include any of the individual isomers or a combination thereof] as above.
SVHC intention
Echa has added ethylenediamine to its registry of current SVHC intentions. The agency expects to submit the dossier by 7 August. It is proposed for its potential role as a respiratory sensitiser.
SVHC proposal clarification
The agency has advised that the previously used common names basic lead sulfate and dibasic lead phthalate are ambiguous and have been replaced by lead oxide sulfate (EC no 234-853-7) and [phthalato(2-)]dioxotrilead (EC no 273-688-5) respectively.
CLH proposals
The agency has received two proposals to harmonise the classification and labelling of the following substances:
cobalt, proposed by the Netherlands with hazard classes open for comment of germ cell mutagenicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity; and
pyridate (ISO), proposed by Austria with hazard classes for comment of specific target organ toxicity – single and repeated exposure and hazardous to aquatic environment.
The deadline for responses is 24 February.
Commission requests to Echa on restrictions
The European Commission has asked Echa to evaluate certain elements of existing Annex XVII restrictions on polycyclic-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in rubber or plastic components of articles (entry 50) and lead in jewellery (entry 63) to support it in its future review of the entries.
It has also requested the agency develop an Annex XV restriction dossier for the uses of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) in leave-on cosmetic products, and in other consumer products not covered by the UK's restriction proposal submitted on 17 April 2015.
PACT updates
The agency's Public Activities Coordination Tool (PACT) has been updated with the following risk management option analyses (RMOAs):
manganese sulphate, with Denmark concluding there is no need for further regulatory action at this time;
nitrilotriacetic acid;
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); and
toluene, with Denmark concluding there is no need for further regulatory action at this time.
Q&A on first phases of REACH registration in 23 languages
Around 100 questions and answers, relevant to the first three phases of the REACH 2018 registration roadmap, are now available in 23 EU languages. You can search for the relevant questions and answers in your language, by using the menu in the upper right corner on our website.
Webpage promoting REACH 2018 deadline
Echa has announced a toolkit webpage of ideas and materials to help promote the registration deadline for existing chemicals. It is also urging not-for-profit organisations to join its REACH 2018 communicators' network to assist in the work of reaching small and medium-sized companies.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51994/echa-round-up
-
Massachusetts to Examine Conflict Minerals Procurement Policies
Jan 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has signed into law a resolve to examine the state’s procurement policies with regard to so-called conflict minerals that might be sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The resolve (S 2463) requires the executive office for administration and finance to develop a report by 1 February. This will examine best practices that ensure the state’s electronics and communications technology suppliers provide products that:
do not finance armed conflict in the DRC;
contain minerals (columbite-tantalite, cassiterite, wolframite, gold and “other similar or derivative minerals”) whose origin can be identified; and
contain raw materials for which appropriate tax payments have been made.
The report will also examine the “efficacy and implications of penalties or a trade prohibition” for businesses required to comply with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) conflict minerals reporting requirements but fail to adequately do so.
The resolve requires consideration of actions, including legislative recommendations, to support raw materials exporters from the region that fully disclose the impact that their minerals have on armed conflict, labour or human rights violations, and/or damage to the environment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52103/massachusetts-to-examine-conflict-minerals-procurement-policies
-
Litigation: CEI Outlines Trump Options to Defeat Advocates' GHG Lawsuits
Jan 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
President-elect Donald Trump has multiple options to defeat potential lawsuits in the coming months and years from environmentalists to preserve Obama-era greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations that the new administration is expected to target, according to an analysis by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a free-market think tank.
In a Jan. 9 blog post, CEI's William Yeatman outlines several strategies for the Trump administration to counter environmentalists' legal actions to preserve and enforce regulations such as GHG limits for new and existing power plants, as well as first-time standards for the potent GHG methane for the oil and gas industry.
Trump's EPA -- under the potential leadership of his pick for administrator, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt -- has long been expected to seek to roll back or scrap several high-profile Obama climate rules, though advocates have pledged to fight those efforts in court.
For example, in response to lawsuits alleging that revisions or rescissions of such rules are an “unreasonable about-face” and that the rules are “indispensable to public health,” Yeatman says Trump can argue that subsequent administrations can “alter or undo” almost anything a previous administration has done unilaterally.
Courts have accepted that changes in presidential policy priorities and legal interpretations “are valid bases for such actions,” he says. “The upshot is that green groups will face an uphill battle in litigating these challenges to Trump-era rollbacks of Obama-era excesses. . . . As long as the agency jumps through all the right procedural hoops and explains itself reasonably, courts are likely to uphold its actions in the face of suits brought by environmental groups.”
Advocates are also likely to sue to force agencies to perform “allegedly nondiscretionary duties,” such as developing GHG performance standards for dozens of pollution sources based on EPA's 2009 endangerment finding for vehicle GHGs, according to Yeatman.
They are also likely to petition EPA to start a rulemaking for GHGs from existing sources “within each of the 60 categories already subject to a New Source Performance Standard,” he says.
In response, Trump's EPA could simply “use administrative means to do nothing for many years,” the blog says. “To this end, an agency could take notice and comment on the rulemaking petition. This could drag on for years.”
Assuming EPA eventually decided there was indeed a non-discretionary duty to regulate, the agency could issue an advanced notice of rulemaking, and take comment on that, he notes. It would then circulate an advanced notice for interagency review.
“Then it could issue a proposal, and take comment on that. Finally, the agency could issue a decision that determines that existing source controls pursuant to other regulatory regimes are sufficient to meet the existing source performance standard. That is, agency officials could go through a multi-year song and dance, only to promulgate a rule that does nothing,” he adds.
Alternatively, EPA could decline a rulemaking petition based on a new legal interpretation that the Clean Air Act prohibits regulating a category under section 111 that is already subject to regulation under section 112.
EPA could also decline the rulemaking petition based on the argument that setting an existing source performance standard for GHGs from stationary sources is a “non-date-certain duty, so it must wait until the agency is up to speed with its date-certain duties. Concomitantly, the agency would propose a plan to meet its date-certain duties, as I’ve long recommended.”
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
-
NAS Offers Framework for Carbon Cost Updates Amid Trump Threat
Jan 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is offering a framework for continuous improvement of the social cost of carbon (SCC), the metric used to quantify the benefits of EPA and other agencies' greenhouse gas (GHG) control policies, with NAS panel members arguing continued use of the SCC is inevitable.
But they remained mum on whether the estimates should rise or fall -- leaving backers and critics of the carbon cost tool to debate the impacts of the new report.
Defenders of the SCC say they are heartened by the NAS recommendations, which include a call for updated “damage functions” in the SCC. They argue this and other recommendations will ultimately require recognition of damages currently omitted from the SCC, such as ocean acidification, and result in higher climate damage estimates.
In addition, backers of the carbon cost tool embrace language in the report that essentially defends current government reliance on global rather than domestic calculation of carbon damages.
However, the NAS report also includes calls to better characterize uncertainty in the estimates and make them more “transparent, ” which could provide talking points for SCC critics who have sought to argue that the current SCC relies on arbitrary assumptions rather than sound appraisal of climate damages. NAS also calls for a regular process to update the SCC, including that any changes be subject to public comment.
“To estimate the social cost of carbon dioxide for use in regulatory impact analyses, the federal government should use a new framework that would strengthen the scientific basis, provide greater transparency, and improve characterization of the uncertainties of the estimates,” NAS says in a Jan. 11 press statement announcing the new report.
The SCC was first developed in 2010 to monetize the damages associated with an incremental increase in GHG emissions, thereby quantifying the benefits of controls. But the tool has drawn strong criticism from Republicans and industry, who say it is speculative, has not been adequately peer reviewed and overstates potential benefits.
The NAS report, “Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide,” is the second phase of recommendations sought by an interagency working group that developed the SCC. The first report, released last January, had recommended against an interim update to the carbon cost tool.
In broad terms, the new NAS report calls for updating the SCC roughly every five years; proposes an “integrated modular approach” to carbon cost modeling to better draw from a wide range of scientific disciplines; and lays out both near and long term research priorities for filling in gaps in the understanding of climate impacts.
NAS says in the report the roughly five-year timeline for updates would “balance the benefit of incorporating evolving research against the need for thorough and predictable process.”
NAS panel co-chair Richard Newell of Resources for the Future in a Jan 11 public meeting on the new report said the recommendations are being offered in the spirit of “continuous improvement of the SCC.” Both Newell and co-chair Maureen Cropper of the University of Maryland emphasized that some form of the SCC is here to stay given federal and legal requirements.
Nonetheless, several observers have pointed to the SCC as an example of a climate-related executive action that could be more easily scrapped than regulations promulgated under the Obama administration. It is unclear at this point how the Trump administration will approach the SCC, but advisers to the president-elect have suggested seeking to limit the role of the SCC as a tool for calculating benefits of federal rules that limit GHG emissions.
Several other observers, however, have suggested the Trump team could find it more difficult to scrap the SCC given existing legal precedent and the NAS process. Supporters of the carbon cost tool are already suggesting the new report should serve as a benchmark for shoring up the SCC.
'Lead In Either Direction'
The NAS report was sought by the federal interagency working group on the SCC in an effort to ensure the federal climate damages use the best available science. NAS' phase one report released last year recommended against updating the SCC in the near term to account for the latest science on equilibrium climate sensitivity -- a measure of sensitivity of the climate system to a given amount of emissions that industry critics had argued was overstated.
That report, however, anticipated a broader discussion of opportunities and challenges for future updates in the second study, and the new NAS recommendations represent that follow through.
SCC supporters are already seizing on specific language in the report to point to the likelihood SCC estimates will only increase over time. “The value of the SCC will likely increase as it is updated to reflect the latest science,” notes a Jan 11. release from the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University's School of Law.
For example, SCC backers highlight NAS' call for near-term work to “improve and update existing formulations of climate damages,” including a reference to an initial, non-comprehensive, selected list of “climate damages literature” that should be considered for inclusion in such efforts.
One advocate says the literature to which NAS appears to refer includes discussion of a number of climate impacts that are poorly accounted for or omitted in current models, including effects on energy supply and labor productivity.
The advocate also cites longer term NAS recommendations, specifically that the development of the climate module include a focus on ocean acidification, which is currently omitted from the SCC calculation, and that the climate damages module include “representation of important interactions and spillovers among regions and sectors,” an apparent reference to costs from human migration. Another related recommendation references the need to carefully account for nongradual damages, such as those associated with critical climatic or socioeconomic thresholds, more generally referred to as tipping points.
However, NAS members at the public forum declined to say if the report's recommendations related to updating climate damage functions guarantee an increase in the SCC.
“There is not an a priori conceptual reason why the numbers would go up or down based on our recommendations. There are pieces of this that could lead in either direction,” Newell said in response to a query, emphasizing that deriving specific SCC estimates based on the recommendations was beyond the scope of the NAS study.
The NAS report does, however, appear to offer some explicit help to proponents of basing the SCC on global rather than domestic climate damages. Such a basis is in line with current federal approaches, but industry and other SCC critics call for a domestic approach.
NAS says that while it is “feasible in principle” to calculate domestic damages, such efforts are limited by existing SCC methods, and even attempts to calculate domestic damages would have to at least partially delve into global impacts in order to not understate actual damages to the United States.
“It is important to consider what constitutes a domestic impact in the case of a global pollutant that could have international implications that impact the United States,” NAS says in the report, pointing to the threats like migration due to economic or political destabilization. “More thoroughly estimating a domestic [SCC] would therefore need to consider the potential implications of climate impacts on, and actions by, other countries, which also have impacts on the United States.”
Newell emphasized it is “too limited” to think only of direct impacts within U.S. borders. “One needs to think more broadly” about how global effects can “come back” and affect the United States, he said.
SCC Critics
The NAS report, however, also includes recommendations critics are likely to highlight to question the current SCC, including various calls to acknowledge and characterize uncertainty in the SCC figures and urging transparency. More specifically, the report includes a call to make clear which features in models are “evidence based or judgment based and a call to make code underlying models used to develop the SCC available for researchers."
Both Newell and fellow co-chair Cropper underscored in their remarks that the need for the SCC is not going away. Cropper in her presentation referenced a 2008 court ruling that regulators cannot assume climate damages to be zero.
Newell in a follow-up comments to reporters noted that regulatory policy going back for three decades has required a “clear understanding” of the benefits and cost of federal actions.
“Any action that affects carbon dioxide emissions would therefore need a number in order to quantify that and monetize that,” he said. “I don't expect that desire to go away [and] it has also been required by the courts that that be taken into account.”
The NAS report offers a number of technical recommendations regarding future updates to the carbon cost tool. One of the most central recommendations is that future updates to the SCC rely on a so-called “integrated modular approach” to draw more readily from a wide array of scientific disciplines. “Under this approach each step in [the SCC estimation] is developed as a module -- socioeconomic, climate, damages, and discounting -- that reflects the state of scientific knowledge in the current, peer reviewed literature,” NAS says.
The panel offers several near- and long-term recommendations related to developing each module, defining near-term topics as feasible to implement in the next two to three years.
The report also outlines longer term research priorities “that could improve each module and incorporate interactions within and feedbacks across modules.” This latter priority, the panel notes, will require significant investments in both economic and climate modeling research, particularly research related to the assessment of climate damages and to socioeconomic and emission projections.
Other research priorities include more study of “interactions and feedbacks within the human climate system” and development of detailed structural economic models suitable for projections over long time horizons.
Also included in the NAS report is a call for a new approach to using discount rates under the SCC, in reference to the practice of discounting to some degree the present-day value of damages that occur in the future. The report says updates to the SCC should move away from reliance on several fixed rates for discounting future climate change to focus more on a so-called Ramsey approach that “explicitly recognizes the uncertainty surrounding discount rates over long time horizons, its connection to uncertainty in economic growth, and in turn, to climate damages.”
Newell told Inside EPA that the discounting procedure NAS recommends does not in and of itself lead to higher or lower present values for climate damages but provides an “internally consistent treatment of uncertainty throughout the estimation framework” and would avoid mixing discount rate assumptions that are inconsistent with other assumptions in the analysis. Newell said the approach could in some circumstances lead to a lower effective discount rate, but only if economic growth and damages are “uncorrelated.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/nas-offers-framework-carbon-cost-updates-amid-trump-threat
-
Accident Prevention Overhaul May Face Legal, CRA Challenges
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is poised to formally issue an overhaul of its accident prevention program for thousands of chemical plants, refineries and other industrial facilities, opening the door to potential legal challenges.
Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy signed the final rule last month, with publication scheduled for tomorrow's Federal Register.
Under the Clean Air Act, challengers will then have 60 days to file a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Craig Oren, a Rutgers Law School professor in Camden, N.J., said today.
The revisions stem from a 2013 executive order issued by President Obama following a deadly accident at a Texas fertilizer storage and distribution facility. The update is intended to bolster efforts to prevent mishaps and protect first responders from chemical exposure.
By EPA's count, the new regulations potentially affect some 12,500 facilities that have filed risk management plans. They were strongly opposed by industry trade groups, which in November took the unusual step of asking the Office of Management and Budget to scrap them (Greenwire, Nov. 30, 2016).
Despite some changes to the final version, they could be included in a Congressional Review Act effort to overturn them (E&E News PM, Dec. 21, 2016).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/12/stories/1060048295
-
No Injuries Reported After Storage Tank Explodes
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
An explosion yesterday at an oil well site near the Montana-North Dakota border was felt nearly 4 miles away.
No injuries were reported, but the blast damaged a nearby shop.
The drill site, owned by Newfield Exploration Co., is located in northeast Montana. Residents of the nearest town, Sidney, Mont., felt the blast.
Cindy Hassler, a company spokeswoman, said the investigation continues into the explosion's cause and that no oil contamination occurred.
The well was not active at the time of the explosion.
Local residents found the tops of aboveground oil tanks hundreds of yards from the drill site.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/12/stories/1060048274
-
Experts Predict More 'Bad Surprises' from Digital Hostage-Takers
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
While Americans fret about Russian hackers exposing private information, seeking to sway elections or even switching off the lights on the electric grid, Marcelo Branquinho warns of a much simpler cyberthreat that may be worming into critical computer systems.
Americans "are very concerned about Russian cyberattacks and things like this, and we fully understand," said Branquinho, CEO of Brazilian cybersecurity firm TI Safe, in an interview yesterday at the S4x17 industrial control system security conference here. "But you must worry about not only about [nation-states] but ransomware. I believe ransomware will grow faster."
Ransomware works by encrypting computer files and holding the key to unlock them hostage. Hackers typically spread ransomware far and wide via infected email attachments, often not caring where the malware winds up as long as it helps line their pockets with anonymized bitcoin.
Once their files have been scrambled, victims cannot hope to recover them without paying for the key, unless they thought to back everything up to a clean computer before the attack.
In a nutshell, ransomware "is easy," as Branquinho put it. And hackers are starting to realize that they don't need specialized knowledge of complex energy systems to go after high-profile targets like utilities, Branquinho and other cybersecurity experts say.
"If they stop electricity distribution for one hour in a major city, that's a lot of money, so the risk is bigger, then they can charge more," Branquinho said.
Lior Frenkel, CEO and co-founder of industrial cybersecurity firm Waterfall Security Solutions, said he also expects 2017 to bring bigger price tags for ransomware attacks.
He said control system operators used to mainly think about cyberthreats from big foreign governments, whose teams of hackers could parse industrial protocols and use specialized knowledge to infiltrate key networks.
"Now there's a market, and the trend has started; we see and hear more about industrial ransomware attacks," he said.
In a presentation at S4x17, Branquinho cited several case studies of ransomware infecting critical infrastructure networks in Brazil, including a furniture manufacturer and an electric transmission company.
In the latter case, he claimed a ransomware infection at a key control system forced the company to reroute power, although the episode did not result in an outage. He said the hackers' ransom demand — $300 per infected machine — showed they didn't realize the criticality of the unnamed global firm they hit.
He claimed that the risk of such attacks is "even worse" in the U.S. electricity sector, which has a more digitized and interconnected power system that cannot readily fall back on manual operations like Brazil.
The North American Electric Reliability Corp., which oversees the U.S. bulk power sector, warned utilities about the rising threat from ransomware last year. A high-level group of government officials and utility executives is also researching the extent to which the U.S. grid should be able to fall back to "manual mode" in the event of a cyber emergency.
Several U.S. energy companies have been affected by ransomware, including the Lansing Board of Water and Light in Michigan, which ended up paying its attackers $25,000 for the key to its files. So far, ransomware has not been shown to have infected any utilities at the control system level, but experts say ransomware's impacts have still echoed indirectly into portions of the power grid.
Mark Stacey, an expert on cybersecurity giant RSA's incident response team, told S4x17 attendees yesterday that one small, unnamed power distributor in the United States was forced to temporarily curtail some of its operations after a January 2016 ransomware attack on its networks.
"The company had servers on the IT network that were monitoring energy usage and would use that information to deliver more or less power," Stacey explained. "In this case, they had corporate [and] residential clients that were not receiving any power."
He ultimately recommended that the utility get in touch with the local FBI field office to assist with the investigation and report the crime. That tip, Stacey recounted, didn't initially go over well.
"They were concerned that the FBI was going to come in and confiscate servers," he said, adding that "some find it intimidating" to bring in the government following a hack. "Really, the main reason I can see to reach out to the FBI is to share information. I think it's the responsibility of each industry, of each client to identify what sharing programs are out there."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/12/stories/1060048268
-
Trump Taps Giuliani to Lead Cybersecurity Effort
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President-elect Donald Trump today named former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to lead a White House team on cybersecurity after Giuliani was passed over for a top Cabinet position.
Giuliani, an early supporter of the incoming president, will orchestrate regular gatherings of senior corporate executives facing or dealing with hackers, cyberintrusions and manipulation, as well as data and identity theft, according to Trump's transition team.
Giuliani, once considered for secretary of State and attorney general under the Trump administration, told reporters in the lobby of Trump Tower this morning that he's filling the role as a private citizen on his own time, acting as a "facilitator." Giuliani also said he will continue serving as the head of cybersecurity at the law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP and leading his consulting firm, Giuliani Partners.
The new effort, he said, will ensure that the government can pull from the private sector's experiences and that the nation's "cyberdefense [will] catch up to our offense" both in the government and the business community. The industry, he said, has spent a lot of money and time gathering and analyzing information, but not as many resources on protecting that data, which poses both a criminal and national security threat.
"Over the course of the last 20 years, our ability to use modern technology has evolved in ways we couldn't possibly imagine, really fast, very quick. ... Our ability to defend that has lagged behind; our offense has gotten way ahead of our defense," he said.
When asked about the ongoing threat of Russian hacking, Giuliani said cybercrime is the "No. 1 growing crime" in the United States and other countries like Brazil, Colombia and France — from identity theft to the hacking of governments.
"Russian hacking, although obviously very notorious, very big news, to me, is only a part of what goes on almost every day," he said. "China, North Korea, Iran, and then friendly nations as well, businesses, people, hacking is ubiquitous."
When pushed further for his personal opinion about the meeting between Trump and intelligence officials about Russia possibly having compromising information, Giuliani dismissed such reports as "fake news" that became viral.
Giuliani after the election hinted at his desire to solve the cybersecurity issue under a Trump administration, saying during an interview with Fox News that "I'd love to become the person that comes up with a solution to cybersecurity." The former mayor in 2002 founded a security consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, with John Huvane, a former New York City police officer who led security during Giuliani's presidential run from 2006 to 2008.
Giuliani during an interview on "Fox & Friends" insisted that a solution to cyberthreats could be found in a private sector that's flush with cash and know-how.
"The president-elect decided that he wanted to bring in on a regular basis the people in the private sector, the corporate leaders in particular, and the thought leaders in the private sector who are working on security for cyber, because we're so far behind," he said.
A major roadblock to improving cybersecurity, he said, is the lack of information-sharing. "It's like cancer; there's cancer research going on all over the place, you almost wish they'd all get together in one room and we'd find a cure," he said. "The answer to cybersecurity is going to be found in the private sector."
Giuliani said the effort will help ensure that private-sector information as well as information from U.S. allies is shared with the Trump administration on a regular basis.
The mayor said former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump's pick to lead the State Department, correctly stated during a confirmation hearing yesterday that the United States needs stronger cyber protections. "He said we basically don't have a cyberdefense," Giuliani said. "That's ridiculous; we should have a cyberdefense."
Giuliani's insistence that the United States has no "cyberdefense" has puzzled some cyber experts.
Herb Lin, senior research scholar for cyber policy and security at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, said of Giuliani's comment, "I take that as political rhetoric. I don't take that very seriously."
Lin was a member of the President's Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity, an expert group appointed by President Obama to propose a blueprint for future cybersecurity policy and actions. It reported its conclusions in December (Energywire, Dec. 5, 2016).
Lin said the idea that there is "not anything" happening on cybersecurity is obviously wrong, but said, "Is there not enough? Everybody on the commission would agree with that statement."
Others were more complimentary.
Joshua Corman, director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, said Giuliani and the incoming Trump administration have an opportunity to do "something different" in cyberspace, noting he and other cyber policy and technical experts would be willing to assist them.
He urged the administration to build on the work of the nonpartisan President's Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.
"There's been a long stalemate of voluntary best practices, safe harbor and the [National Institute of Standards and Technology's] Cybersecurity Framework," he said, referring to many of the Obama administration's cybersecurity actions. "These things are necessary but not sufficient. We've been doing them, and we're still getting compromised routinely."
He added that he has heard Giuliani speak at cybersecurity conferences in the past and said he was "pretty on point in terms of understanding" the core issues. "He certainly wasn't going to tell you how advanced malware works, but a lot of the phrases, he seemed to understand them," Corman said.
"I also know many of my friends in the cybersecurity private sector helped significantly in New York post-9/11, so there was a lot of activity there," Corman said. "My hope is that [Giuliani] will leverage a lot of private-sector expertise and cast a wide net, to bring the right experts to bear."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/12/stories/1060048300
-
Alaska Highway Crash Spills More Than 4,000 Gallons of Diesel
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Thousands of gallons of diesel reportedly spilled on an Alaska highway after a double tanker-trailer rolled into a ditch Monday afternoon.
According to the owner of the tanker, Colville Transport, about 4,000 gallons of diesel fuel leaked. The company informed the state Department of Environmental Conservation shortly after the accident, and cleanup crews arrived at the spill late Monday.
"No surface water is present within 1 mile from the spill site," DEC officials wrote. "There have been no reports of impacts to wildlife, although caribou is currently migrating through the area and measures will be taken to prevent any adverse impact."
The truck was about 20 miles south of Paxson, Alaska.
This is latest in a string of tanker-trailer wrecks and spills on Alaska's Richardson Highway in the past year. Oil companies ship ultra-low-sulfur-diesel fuel along the icy roads to the North Slope oil fields.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/12/stories/1060048285
-
Tillerson: 'The Risk of Climate Change Does Exist'
Jan 12, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson made recovering American leadership the theme of his secretary of State confirmation hearing yesterday, but he argued against the United States getting out ahead on climate change.
The veteran oilman told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Obama administration's meek stance on issues ranging from the Middle East peace process to Russian aggression has compromised U.S. power.
But when it comes to global engagement on warming, he said, America should stay near the middle of the pack.
"I think it's important that the United States maintain its seat at the table in conversations around how to address the threat of climate change, which do require a global response," Tillerson said. "No one country can solve this alone."
In a day dominated by questions about Exxon's dealings in Russia and Syria and Tillerson's own conflicts of interest, global warming still loomed large. Environmentalists gathered outside the Dirksen Senate Office Building wearing inflatable T-Rex costumes, and four times throughout the marathon hearing, activists interrupted to accuse Tillerson personally of abetting climate change. One woman chanted "Rex Tillerson, look at me. My home was destroyed in Hurricane Sandy," before security escorted her from the hearing room.
Tillerson, for his part, did not deny global warming — he told lawmakers "the risk of climate change does exist" — but struggled throughout the day to clarify his views on accepted science surrounding humans' contribution. He shed little light on whether Exxon ignored decades of climate change research and equivocated when it came to questions about whether the United States would remain within the landmark Paris Agreement.
Pressed by lawmakers on whether he would fall in line with President-elect Donald Trump's campaign goal of scrapping the 2015 climate accord, Tillerson promised only that his boss would conduct a "fulsome review" of President Obama's legacy.
"There's an important consideration to this; if we commit to this course that is executed over time, are there any elements of that that put America at a disadvantage?" he said.
Tillerson later said the Trump administration would pursue an "America First" policy when deciding whether to provide funds to the U.N. Green Climate Fund, which helps poor countries cope with climate change.
That is, U.S. interests would dictate whether the new administration will provide the $2.5 billion balance toward Obama's pledge of $3 billion toward the fund by 2020.
"My expectation is we're going to look at all these things from bottoms-up in terms of funds we've committed to this expert," Tillerson said.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who had sought an assurance that no more American money would go toward that fund, later told E&E News he was satisfied with the answer.
Position on Paris still unclear
Tillerson was less cautious when it came to enforcing national security abroad, an area in which he proposed the United States take a muscular and sometimes solitary approach. He repeatedly prescribed that the United States operate "from a position of strength," setting boundaries for adversaries and retaliating if they overstep them. Had Obama done more to push back when Russia annexed Crimea, he said, Russian President Vladimir Putin would have adopted a less aggressive stance against Ukraine. And a more effective offense could have routed the Islamic State group, he added. Instead, moves like Obama's failure to enforce his "red line" on Syria, in which he promised to intervene if the government used chemical weapons but then did not make good on the pledge.
"American leadership must not only be renewed, it must be asserted," Tillerson said.
But Democrats on the panel said that by hinting that the United States would take a backseat role on Paris, Tillerson was abdicating U.S. leadership in an area that a wide range of countries care about.
"I haven't heard anything yet that indicates that he understands the enormity and the magnitude of the challenge and that the U.S. needs to lead the world in taking it on," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).
"We are not just any country. We cannot be a laggard," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told Tillerson.
"To the extent to which we withdraw, then it undermines our ability to lead on many other issues, as well," he told E&E News during a break.
Just what Tillerson intends to advise Trump on Paris if he is confirmed remains unclear. At least three times during the daylong hearing, he said U.S. interests are best served by being "at the table."
That could mean he would propose that the United States remain a party to the agreement among 195 countries to curb greenhouse gas emissions. It might only mean advising against a more drastic option floated by some hard-liners to pull out from the underlying treaty, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. If that happens, the United States and North Korea would be the only nations that are not parties to the body.
Distancing himself from Trump transition memos
Under Tillerson, Exxon supported the Paris Agreement and reiterated that position as recently as Nov. 4. He told Democrats yesterday that he supports the deal and feels comfortable sharing his views with Trump.
Senate Republicans are generally united against the agreement, complaining that Obama joined it inappropriately by skirting the chamber's advice and consent authority. But none asked Tillerson yesterday to clarify his own support.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who considers climate change a hoax, said after the hearing that he was not concerned Tillerson would try to change Trump's mind about withdrawing from the deal.
"Well, what do you expect him to say at a confirmation?" he said in response to questions about Tillerson's desire for a "seat" on Paris. "I learned a long time ago that when you're in a confirmation hearing, you don't really believe everything you hear. Wait and see what happens. I think I know what his feelings are, and I feel comfortable with him."
The apparent lack of concern about nailing down a position on the Paris Agreement appears to be catching on among many Republicans and some conservative analysts, though others remain determined that the United States leave.
The deal does not feature any consequences for noncompliance, and the only legally binding elements are procedural steps related to reporting and transparency. And opponents say remaining in it does, as Tillerson noted, give the United States a say.
"It is important to maintain pressure and a role in the international climate process," said Frank Maisano of Bracewell LLP. "If not, we will face proposals that are completely irrational."
Environmental activists warned that the world doesn't want to see the United States stay in the Paris deal without contributing anything meaningful to it.
"One thing is for certain, with Rex Tillerson, our nation is at strong risk of ceding the mantle of U.S. leadership on climate," said John Coequyt, the Sierra Club's global climate director. "He's proven time and time again that he will put the profits Exxon makes off the dirtiest fossil fuels over the health and safety of our communities."
Tillerson did seek to allay fears on one issue. Asked by former vice presidential candidate and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) about Trump transition memos inquiring about personnel who have worked on climate change and women's issues, Tillerson said his State Department would not persecute those who worked on such issues under Obama.
"No, sir, that would be a pretty unhelpful way to get started," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/12/stories/1060048265
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested