Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/16/2017
-
Environmental Groups Gear Up for Litigation Ahead of Pruitt Vote
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
With a confirmation vote on U.S. EPA administrator nominee Scott Pruitt expected within days, environmental groups are strategizing ahead of what will likely be a busy and significant period of litigation. During today's OnPoint, Josh Stebbins, managing attorney at the Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, discusses the future of environmental law and the impact Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch could have on key rulemakings. -
The Countdown is On. Pruitt to Make a 'Negative' Entrance
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden, Niina Heikkinen and Kavya Balaraman
Scott Pruitt could be on the ground at U.S. EPA as early as tomorrow, with the Senate set to confirm his nomination as the agency's administrator tomorrow afternoon. -
Senate Advances Trump’s EPA Pick
Feb 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jordain Carney
The Senate is moving forward with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's nomination to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). -
Senate Confirms Mulvaney, Launches Pruitt Debate
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By George Cahlink, Kevin Bogardus and Arianna Skibell
The Senate backed Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) as White House budget director this morning in a largely partisan vote, clearing the way for an even more contentious battle over U.S. EPA administrator nominee Scott Pruitt. -
(ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Divided on Defining Conditions of Use Under TSCA
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The specific conditions of use that the EPA will consider in determining the scope of a substance’s risk evaluation under the new TSCA have divided stakeholders. -
EPA Releases Annual Report on Chemical Risk Evaluations
Feb 16, 2017 | Safety + Health Magazine
The Environmental Protection Agency has published a report on risk evaluations as part of requirements established by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. -
EPA Extends Comment Periods on Proposed TCE Rulemakings
Feb 16, 2017 | Lexology
By Elise C. Scott and Mary E. Wall
U.S. EPA has extended the comment periods for two of the agency’s proposed trichloroethylene (TCE) rulemakings. -
United States: EPA Begins to Implement TSCA Reform; Delays Possible with Transition to New Administration
Feb 16, 2017 | Mondaq
By Angela Levin, M. Buck Dixon and Richard L. Pepper
As part of its implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, Public Law 114-182E reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"), EPA recently published two proposed rules, including a proposed rule that would govern the process for active/inactive designations and a proposed rule that would establish the procedure for prioritizing chemicals for risk evaluation. -
Environmentalists Rebut EPA in Pursuit of Updated Lead Dust Hazard Levels
Feb 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Environmental petitioners are rebutting recent EPA arguments in a case seeking to force the agency to update its lead hazard standards for dust and soil, with petitioners arguing EPA has failed to fulfill its duty to revise the standards in accordance with updated science. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Report Looks at Investment Strategies for Plastic-Free Seas
Feb 16, 2017 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The Washington-based Ocean Conservancy says waste management in Asia Pacific countries is one key to reducing plastics pollution in the oceans — it estimates that better practices for collecting and sorting trash in that region could cut in half the amount of plastic that get into oceans by 2025. -
DuPont, Chemours Settle PFOA Lawsuit for $670m
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
DuPont and its spinoff company, Chemours, have agreed to pay more than $670m to settle thousands of lawsuits brought by residents of Ohio and West Virginia that claim the companies poisoned their water with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical used in Teflon and other non-stick coatings. -
Improve ‘Burdensome’ Restriction Process, NGOs Tell EU Commission
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The process of restricting chemicals of concern under REACH is “disproportionately burdensome” and leads to very few being added to Annex XVII – the restricted substances list – NGO ChemSec says. -
Echa Round-Up
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has advised that to benefit from the extended deadline for registering existing, low volume chemicals by the last REACH registration deadline, businesses need to have pre-registered their substances. -
Buerkle Named Acting Chairman of CPSC
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Ann Marie Buerkle has been named the acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). -
Tax Fairness Critical to Sustaining Growth of Energy Sector
Feb 16, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By William F. Shughart II
The term subsidy was heard repeatedly during recent confirmation hearings for President Trump's Energy secretary pick, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. -
On Capitol Hill, Sacred Lands Spark Fierce Debate
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
A House hearing on energy infrastructure yesterday turned fiery as discussion centered on how the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe approached negotiations over the routing of the Dakota Access pipeline on land that, in the words of one GOP lawmaker, "can all be considered sacred in some way." -
Drum Cleaning Poses Risks for Workers, Residents
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A series of accidents and resulting investigations at industrial drum reconditioning plants have raised questions of oversight, pollution and worker safety at facilities operated by Greif Inc., the majority owner in the company that owns the plants. -
Study Links Nearby Drilling to Cancer
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A specific type of childhood cancer may be linked to oil and gas activity nearby, according to a new study from the University of Colorado. -
Amtrak Seeks Direct Federal Aid in Lawmakers’ Infrastructure Plan
Feb 16, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
By Stephanie Beasley
Any infrastructure package that clears Congress this year should include direct federal funding for Amtrak and other rail organizations, Amtrak’s president and CEO Wick Moorman told senators. -
G-20 Won't Water Down Climate Agenda for Trump Team
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
If Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wanted a seat at the table for international climate diplomacy, he's got one.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Environmental Groups Gear Up for Litigation Ahead of Pruitt Vote
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
With a confirmation vote on U.S. EPA administrator nominee Scott Pruitt expected within days, environmental groups are strategizing ahead of what will likely be a busy and significant period of litigation. During today's OnPoint, Josh Stebbins, managing attorney at the Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, discusses the future of environmental law and the impact Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch could have on key rulemakings.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Josh Stebbins, managing attorney at the Sierra Club Environmental Law Program. Josh, thanks for joining me.
Josh Stebbins: Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Josh, we're entering a significant period for environmental litigation with the Trump administration ushering in major changes to the regulatory framework of the last eight years. The courts will likely remain busy. What is your primary focus as the administration works through its first 100 days?
Josh Stebbins: I think the primary focus we have has got to be to preserve some of the public health protections that we were able to achieve under the Obama administration and to make sure that they're delivered to the public.
Monica Trauzzi: How likely do you believe that that is at this point?
Josh Stebbins: Well, I think that the public is quite aware of some of the extreme positions that are being taken by the Trump administration. I think you see it in the marches, I think you see it in the rallies, I think you see it in some of the activity by congressional representatives and senators, and I think the more the public realizes what is at stake for them, that really wasn't what Trump campaigned on. I think that it's going to be a good fight, an uphill fight, but I'm looking forward to it.
Monica Trauzzi: So this means you're going to go to court.
Josh Stebbins: Of course.
Monica Trauzzi: What are the key things that you're looking at and considering potentially litigating on?
Josh Stebbins: Yeah, well I think a lot depends on what — obviously what Trump does, and when I say of course, I don't mean to presuppose, but given the track record of the Trump administration thus far, I would imagine that he is going to try and roll back some of these public health safeguards. I mean, we're talking about clean air, we're talking about clean water, we're talking about families having safe water to drink. We are talking about our kids being able to go outside and play outdoors in the middle of the summer and not have unsafe levels of ozone, smog in the air. So I think when you come into some of those core public health elements, we'll be very active there.
Monica Trauzzi: But they're going to be taking a look at the economics of the regulations, and so there's a big economic argument to be made against some of these regulations that have been put in place.
Josh Stebbins: Actually, the economics have been part of the promulgation of these rules, and time and again, the economic and analysis shows that these rules derive greater benefits than they do have cost. I would be very comfortable in having an honest discussion about economics and the economic benefits this delivers to the American public. One thing to keep in mind, though, is also where do those benefits and costs get distributed? Well, I can tell you that the public health safeguards that are achieved under our environmental statutes and our environmental regulations, they're felt by all of America. They're felt by mainstream Americans, they're felt by families, particularly they're felt by children and elderly and infirm. And those are parts of our society that we have to be there to protect.
Monica Trauzzi: Scott Pruitt is expected to be confirmed as EPA administrator, and as administrator, he's going to strike a very different tone from what we saw from Gina McCarthy. What do you believe the key changes at EPA will be?
Josh Stebbins: I don't want to speculate too much about anything specific, but he certainly does have an anti-regulatory approach. He's got a track record of trying to block public health safeguards that EPA's put in place. So my expectation would be that his activities as a — as the administrator of EPA, should he become the administrator of EPA, would be in keeping with that, which is really protecting polluters and not the public.
Monica Trauzzi: There is a big question, or some big questions relating to conflicts of interest for Pruitt. Is that something that you think an administrator can successfully navigate without being taken to court? Can he do it?
Josh Stebbins: Well, there are different elements of that. On the one hand, the conflicts of interest, I don't think he should be engaged in rulemaking processes that he has — where he has been suing to overturn those rules. Besides that, you have to appreciate the fact that these regulations take a long time to put in place, and as you go through — as an agency develops a regulation, they're looking at, in the context of environmental regulations, the public health impacts of the regulation, what the benefits are, and there's a solid evidentiary basis for these rules. It's — if he's going to roll back some of these rules or trying to do that, he's going to be doing it based on a record that shows that these rules really do deliver important public health benefits to mainstream Americans.
Monica Trauzzi: Let's talk about Neil Gorsuch for a second. Where do you believe the Supreme Court could go with him on the bench?
Josh Stebbins: Yeah, so the Gorsuch — Judge Gorsuch's nomination is really without historical precedent when you look at the fact that the foundation of it was the refusal of the Senate for the last year to fulfill their constitutional duties of providing advice and consent to Judge Garland. And when you look at where the court is going to go, I think you really have to compare where it would go under Judge Gorsuch compared to where it would go if Judge Garland had been on that bench. My greatest concerns about Judge Gorsuch, from what I've been able to see thus far, are the fact that, number one, the judiciary really has a very important role in vindicating the public interest, allowing the public to come and where the government itself, the executive branch itself, either cannot or will not implement or enforce the law, it allows the public to come in and do that. It's not radical, it's not extreme, it's been happening for decades. So right as a movement it was built on that and voting — it's parts of voting rights, act of part of environmental regulation, public health regulations, excuse me, statutes. Judge Gorsuch has taken a very dim view of the public's ability to actually get into the courthouse door. He is focused on — many — a number of his decisions are very focused on closing that courthouse door to the public and to the public's ability to be able to actually vindicate the rights under some of these statutes.
Monica Trauzzi: He's questioned Chevron if he's confirmed. Do you think we could see a court that pushes back against this doctrine?
Josh Stebbins: Well, yeah, he sure has questioned Chevron, and I think that's alarming as a harbinger of things that could be coming down the pipe should he end up on the bench. The thing about Chevron is that it recognized an expertise in these agencies in administering the statutes that they are charged to administer by Congress. What he essentially wants to do is remove that deference to the agencies' expertise and substitute his own analysis and his own expertise. And I think that there's a lot of risk there and there's a lot of opportunity for conservative judicial activism.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we're going to end it right there on that note. Thank you for coming on the show.
Josh Stebbins: Sure.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2203/transcript
-
The Countdown is On. Pruitt to Make a 'Negative' Entrance
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden, Niina Heikkinen and Kavya Balaraman
Scott Pruitt could be on the ground at U.S. EPA as early as tomorrow, with the Senate set to confirm his nomination as the agency's administrator tomorrow afternoon.
The Republican Oklahoma attorney general, who has challenged numerous EPA regulations in court, is expected to work quickly toward reversing major rules established by the Obama administration. Finalizing those rollbacks could take time.
Once Pruitt is in place, President Trump could take a number of symbolic steps against his predecessor's signature climate achievements. He could issue executive orders declaring that climate standards for power plants are illegal or announce his intent to exit the international agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Before that can happen, Pruitt and other political appointees will have to be sworn in and begin the delicate process of persuading scientists and other civil servants to share a sharply altered outlook for the agency under Trump.
That could start this week, acting Administrator Catherine McCabe told employees in a video message Tuesday. The first actions by the incoming political class could set the tone at EPA, where staffers are already nervous about potential budget and staffing cuts.
"It's not a great situation right now," said Christine Todd Whitman, who was EPA administrator under George W. Bush. "Those who are eligible for retirement are certainly looking at that as an option. There's no fun working in a negative environment."
Whitman said she worries that the American public won't understand what is happening at EPA until the next major disaster.
"There's so much coming out that needs to be sorted out with the administration right now," she said. "EPA's a little bit a victim of its own success, because people just expect to have clean air and clean water."
Nicole Cantello, an EPA lawyer based in Chicago and a union steward with American Federation of Government Employees Local 704, said last week that the "bad news is coming fast and furious." That's why EPA staffers in Region 5 recently protested publicly.
Looming budget cuts are a widespread worry. Cantello said that severe defunding would have prevented EPA from responding to the drinking water contamination crisis in Flint, Mich., and oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA's case against Volkswagen AG for cheating on emissions tests "would never have been known about," she said.
Cantello works on water quality in the Great Lakes region, a multistate issue that must be handled by the federal government. She worries that those efforts will suffer with changes at EPA, and she said her co-workers are concerned that the agency's mission could be curtailed or "shackled completely."
Roller-coaster tweets
Staff members at EPA headquarters expressed a mix of emotions as they left their Washington, D.C., office yesterday evening, in the final hours before their new boss steps into the building.
"It's copacetic; nothing really much has changed, at least on my end," said one man who said he works at EPA but declined to give his name or department.
Other staff members said work at the agency has been proceeding as normal, although there is some doubtfulness about the future of certain projects. One EPA employee in the Office of Atmospheric Programs who gave only a first name, Robert, said people are concerned about potential budget cuts for contractors and travel.
Everyone seems to be anticipating what Pruitt is likely to say at his first all-hands meeting. And many are watching Trump's tweets, which have the power to lift, and sink, people's moods.
"Now there's talk of about a 50 percent cut in extramural resources, so there is planning for that, all the way from 10 to 50 percent [cuts], so people are pretty worried," Robert said. "It's definitely mixed morale, varied day by day based on the latest spouting off from the White House."
There is also talk of staff cuts and rumors that employees would have to take two weeks of unpaid leave this year, he said.
"There are a lot of even more concerned people who are in the climate change group; I mean, obviously, they are more in the crosshairs," Robert said.
Whitman said one indicator of how Pruitt will run the agency is how he treats science.
"From what I've heard so far, those who have been parachuted in to do the prep work for Scott Pruitt are asking questions that indicate a great skepticism for the quality of the science," Whitman said.
Doug Ericksen, the temporary head of EPA communications, said so far, there are no specific plans to change staffing levels, and he downplayed the impact of the recent hiring freeze, which prevents the agency from replacing those who are leaving.
"That would be up to the administration, the White House and the Congress in terms of overall funding to all the agencies," Ericksen said.
"I think we're just going to continue down the pathway of a smooth transition with a new administrator," he said. "He's going to be meeting with the career professionals here at the agency and working on putting his staff around him, kind of the usual stuff you would expect."
Last week, Ericksen acknowledged that the administration wanted to cut back on travel but declined to specify how much EPA might reduce those budgets.
Lax enforcement coming?
Former EPA employees note that major changes may take a while to find traction. But there are bound to be some staffers who feel alienated by those efforts and leave.
Bruce Buckheit, who enforced environmental laws at the Justice Department and then was air quality director at EPA, was at the agency during the transition from the Clinton administration to the George W. Bush administration.
"They took until May or June to really start changing things," Buckheit said. "The first couple months, we were all kind of wondering what would happen, but it didn't happen overnight."
Buckheit worked under Whitman, who he said supported EPA's core mission, but he was forced to work with assistant administrators who did not. As things changed, Buckheit said, he stayed for a year because "Whitman said 'Hang in there; we'll get this right.'"
As acting administrator, McCabe seems to be trying to reassure staff members, thanking them in Tuesday's video for their "continuing patience."
"We do recognize the transition has brought some challenges," she said, acknowledging that the hiring freeze and the halt on new regulations are causing some difficulties.
Congress will likely move to reduce EPA's budget, although Buckheit noted that might be hard because most of EPA's funds are "stovepiped" in grants to localities.
"Those people are going to want to keep their money," he said.
Sources have suggested that new EPA leaders might also limit enforcement work (E&E Daily, Feb. 9).
Sara Schneeberg, who worked in the general counsel's air office until 2015, started out in the agency's enforcement unit under the Reagan administration. The controversial EPA head at the time, Anne Gorsuch Burford, slowed enforcement action.
"In the general counsel's office, the lawsuits are running and the lawsuits are brought against the agency and you have to defend them," Schneeberg said. "But in the enforcement office, that's EPA's initiative. You go out and you sue people. But we were told you don't go out and sue people."
Schneeberg, who worked at EPA through many transitions, said this one "seems definitely the worst."
Pruitt worries one Republican
The Senate vote tomorrow will mark the end of more than two months of opposition campaigns characterizing Pruitt as a fossil fuel lackey.
Environmental advocates, joined by Democratic senators and former agency officials, rallied yesterday evening in front of the Capitol. They carried signs saying "Pruitt the Polluter" and chanted "No hate, no fear; your climate denial's not welcome here."
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) criticized Pruitt's record and suggested that his nomination is the first step toward shuttering EPA, a Trump campaign promise. Carper urged Senate leaders to delay Pruitt's confirmation vote until he releases his email correspondence with oil and gas industry interests.
"It's beyond me to understand why [Republicans] would not wait a week until we had full information," he said on the sidelines of the event. "Maybe they're fearful of the story they will tell," he added, referring to the emails.
Carper and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Democrats would use all their floor time to oppose Pruitt's nomination.
"We are going to be extremely active on the floor and burn as much time as we possibly can," Whitehouse said. He added that he hopes Republicans will pay in the 2018 elections for hamstringing EPA.
"Our Republican friends are walking around looking at the ceiling tiles, pretending that they don't really see what's going on — because there is so much clout in this building from the fossil fuel industry," he said, pointing at the Capitol.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the floor last night that a vote to proceed to Pruitt's confirmation will be held at 10:30 a.m. today. By tomorrow afternoon, the Senate could confirm Pruitt. He could be at his desk in EPA headquarters before sunset.
Pruitt has enough votes to be confirmed even if all Democrats oppose him. Only one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, has said she will vote against him.
Collins, in an interview with Maine Public Radio, called Pruitt "an accomplished attorney with considerable knowledge about environmental laws," but she said she has concerns about how actively he has opposed and sued EPA.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/16/stories/1060050167
-
Senate Advances Trump’s EPA Pick
Feb 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jordain Carney
The Senate is moving forward with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's nomination to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The chamber voted 54-46 to advance Pruitt’s nomination, clearing the simple majority needed. Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) were the only Democrats to vote in favor of cloture on Pruitt's nomination, joining all 52 Republicans.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on Wednesday became the only Republican senator to announce that she would oppose Pruitt, though she voted in favor of cloture for his nomination on Thursday.
Collins — who has voted against other Trump Cabinet nominees — told a local Maine radio station that she had concerns about how Pruitt would be able to run an agency he had spent much of his time as Oklahoma's top lawyer opposing and suing.
"His actions leave me with considerable doubts about whether his vision for the EPA is consistent with the agency's critical mission to protect health and the environment," she said.
Pruitt's vote went forward despite a failed 11th hour effort by Democrats to delay it because of a pending court case involving email records.
Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee, led by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), said that emails Pruitt’s office is likely to release publicly soon may be important in considering his nomination.
“These records are needed for the Senate to evaluate Mr. Pruitt’s suitability to serve in the position for which he has been nominated," the Democrats wrote in a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky).
But McConnell praised Pruitt on Thursday as a "welcome change" from the Obama administration, which he argued negatively impacted coal families in his home state of Kentucky.
"Pruitt thinks it's time for the EPA to get back clean air and clean water business," he said. "And to do so with an appreciation for the complexity of our modern world, with awareness of the broader economy, with compassion toward those impacted."
Thursday's vote sets up a final vote as early as Friday.
McConnell warned senators Wednesday that they should expect to stay in session through Friday afternoon, but a group of roughly a dozen senators are expected to leave for a security conference in Germany.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319852-senate-advances-trumps-epa-pick
-
Senate Confirms Mulvaney, Launches Pruitt Debate
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By George Cahlink, Kevin Bogardus and Arianna Skibell
The Senate backed Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) as White House budget director this morning in a largely partisan vote, clearing the way for an even more contentious battle over U.S. EPA administrator nominee Scott Pruitt.
"He'll get confirmed before we leave this week," said Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) this morning, repeating what he has said all week about Pruitt's prospects.
The Republican Oklahoma attorney general has drawn fierce resistance from Democrats and environmentalists for his lengthy track record of fighting EPA regulations. Democrats have not ruled out staying in session all night to protest Pruitt ahead of a confirmation vote at 1 p.m. tomorrow.
"Oh, I'd go all night, but I don't think it's necessary," said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has championed the selection of Pruitt. "It's all for show; they know the votes are there."
In one sign of that resistance, EPW ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he and fellow panel Democrats sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) asking him to delay, once again, the vote on Pruitt. The minority wants to review about 2,500 emails between Pruitt's office and fossil fuel companies and entities.
"The majority leader said no," Carper said at a news conference today. "He was not rude about it, but he said no."
Groups and lawmakers are suing Pruitt's office in Oklahoma state court over the records after he told them to file open records requests for them.
"Basically telling the Congress that we could go FOIA ourselves," Carper said. "We don't like that."
Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate, said she would oppose Pruitt. She will likely be the only Republican to do so.
North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a red-state moderate on the Democratic side who faces a likely competitive re-election bid in 2018, announced this morning that she would support Pruitt. She joins West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, who has long spoken positively about Pruitt.
Inhofe is hoping Pruitt can now help select other top positions at EPA that require Senate confirmation. The former EPW chairman also said he expects Pruitt to be active in helping kill regulations and roll back the Clean Power Plan.
EPA staffers are less thrilled. In a letter yesterday to McConnell, more than 700 former EPA employees criticized the Oklahoma attorney general for his record in not enforcing but rather challenging environmental laws.
"Mr. Pruitt's record and public statements strongly suggest that he does not agree with the underlying principles of our environmental statutes. Mr. Pruitt has shown no interest in enforcing those laws, a critically important function for EPA," said the letter.
Further, Democrats already are preparing to hamstring Pruitt. Thirty senators in the caucus sent Pruitt a letter today asking him to recuse himself from litigation he pursued against EPA.
"The American people must have the utmost confidence that members of the Trump administration are exclusively serving our national interests," said the senators.
"Until you agree to recuse yourself from all matters (including regulation) related to your litigation against the EPA for the duration of your time in office, they will lack that confidence."
If confirmed, Pruitt will likely face a lengthy ethics process that will result in his consulting with agency lawyers on a case-by-case basis (Greenwire, Feb. 14).
Mulvaney
The Senate confirmed Mulvaney 51-49, with all Democrats and only one Republican, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), opposing him. McCain, the Senate Armed Services chairman, has been critical of Mulvaney's calls for cuts in defense spending.
"He's going to have his hands full," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who serves on both the Budget and Appropriations committees.
Graham said Mulvaney will need not only to work with Congress to pass annual spending plans, but also to work on ways to reduce the nation's debt over the long term.
Mulvaney, a fiscal hard-liner during his four terms in the House, has backed government shutdowns in the past rather than hiking federal spending and raising the debt ceiling.
His first task will be to help the administration craft at least the outlines of its fiscal 2018 budget proposal, which the White House has said is due out within the next few weeks.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/16/stories/1060050200
-
(ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Divided on Defining Conditions of Use Under TSCA
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The specific conditions of use that the EPA will consider in determining the scope of a substance’s risk evaluation under the new TSCA have divided stakeholders.
The EPA heard from a range of industry, NGO and academic representatives in a 14 February hearing aimed at informing the scope of the first ten risk evaluations it will complete under the recently reformed law. This included feedback on preliminary use dossiers that the agency has released for the priority substances undergoing evaluation.
Under the new TSCA law, the agency must consider the circumstances under which a substance is “intended, known, or reasonably foreseen” to be used. But there was disagreement in how the agency should interpret this requirement.
Assessing every use ‘unworkable’
Kathleen Roberts, speaking on behalf of the producers group for n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) – one of the first ten substances – said that “EPA’s current interpretation that it must assess every single conditions of use is unworkable.”
Despite its members’ outreach through the supply chain, said Ms Roberts, the group believes it “will be unable to provide manufacturing, processing, transportation, release and exposure information for each and every product made with, or containing, NMP.
“It would be unreasonable to think that any organisation could do so.”
The NMP group said that it would support the agency’s using a tiering approach that would allow it to streamline the process.
Derek Swick of the American Petroleum Institute (API) said that the conditions of use that the EPA is examining must not only be consistent with traditional approaches to risk assessment, but also must rely on actual exposure scenarios.
Accidents and unintended releases, he said, are outside the scope of the statutory definition of conditions of use, in the API’s view. And scenarios that are not consistent with what is described on a safety data sheet, and corresponding labels regarding safe and intended use, should also fall outside the scope, he said.
Exposure controls and personal protective equipment (PPE) that prevent or limit chemical exposures should also be factored into the risk evaluation, said Mr Swick, as should existing regulations.
NGOs, academia call for wide net
But a slew of NGOs and academics countered that the agency must look at all possible uses, and disagreed that certain ones be excluded from the scope of risk evaluation.
The Environmental Health Strategy Center’s Michael Belliveau urged the EPA to take a comprehensive view to substance scope: risk evaluations, he said, must include all uses, all exposures and all vulnerable populations.
Mr Belliveau said that the EPA must also assess aggregate exposure and risk. The new TSCA, he said, requires the agency to determine if a chemical – not a set of certain uses of a chemical – poses an unreasonable risk. “The only way to do that is to aggregate all the plausible exposures from all the sources of the chemical.”
Stephen Markowitz, a professor at the City University of New York, highlighted the “unavoidable gap” between a substance's intended and actual use. Leaks, spills and equipment malfunctions are commonplace, he said, and should be considered reasonably foreseeable uses.
The Environmental Defense Fund’s Lindsay McCormick added that PPE and warning labels have “major real-world limitations” that should not result in the EPA’s assuming low or no risk.
Daniel Rosenberg of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also urged consideration of phased-out uses of substances, as these legacy uses may result in continued new exposures.
Under the statutory deadlines, the EPA must finalise the scoping documents for its first ten chemicals by 19 June. It is accepting comments until 15 March.
Data quality
In drafting its preliminary use dossiers, the EPA looked at publicly available data from states and such programmes as the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), as well as literature reviews and internet searches.
In testimony, the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Christina Franz said that the content of the use dossier must be validated to ensure that it is “reliable and accurate”. This can only occur, she said, through an iterative process to ensure the agency has the most current and appropriate knowledge of the TSCA uses of substances.
Some of the sources that the EPA has cited in its dossiers are “poor for current information”, said Ms Franz. “EPA should take steps to do quality assurance and quality control analysis of the sources of information that it relies upon, and should not continue to use those that prove unreliable.”
Rebecca Bernstein, from specialty chemicals company Arkema, called on the EPA to clarify what sorts of uses it is considering, such as impurities or non-TSCA uses of a substance, so that industry groups could generate and submit this data.
Speaking at the end of the hearing, the EPA’s Jeff Morris said that while there were varying views presented on how best to complete a risk evaluation, he saw agreement that “everyone would like us to take the best available information, apply it to the most scientifically sound methodologies, to develop risk evaluations that are both protective and practical.
“I think that's a good starting point, and we'll move from there,” he said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53631/stakeholders-divided-on-defining-conditions-of-use-under-tsca
-
EPA Releases Annual Report on Chemical Risk Evaluations
Feb 16, 2017 | Safety + Health Magazine
The Environmental Protection Agency has published a report on risk evaluations as part of requirements established by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
The report, which will be released annually, confirms that the process has begun for the first 10 chemicals to be evaluated under the act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act by mandating that EPA evaluate existing chemicals under specific deadlines. These chemicals are:
1,4-Dioxane – used in consumer products
1-Bromopropane – used in consumer products
Asbestos – used in chlor-alkali production, consumer products, coatings and compounds, plastics, roofing products, and other applications
Carbon Tetrachloride – used in commercial and industrial products
Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster – used as a flame retardant in extruded polystyrene foam, textiles and electrical and electronic appliances
Methylene Chloride – used in consumer products
N-Methylpyrrolidone – used in consumer products
Pigment Violet 29 – used in consumer products
Tetrachloroethylene – used in consumer products
Trichloroethylene – used in consumer products and dry cleaning
EPA stated that it expects to issue a scoping document for each chemical by June 19. The scoping documents will include information on the hazards, exposures, conditions of use and the subpopulations that may be exposed. The agency also said it has established separate, individual dockets for each chemical, and is accepting comments.
EPA hosted a public meeting on Feb. 14 regarding the first 10 chemicals. Under the law, the agency is required to complete risk evaluations within 3 to 3.5 years.
Beyond the first 10 chemicals, EPA is required to establish a process for risk evaluation prioritization. The agency has issued proposed rules on this process and submitted a report to Congress detailing the resources it believes are needed to fulfill risk evaluation work.
http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/15293-epa-releases-annual-report-on-chemical-risk-evaluations
-
EPA Extends Comment Periods on Proposed TCE Rulemakings
Feb 16, 2017 | Lexology
By Elise C. Scott and Mary E. Wall
U.S. EPA has extended the comment periods for two of the agency’s proposed trichloroethylene (TCE) rulemakings.
TCE is a volatile organic compound widely used in industrial and commercial processes. On December 7, 2016, EPA proposed a rule under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to:
Prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of TCE for use in aerosol degreasing and for use in spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities;
Prohibit commercial use of TCE for aerosol degreasing and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities;
Require manufacturers, processors, and distributors of TCE to provide downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; and
Impose related recordkeeping requirements.
Comments on the proposed rule were originally due by February 14, 2017.
On January 19, 2017, EPA proposed a rule regarding the use of TCE in vapor degreasing operations, the requirements of which closely tracked the aerosol degreasing rule. On that same day, the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc. (HSIA) filed comments to the rulemakings, requesting an extension on the comment deadlines. HSIA represents producers and users of TCE. HSIA noted that the two proposed rulemakings are based on the same risk assessment and raise many common legal and policy issues; HSIA argued it would be “redundant and duplicative to address the common issues separately,” and requested that the comment deadline for both proposals be extended by 30 days from March 20 to April 20, 2017.
On February 8, 2017, the agency released a pre-publication notice of a Federal Registerdocument extending the comment periods for both proposed rules by 30 days each, partially granting HSIA’s request. Under the new schedule, comments must be received for the aerosol degreasing rule on or before March 16, 2017, and comments must be received for the vapor degreasing rule on or before April 19, 2017.
We also note that EPA recently released a list of the first ten priority chemicals, including TCE, to undergo a comprehensive risk evaluation under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the first reform of TSCA in over 40 years). A public “scoping session” on the proposed risk assessment was held on February 14, 2017 in Washington, D.C.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1658a528-83fc-4360-87e7-2f9cd8967de4
-
Feb 16, 2017 | Mondaq
By Angela Levin, M. Buck Dixon and Richard L. Pepper
As part of its implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, Public Law 114-182E reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"), EPA recently published two proposed rules, including a proposed rule that would govern the process for active/inactive designations and a proposed rule that would establish the procedure for prioritizing chemicals for risk evaluation. Notably, although EPA has released a pre-publication of a third rule – proposing the process for performing a risk evaluation – that proposal appears to have been caught up in the Administration transition and has not yet been published in the Federal Register.
Active/Inactive Notification Requirements
On January 13, 2017, EPA published a proposed rule entitled, "TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements," 82 Fed. Reg. 4255 (Jan. 13, 2017) ("Active/Inactive Proposal"). EPA states that the proposal "would enable [it] to fulfill a statutory obligation to designate chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory as active or inactive in U.S. commerce." This designation is intended to assist EPA in prioritizing chemical substances for risk evaluations.
The Active/Inactive Proposal would require persons who manufactured chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory for nonexempt commercial purposes between June 21, 2006 and June 21, 2016 to submit a retrospective notification to EPA. This notification would need to include the chemical identity, type of commercial activity, date rage for when the manufacturing occurred, and whether the manufacturer intends to maintain an existing claim for protection against disclosure of chemical identity as confidential business information ("CBI").
Once a notice is submitted, EPA would designate the substance as "active" on the TSCA Inventory. Processors would have the option, but not the obligation, to request that a substance be identified as "active" if no manufacturer requests the designation. Finally, if no one requests that an existing CBI claim be maintained as part of a notification for a given substance, EPA will transfer that substance from the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory to the public portion.
Once a substance is designated as "inactive," the proposal also would require manufacturers and processors to notify EPA before they manufacture or process that substance for non-exempt commercial purposes. Once EPA receives a notice, it would change the chemical substance's designation on the TSCA Inventory from inactive to active. Manufacturers and processors would be required to submit the notice no more than 30 days prior to the chemical substance's actual manufacturing or processing. Notably, the manufacture or processing of a chemical substance that is designated as inactive would be considered a violation of TSCA. As a result, it is important that manufacturers and processors ensure that notifications are submitted for their current products.
Under TSCA as reformed, EPA is under a statutory deadline to finalize this rule by June 22, 2017, with the deadline for manufacturers to submit notifications no more than 180 days later.
This proposal can be accessed here. Comments are due on March 14, 2017.
Prioritizing Chemicals for Review
On January 17, 2017, EPA published a proposed rule to establish a four-part process for prioritizing chemicals for review under TSCA, as reformed ("Prioritization Proposal"). Under the revised statute, EPA is required to establish a risk-based screening process and criteria to designate chemicals as High- or Low-Priority Substances. This process would include pre-prioritization, initiation, proposed designation, and final designation.
The Prioritization Proposal articulates a process that will screen a candidate chemical primarily against criteria drawn from the Agency's TSCA Work Plan, which includes nine metrics such as the chemical substance's hazard and exposure potential, persistence and bioaccumulation, the conditions of use, the volume manufactured and processed, susceptible subpopulations, and a "catch-all" provision granting EPA added flexibility. If the Agency determines a chemical qualifies under these criteria, it will formally initiate the prioritization process, providing two opportunities for public comment (only one comment period is required by the revised statute). EPA specifically notes that for chemical substances with insufficient information to conduct a risk evaluation, the Agency plans to "pursue a significant amount of data gathering before initiating prioritization." EPA also indicates that in the face of "scientific uncertainty," the Agency will "weigh in favor of a High Priority Substance designation."
While EPA is required under the revised statute to focus on substances identified in the Agency's Workplan in determining High-Priority chemicals, EPA indicates in the proposal that it believes the Safer Chemicals Ingredients List to be a "good starting point" for identifying Low Priority Substance candidates.
This prioritization process does not apply to the first ten chemical substances that EPA identified in November 2016, which will automatically go through the risk evaluation process: 1,4 dioxane; 1-bromopropane; asbestos; carbon tetrachloride; cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster; methylene chloride (MC); n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP); pigment violet 29; trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PERC).
This proposal can be accessed here. Comments are due on March 18, 2017.
Risk Evaluation Requirements
On January 13, 2017, EPA also released a pre-publication version of a proposed rule that would establish the process for conducting risk evaluations for High Priority Substances (in addition to the ten substances that EPA has already identified). Although much of the proposal is intended to implement the statutory language, EPA does provide additional specifics with regard to the process for and scope of the risk evaluation.
Under TSCA, as revised, EPA is required to issue a final scoping document within six months of initiating a risk evaluation. EPA proposes to add the requirement to first issue a draft scoping document for public comment, and to prohibit commenters from providing additional comment regarding the scope of the risk evaluation after that initial comment period is over. Part of the scoping process will include defining the "known, intended, and reasonably foreseen" conditions of use, which will guide the risk evaluation.
Notably, EPA proposes not to define key aspects of the risk evaluation, including what constitutes an "unreasonable risk" that would justify regulating a chemical substance, the "weight of the scientific evidence" used to determine whether a chemical substance presents an "unreasonable risk," and "best available science," which the Agency is required to evaluate in determining whether the "weight of the scientific evidence" indicates that a chemical substance presents an "unreasonable risk." EPA asks for comment on whether definitions for these terms should be codified.
The proposed rule also includes a process for manufacturer-initiated risk evaluations, for which the Agency proposes to allow a public comment period for others to provide relevant information that may inform the risk evaluation.
EPA plans to apply this process to the first ten chemical substances to be evaluated from the TSCA Work Plan as well as chemicals that are identified as High Priority as a result of the prioritization process discussed above.
Although the Priebus Memo – delaying the effective date of rules that had been published in the Federal Register and requiring the Office of the Federal Register to return rules to agencies that had not yet been published – may not directly apply to this proposed rule, it appears that it has been held up at least temporarily during the transition to the new Administration. Although it is unclear whether it will be revised prior to being re-submitted to the Office of Federal Register for publication, whether and how to define many of the relevant terms, including "best available science" and "weight of the science," could be seen as an opportunity by the incoming Administration to influence EPA decision-making as it implements TSCA reform.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/569138/Environmental+Law/EPA+Begins+to+Implement+TSCA+Reform+Delays+Possible+with+Transition+to+New+Administration
-
Environmentalists Rebut EPA in Pursuit of Updated Lead Dust Hazard Levels
Feb 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Environmental petitioners are rebutting recent EPA arguments in a case seeking to force the agency to update its lead hazard standards for dust and soil, with petitioners arguing EPA has failed to fulfill its duty to revise the standards in accordance with updated science.
"If studies show that EPA's standards no longer protect human health from adverse effects, as studies do here, then EPA is failing to meet Congress's directive," environmental petitioners say in a Jan. 27 brief filed in A Community Voice, et al. v. EPA before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
They tell the court: "Without a judicial deadline, EPA will likely continue at its dilatory pace while children are irreversibly harmed from ongoing exposure to lead."
At issue is a petition for writ of mandamus, filed by eight environmental, community and equity groups last August. The groups want EPA to update its dust-lead standards as well as the definition of lead-based paint under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). They are requesting an order that would require EPA to issue a proposed update to the rule within 90 days of the order, and a final rule within six months.
The groups in their petition argue that EPA has delayed a rulemaking that, in 2009, it agreed to promulgate, and that its delay comes despite "scientific consensus about the irreversible and significant harms caused by low-level lead exposure." They contend the inaction is putting children, particularly in low-income communities and communities of color, at risk of harm caused by lead in dust and paint in homes and daycares.
But the Justice Department (DOJ), in a brief filed on behalf of EPA Jan. 17, argues the mandamus petition should be denied, saying the agency "has no duty, statutory or otherwise, to promulgate a rule revising the dust-lead hazard standards and the definition of lead-based paint."
Additionally, ordering the agency to work on this issue would limit EPA's ability and discretion to complete other pending rulemakings and regulatory actions that have clear deadlines and also involve "weighty public health considerations," DOJ says.
Clear Duty
In their Jan. 27 reply brief, however, the petitioners say EPA is wrong to say that it has no duty to act that has not been fulfilled, contending that both the Paint Hazard Reduction Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) impose a clear duty for EPA to take action, which it has not satisfied.
With regard to the Paint Hazard Reduction Act, the law requires EPA to issue standards that identify what constitutes a lead-based paint hazard and lead-contaminated dust, with Congress laying out definitions of those terms, the brief says. These definitions make clear that the standards that EPA is charged with establishing must protect humans from the adverse health effects from lead, it says.
The brief says that the broad program created by that law "evinces Congress's intent that EPA update the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Standards as needed so that they continue to protect against exposure that 'would result in adverse human health effects.'"
"It would make no sense for Congress to have: a) given EPA authority to revise its regulations; b) mandated a task force to recommend revisions to regulations; c) called for a 'strategy to build [necessary] infrastructure,' including standards and regulations . . .; (d) required ongoing consultations among federal agencies; and e) established a 'workable framework for . . . evaluation' of lead-based paint hazards, if it envisioned a fixed program," the brief says.
They argue that the best way to read the law is that Congress intended for EPA to update the standards to "most effectively protect human health from lead-based paint hazards based on current science."
With regard to the APA, the agency has a duty under that law to complete the revisions it pledged to undertake when it granted the petitioners' rulemaking petition in 2009, the brief says. EPA cannot say it concluded the matter by merely initiating a proceeding to update the dust-lead hazards in response to the 2009 petition, and that it has no duty to actually complete those revisions.
EPA is obligated to take final action on the revisions because without such action, the petitioners "remain in 'administrative limbo' in which they enjoy neither the fulfillment of their 2009 request nor the opportunity to seek judicial review of a potentially unfavorable final action."
Unreasonable Delay
The petitioners further argue that EPA's delay is unreasonable -- noting that EPA has said the earliest it would update the standards is 2023. To support their argument that the 13-plus year time span between the filing of the petition and 2023 is unreasonable, they point to a 2015 9th Circuit ruling in a pesticide safety case in which the court said 9 years was too long between an administrative petition and a possible proposed rule.
Further, the petitioners say DOJ's arguments regarding individual factors courts must weigh to determine unreasonable delay "fail to rationalize the agency's protracted and unreasonable delay or its indefinite future plans to 'conclude [the] matter presented to it' under the APA."
In further arguing against granting a writ of mandamus based on a claim of unreasonable agency delay, DOJ pointed to the six factors a court weighs, per the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's 1984 decision in Telecommunications Research & Action Center (TRAC) v. Federal Communications Commission, to decide if an agency's delay is egregious enough to warrant mandamus, the brief says.
Among those factors is one that considers how expediting action on a delayed activity might affect competing or higher priorities. DOJ noted EPA's resources are limited and that the agency has had to shift resources from its lead program to undertake stepped-up responsibilities under the new TSCA law.
But in response, the petitioners say "Congress has made clear that, irrespective of competing priorities, EPA (and [the Department of Housing and Urban Development]) are charged with developing and implementing 'a national strategy . . . to eliminate lead-based paint hazards in all housing as expeditiously as possible."
"Continuing to 'back-burner' the effort to update the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Standards because of other priorities runs afoul of Congress's directive," they add.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-rebut-epa-pursuit-updated-lead-dust-hazard-levels
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Report Looks at Investment Strategies for Plastic-Free Seas
Feb 16, 2017 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The Washington-based Ocean Conservancy says waste management in Asia Pacific countries is one key to reducing plastics pollution in the oceans — it estimates that better practices for collecting and sorting trash in that region could cut in half the amount of plastic that get into oceans by 2025.
The NGO released a new report Feb. 14, “The Next Wave: Investment Strategies for Plastic Free Seas,” looking specifically at how to start to do that, including examining financing and other barriers.
“Clearly, the lack of effective waste management is one of the greatest challenges we face in tackling this global issue,” the group said.
The report, it said, is an attempt “to provide a roadmap for how businesses, governments and nonprofits can come together around this issue as a key piece of solving the ocean plastic problem.
“When paired with efforts to reduce and reuse waste, these efforts will allow us to take a great leap forward in protecting the ocean, the climate and public health,” the group said.
The report suggests that voluntary efforts like its beach cleanup, while valuable, are dwarfed by the amount of plastic waste getting into the world’s waters.
It said that the 30 years of its annual International Coastal Cleanup, involving 11.5 million volunteers in 153 countries, has collected 220 million pounds of trash from beaches and waterways.
But Ocean Conservancy CEO Andreas Merkl said in the report that annually, an estimated 8 million metric tons (or 17.6 billion pounds) of plastic gets into waters.
That number seems certain to grow, with economic development worldwide meaning that plastic use is projected to rise substantially.
By my analysis of their data, if the average coastal cleanup day brings in 7 million pounds of litter of all kinds, and if you did that 360 days a year, you’d bring in 2.6 billion pounds of trash, which is less than 15 percent of the 17.6 billion pounds of plastics entering the oceans each year.
“We’re proud and humbled by the combined accomplishments of cleanup volunteers, but it’s clear that with 8 million metric tons of plastic trash entering our ocean every year, and the prospect of 250 million metric tons of plastic in the ocean by 2025, cleanups alone will not suffice,” Merkl wrote. “We must tackle plastic waste’s leakage from all points in the pollution pathway.”
Merkl said the report focuses on the most rapidly developing countries in Asia, including Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines.
It was put together with help from a steering committee that includes representatives of Dow Chemical Co., Amcor, the American Chemistry Council and the World Wildlife Fund. As well, it said that governments, NGOs and think tanks in Asia and worldwide consulted.
The 97-page report says it’s a complex problem, and notes that governments in rapidly developing countries will be hard-pressed to pay for the cost of better waste management entirely on their own, given the many challenges they face.
It called for more partnerships between governments, business and civil society to deal with the problem, and said it believes it is possible to develop solutions.
“Each of these actors has a strong interest in solving the post-consumer waste crisis in developing Asia,” it said. “Through cooperative financing, sharing of analytical and marketing resources, research and development joint ventures, and joint advocacy for the right policies, it is possible to meet the environmental goal of significantly reducing the leaking of plastic waste to the ocean.”
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170216/BLOG03/170219930/new-report-looks-at-investment-strategies-for-plastic-free-seas
-
DuPont, Chemours Settle PFOA Lawsuit for $670m
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
DuPont and its spinoff company, Chemours, have agreed to pay more than $670m to settle thousands of lawsuits brought by residents of Ohio and West Virginia that claim the companies poisoned their water with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical used in Teflon and other non-stick coatings.
The settlement comes at a time when regulatory agencies around the world are debating possible restrictions on PFOA, also known as C8, and its chemical cousin PFOS.
In the last two decades, emissions of long-chain perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) from fluoropolymer production sites have almost been eliminated in the US, western Europe and Japan. But the expansion of production to countries such as China, India and Russia has offset these reductions.
This summer, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) urged the EPA to prioritise regulatory assessment of PFOA under the recently reformed TSCA, to determine whether it should be restricted or banned from use, at the federal level.
And, in December, a large majority of EU member states backed a draft regulation setting out a proposed restriction on its manufacture and marketing, just three months after a UN committee decided that the substance warranted global action under the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
Inside the DuPont, Chemours settlement
DuPont began using PFOA in a West Virginia plant in the 1950s. It confirmed the chemical was toxic to animals in the 1960s and later said it was found in workers’ blood.
The company took part in a US EPA voluntary stewardship programme to reduce emissions and phase out PFOA, and completed the latter in 2013.
PFOA does not biodegrade and can remain in a person’s blood for decades. Scientists concluded there is a probable link to six diseases: kidney and testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol.
More than 3,500 people filed suit against DuPont, claiming to have been affected by the company’s use of PFOA. To date, seven of those cases have gone to trial; three of them awarding nearly $20m to the plaintiffs, while the others were settled for undisclosed amounts.
The $670m settlement resolves the remaining outstanding cases.
“This agreement provides a sound resolution for area residents, Chemours and the public,” said David Shelton, senior vice president of Chemours. “It settles all indemnification obligations between Chemours and DuPont for all of the approximately 3,500 claims in the Ohio multi-district litigation and allows us to move forward with a renewed focus on our customers, product innovation and application development.”
Lasting effects of PFOA
The Environmental Working Group said the settlement closes the most infamous case involving PFOA, but the chemical’s “toxic legacy” lingers throughout the world. The EWG said it contaminates the tap water of approximately 7 million Americans and pollutes the blood of “virtually everyone”.
"We celebrate the fact that justice has been served for tens of thousands of people in the mid-Ohio Valley, but we can't forget that PFOA and related nonstick compounds will continue to threaten our health for a long, long time," said EWG President Ken Cook.
"The story of PFOA is a tragic tale of how the worldwide spread of toxic chemicals in our everyday products – even when their manufacturers know they are harmful – has turned everyone on earth into unwilling participants in a dangerous chemistry experiment," Mr Cook continued.
"Are we going to learn, in the decades to come, that the chemicals replacing PFOA are also threatening our health? The chemical industry's history says yes."
https://chemicalwatch.com/53632/dupont-chemours-settle-pfoa-lawsuit-for-670m
-
Improve ‘Burdensome’ Restriction Process, NGOs Tell EU Commission
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The process of restricting chemicals of concern under REACH is “disproportionately burdensome” and leads to very few being added to Annex XVII – the restricted substances list – NGO ChemSec says.
Along with many other industry groups, NGOs and public sector bodies, ChemSec recently submitted comments to the European Commission’s consultation on the second review of REACH. The review's findings are expected later this year.
There is a “problem of coherence” between how Echa assesses restrictions and authorisations of substances, says ClientEarth. Statistics clearly show the agency has made restrictions “prohibitively difficult [by] requiring too much information” from member states submitting proposals, it says.
Echa’s committees have rejected substance restriction proposals many times, while no applications for authorisation for certain uses of banned substances have been rejected, says ClientEarth, despite the latter's low quality.
And the restrictions Echa does implement have narrower scope than those implemented by the regulatory system before REACH, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) adds.
Current implementation procedures have created a number of bottlenecks and REACH processes are moving at a “glacial pace”, says Beuc, the European Consumer Organisation.
To resolve this, NGOs say the Commission should extend Article 68.2 (the so-called fast-track restriction process) to cover all substances fulfilling SVHC criteria.
It should also introduce an “automated trigger” for substances with known carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR), persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), and endocrine disrupting properties, and other Article 57f properties (whether classified or not), to be included on the candidate list, Beuc says.
And the use of SVHCs in products, intended for child contact, should be prohibited.
‘Ineffective’ authorisation
In order to improve the “ineffective” authorisation process, the Commission should focus on improving the quality and reliability of applications “instead of re-interpreting the legal text or favouring certain industrial sectors”, EEB says.
It joins other NGOs in saying that changes are needed to how companies with substances on Annex XIV - the list of substances which are banned - are granted an authorisation for specific uses under certain conditions.
An application can be approved for uses deemed to have socio-economic benefits. But the way Echa’s Socio-economic Analysis Committee (Seac) judges cases should be reviewed, NGOs say.
The example of an authorisation for the use of chromate plating for a glossy lipstick case “should not be regarded as relevant to society”, ChemSec says. And ClientEarth adds that Seac “generally rubber stamps” the information provided by applicants, despite “scarce evidence” presented.
Applicants of registered substances that are listed on Annex XIV are obliged to search for suitable alternatives. But Seac is not able to identify when a substitute is suitable, ClientEarth says. And under REACH so far, only “very timid” efforts have been made to avoid instances of regrettable substitution.
CHEM Trust says independent consultants should be commissioned to analyse the scope of available substitutes - to ensure Seac bases its opinion on the benefits for society, “rather than the benefit to the individual applicant”.
And the Commission should extend the authorisation process to SVHCs in articles imported into the EU, which are not regulated under REACH, it says.
To improve other areas of REACH, NGOs say the Commission should:
ensure improved quality of registrations dossiers;
abandon agreements to perform risk management option analysis (RMOA), as it is a "major bottleneck" in identifying SVHCs;
create a better interface between REACH and other EU legislation; and
better enforce Article 33, which requires companies to reply to consumer requests about the presence of SVHCs in products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53633/improve-burdensome-restriction-process-ngos-tell-eu-commission
-
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Reminder to pre-register chemicals
Echa has advised that to benefit from the extended deadline for registering existing, low volume chemicals by the last REACH registration deadline, businesses need to have pre-registered their substances.
If a company manufactures or imports a substance for the first time at between one to 100 tonnes/year, and the substance is not a known carcinogen, mutagen or toxic to reproduction, it can still pre-register within six months of starting the activity, and at the latest by 31 May – one year before the deadline.
Submitted CLH proposal
The agency has received a harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) proposal for:
bis(α,α-dimethylbenzyl) peroxide. Norway is proposing future Annex VI entries of org perox., EF H242, reprotoxicity 2, H361d, aquatic chronic 2, H411.
Overview of downstream user reports
Echa says 700 of the reports have been submitted so far. During 2016, it received 130.
An overview of all submitted downstream user reports is on its website, the agency says. It is updated twice a year and information to the end of 2016 is now available.
New Qsar Toolbox
The agency is launching a new version of the Qsar Toolbox (4.0) in April. The update is especially targeted at new and less experienced users, to help them fill in their data gaps for the REACH 2018 registration deadline.
The expanded functionalities include:fully automated predictions for two endpoints:
skin sensitisation and short-term toxicity to fish;
report and excel table format that is easier to read; and
improved IT system which makes the Toolbox more stable and faster. In addition, it is now easier to install.
Guidance in a nutshell
Echa has published its Guidance in a nutshell on data sharing.
The document aims to explain in simple terms the main principles and obligations, relating to data sharing and joint submission.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53575/echa-round-up
-
Buerkle Named Acting Chairman of CPSC
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Ann Marie Buerkle has been named the acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
Ms Buerkle, a former Republican representative from New York, has served as one of the CSPC’s five commissioners since 2013 and was recently voted vice chair.
She replaces Elliott Kaye, who recently resigned as the agency’s chairman, but will remain on as a commissioner. Before his resignation, Mr Kaye issued a statement criticising President Trump's recent executive order which calls for eliminating two regulations for each new one issued.
It is common for the CPSC chairman to step down, following the arrival of a new presidential administration, especially if they are a member of the opposite party.
Ms Buerkle said she hopes to take a “thoughtful, collaborative approach” in her role as acting chairman. “I will work to enhance relationships so that CPSC can leverage the knowledge, insight and expertise of the entire consumer product safety community,” she added.
Representative Bob Latta (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, praised the choice.
"CPSC is an agency tasked with one of the most important responsibilities in government … Fortunately for us, we’ve had a strong and eloquent advocate in Commissioner Ann Marie Buerkle,” he said. “Since joining the Commission in 2013, she has shown her commitment to bettering the lives of children and families through her thoughtful approach and outreach to the regulated community.”
CPSC commissioners are appointed by the president with consent from the Senate. They serve seven-year terms, although many finish the term of another commissioner who has stepped down, or are appointed after the term has already begun. They are elected as members of political parties, but no more than three members of one party can serve at any given time.
The five commissioners then vote to elect the chair and vice chair.
Ms Buerkle’s term runs until October 2018, while Mr Kaye’s runs until October 2020.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53617/buerkle-named-acting-chairman-of-cpsc
-
Tax Fairness Critical to Sustaining Growth of Energy Sector
Feb 16, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By William F. Shughart II
The term subsidy was heard repeatedly during recent confirmation hearings for President Trump's Energy secretary pick, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. It wasn’t Perry, of course, who bandied the word about, but Sens. Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.). According to that pair of lawmakers, Perry should do everything in his power in his future capacity as secretary of Energy to remove tax provisions taken advantage of by the energy sector.
Perry, as any nominee might, pledged to review all of DOE’s programs, to be a responsible steward of public dollars and ensure a level playing field for energy producers. It was a polite answer, given in the spirit of deference to the nomination process. Perry could have explained to Sanders and Franken that their assertions about so-called special breaks for the energy sector are dead wrong. Because they are.
The truth is that what the senators, along with other interest groups, often refer to as subsidies for the energy sector are really nothing more than customary tax deductions taken by virtually all U.S. manufacturers. The same kinds of tax deductions for legitimate business expenses are taken by both mom-and-pop businesses nationwide and Fortune 500 companies. After all, the Internal Revenue Code allows deductions so that indiividuals and companies are taxed only on income earned net of the cost of generating that income. Such provisions are consistent with generally accepted accounting practices and commonplace worldwide.
Sure, a soundbite that refers to “billions of dollars in tax subsidies” for Big Energy might move the needle in an us-versus-them political atmosphere rampant with ideological hyperbole, but it does little to move the dialogue about America energy forward in an honest way. Franken even had the temerity to conflate wind and solar power incentives, tantamount to cash giveaways, with the deduction of legitimate business expenses by small, family-owned energy production companies. Certainly the senator knows better.
For his part, President Donald Trump has made clear that spurring American energy production and pursuing comprehensive tax reform will be major goals of his administration. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), too, have announced a tax reform plan that lowers the corporate tax rate and allows businesses to take full and immediate deductions for capital investments. Like most sensible Americans, those two men know that our nation grows when it encourages investment and eliminates what Adam Smith called “all systems of preference or restraint.”
The U.S. economy grows, too, when we fully unleash the power of abundant, inexpensive, and domestically available energy. The oil and gas sectors are engines of job growth, but also harbingers of broader economic health. That’s why the president signed executive orders supporting the advancement of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines during his first week in office. He has no appetite, as his predecessor did, for trying to stifle one category of energy producers so others can thrive. Instead, he is moving quickly toward projects that generate jobs and catalyze investment.
Unfortunately, some members of Congress continue to call for the repeal of tax deductions for the energy sector, encouraging measures that would suppress capital investment and throw cold water on the energy boom. They apparently believe that by punishing traditional sources of energy, such as oil and gas, they bring their vision of a solar- and wind-powered America one step closer to reality. And they know that at least some portion of the listening public has been conditioned by years of rhetoric to believe that sources of energy that come out of the ground should be treated differently than others, preferably with disdain and suspicion.
As President Trump works alongside Congress to make our nation’s tax code fairer and more predictable, it’s important that all industry sectors are treated equally. That means allowing energy companies, both large and small, to take the same standard deductions that all other businesses do. Whether a commercial enterprise operates wind turbines in Iowa or extracts oil in North Dakota, access to the same tax provisions means a chance to compete on a level playing field. As the likely leader of our nation’s chief energy agency, Mr. Perry has an important opportunity to help ensure that that principle remains the law. He ought to seize it.
William F. Shughart II, research director of the Independent Institute (Oakland, CA), is J. Fish Smith Professor in Public Choice at Utah State University’s Huntsman School of Business
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/319883-tax-fairness-critical-to-sustaining-growth-of-energy
-
On Capitol Hill, Sacred Lands Spark Fierce Debate
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
A House hearing on energy infrastructure yesterday turned fiery as discussion centered on how the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe approached negotiations over the routing of the Dakota Access pipeline on land that, in the words of one GOP lawmaker, "can all be considered sacred in some way."
The tribe at the center of the protests of Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners' controversial 1,172-mile oil pipeline from North Dakota to Illinois has been criticized for its cold stance toward talking with project developers and regulators during the prescribed tribal consultation process. Tribal members argue that the limited contacts conducted through that process were too late in development to be meaningful and were geared to securing an outward appearance of participation (Energywire, July 29, 2016).
During a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on energy infrastructure, Republican Rep. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma pointed to his own Cherokee heritage in questions targeted at Chad Harrison, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux tribal council who had testified on the tribe's dissatisfaction with the consultative process led by the Army Corps of Engineers.
"Mr. Harrison, I'm Cherokee, and I understand very well sacred sites, heritage sites. It's our heritage. I want to protect them, too," Mullin said.
But Mullin challenged the idea that the Dakota Access pipeline would bring the tribe risk without any attendant benefits. "We still own the same land that was allotted to my family," Mullin said. "There's a utility easement that goes across it, and I was glad to grant the utility easement, because it's not just about our backyard; it's about the country as a whole. What's good for your backyard is what's good for the country; it's going to create jobs in your backyard, too."
Joey Mahmoud, the pipeline's project director for Energy Transfer Partners, testified that the company had reached out to the tribe numerous times both publicly and privately over two years, and that the Army Corps had attempted to contact the tribe nine times, but that the tribe "declined to participate in any meaningful way."
Mahmoud said the selection of the contested Lake Oahe point to cross the Missouri River was based on an existing utility corridor there that already carries a natural gas pipeline and a high-voltage electric transmission line. "The site chosen is, by far, the most benign site for the crossing and would reduce impacts to stakeholders and the environment," he said.
The tribe submitted extensive comments on the Army Corps' draft environmental assessment of the river crossing plan.
In his questioning, Mullin called the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's opposition to crossing the river at that point, and its stance that the pipeline should be rerouted elsewhere, "hypocritical."
"Through[out] the Indian Country, every time we dig up through certain places, because we occupied all the land, it can all be considered sacred, at some point," said Mullin. "You don't want it there; well, where do you want it?"
Harrison struggled to respond to Mullin's verbal attack, repeating quietly that the tribe fears an eventual pipeline breach and spill and that the company's repeated dialing of a tribal phone number did not amount to "an actual dialogue" with tribal members.
Eventually, Mullin's questioning was cut short as California Democratic Rep. Raul Ruiz unleashed his own tirade of criticism at the idea that the tribe had waived its right to oppose the project by not working with the company and regulators.
"I'm so tired of the federal government not respecting the meaningful consultation" portion of the law, Ruiz said. "Notification is not meaningful consultation. Engagement is not meaningful consultation. Asking somebody to come to your meeting so they can check off a box and use that as an excuse to say, 'See, we did consult with these tribes,' is political trickery; it is not meaningful consultation," he added.
'A very lengthy process to wrap your head around'
Also speaking on the panel was Kim Kann, a private citizen who has opposed the construction of the $2.6 billion Atlantic Sunrise pipeline project under development by a Williams Cos. subsidiary. That project was recently approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to run 183 miles of new pipeline in Pennsylvania and upgrade equipment and existing pipeline segments in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina (Energywire, Feb. 7).
Kann said opposition to the pipeline in her rural, heavily Republican community largely centered on a desire to protect land that families had owned for years and indignation at the idea that a company could use eminent domain to overturn landowners' decisions around granting access.
"As people speak up on this issue, they almost feel like they are not in keeping with their Republican roots," Kann said. But she described a strong belief in property rights as grounding the community's opposition.
"We get that sometimes land needs to be taken for the benefit of the community," Kann said. "For this project, locally, there was none."
In comments to E&E News, Kann said she is concerned about the current political enthusiasm for streamlining and accelerating regulatory processes like pipeline approvals.
"As an affected landowner, my concern about speeding up the regulatory process is that it took us an entire year to get up to speed," Kann said. "We needed to find out first of all what the project was, what it meant; we needed to actually understand if it was beneficial or if it was harmful, and what kind of balance there was to that — and then, in the event that we found more harms than benefits, then what were our options as affected landowners, community members, local legislators, to do something about that."
"It's a very lengthy process to wrap your head around that kind of information, and it isn't an industry that's known for its transparency," Kann added. "You don't just ask for the information and get it; you have to dig, and dig, and dig, and dig."
Correction: A previous version of this story misidentified the House member who criticized the Standing Rock Sioux's pipeline opposition. It was Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.).
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/16/stories/1060050169
-
Drum Cleaning Poses Risks for Workers, Residents
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A series of accidents and resulting investigations at industrial drum reconditioning plants have raised questions of oversight, pollution and worker safety at facilities operated by Greif Inc., the majority owner in the company that owns the plants.
Investigations uncovered chemical burns, injuries from exploding barrels, a major fire at an Indianapolis location and repeated citations by Wisconsin regulators for dumping mercury and toxic emissions into Milwaukee neighborhoods. Workers said residual waste was washed down a city drain.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has an ongoing inspection at the Milwaukee plant. Greif operates several plants across the Midwest.
Reconditioning plants are not supposed to work with barrels with more than an inch of liquid, but OSHA reports note several Greif plants that consistently violated this rule, pouring out residual hazardous waste into holding tanks. Workers did not know what chemicals they were mixing and handling.
Depending on the mixture, these chemical combinations can explode, combust or emit toxic fumes.
Federal regulations require companies to wash containers before sending them to drum reconditioning plants, but companies violate the rule regularly. The Department of Transportation division that regulates shipping of hazardous waste rarely tests chemicals in drums and does not have a budget for chemical testing.
Greif executives were aware of the risks but have moved slowly to implement new safety guidelines, according to multiple sources, including Steele Johns, a Greif plant manager who has noted safety deficits for years but said nothing has changed.
"They don't care," Johns said to Will Kramer, a whistleblower who recorded the conversation. "This is the way we've always done it".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/16/stories/1060050173
-
Study Links Nearby Drilling to Cancer
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A specific type of childhood cancer may be linked to oil and gas activity nearby, according to a new study from the University of Colorado.
But Colorado's Department of Public Health and Environment and others are challenging the conclusion, saying it isn't convincingly reached based on the data.
"I don't think the study supports the conclusion that they made," said Larry Wolk, the executive director of the state health department.
The study compares data from a state registry of cancer cases to conclude that people ages 5-24 who are diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia were more likely to live in areas with high levels of oil and gas activity.
"It's important that more studies be conducted to understand why," said study author and professor Lisa McKenzie.
The study, which was peer reviewed, was also criticized by the Colorado Oil & Gas Association. In a statement, it said that it would review the data but that "researchers shouldn't be in the game of scaring people."
"We did the best study we could with the data that the Colorado health department was able to provide to us," McKenzie said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/16/stories/1060050185
-
Amtrak Seeks Direct Federal Aid in Lawmakers’ Infrastructure Plan
Feb 16, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
By Stephanie Beasley
Any infrastructure package that clears Congress this year should include direct federal funding for Amtrak and other rail organizations, Amtrak’s president and CEO Wick Moorman told senators.
Public-private partnerships and other financing tools should also be “part of the mix” for an infrastructure proposal being developed by the Trump administration, but direct federal funding would help maximize those investments, Moorman said at a Feb. 15 Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee subpanel hearing on multimodal transportation.
President Donald Trump has said he plans to introduce a 10-year, $1 trillion infrastructure investment plan this year that would be funded primarily by public-private partnerships. Yet Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Commerce Secretary-designate Wilbur Ross have said they expect the infrastructure plan to also include some direct federal spending. That has raised concerns among budget hawks like House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who oppose increasing the national deficit.
Projects That Need Federal Aid
Lawmakers should seize on the new opportunity to boost investments by focusing on improving aging rail infrastructure, Moorman said. He highlighted several key projects that need long-term investment, including construction of the Portal North Bridge and new Hudson Tunnels—both part of the Gateway Program intended to increase the number of trains running between New York and New Jersey. Federal money also is needed to restore rail service along the Gulf Coast, Moorman said.
Tracks and signals along the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak’s most profitable route, are in need of repair too, he said. And the capacity of the National Network, which is primarily owned by freight companies and shared with Amtrak trains, should be expanded to alleviate capacity constraints that delay both freight and passenger trains, Moorman said.
“More than ever, our nation and the traveling public rely on Amtrak for mobility, but the future of Amtrak depends on whether we can renew the cars, locomotives, bridges, tunnels, stations and other infrastructure that allow us to meet these growing demands,” Moorman said in his written testimony.
Unlike transit, passenger rail does not receive funding from the Highway Trust Fund. Moorman told reporters after the hearing that he wasn’t pushing for passenger railroads to be included in any kind of trust fund, but would like to see more partnerships among states, Amtrak, commuter agencies and the federal government. Federal grants would be preferable to the creation of any “quasi-trust fund,” he said.
Positive Train Control
Passenger rail operators also need federal assistance with the implementation of anti-crash safety technology known as positive train control (PTC), according to BNSF Railway Executive Chairman Michael Rose. Congress has ordered both freight and passenger-commuter railroads to install PTC systems by Dec. 31, 2018. Commuter railroads, which are subject to federal and state appropriations, have especially lagged behind privately owned freight rail organizations in adopting the systems.
“There [are] a lot of passenger-commuter rails that still have not had the … they just don’t have the money to implement positive train control,” Rose said. “As a freight railroad, it might sound out of line, but I actually urge Congress to fund passenger-commuter rail funding for positive train control.”
https://www.bna.com/amtrak-seeks-direct-n57982083922/
-
G-20 Won't Water Down Climate Agenda for Trump Team
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
If Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wanted a seat at the table for international climate diplomacy, he's got one.
The newly minted chief U.S. diplomat is in Bonn, Germany, where he will spend today and tomorrow hearing about the role climate change plays in everything from peace to Africa's economic future, while likely fielding foreign leaders' concerns about the Trump administration's plans for the Paris climate deal.
Climate change has been part of the Group of 20 (G-20) major economies gathering for many years now, and the current German presidency has made clear that it has no plans to scrub the agenda to suit the new U.S. administration. In fact, pre-meeting documents from the presidency are filled with references to the evils of globalization, climate skepticism and isolationist movements in unnamed countries.
"You can't fight climate change by putting up barbed wire," German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel declared in a statement released yesterday, an apparent reference to both President Trump's disputing of climate science and his plans for a border wall.
Tillerson arrived in the Rhine River city yesterday to meet with diplomats on one of the summit's centerpieces: Agenda 2030, which seeks to better integrate the United Nations' 2015 Sustainable Development Goals into foreign policy. The goals are broad, but they include an urgent call to deal with climate change. Also on the agenda are efforts on peace and security and on Africa — both of which will have a climate component, according to a concept document released ahead of the meeting.
The closed-door discussions also will afford foreign officials a chance to sound out Tillerson on Trump's plan for the Paris Agreement.
Gabriel is one who observers say is expected to broach the topic. He met Tillerson in Washington earlier this month to brief the secretary of State and Vice President Mike Pence on the G-20 agenda. Climate change was discussed, advocates say.
The French, British and Canadians are also viewed as likely candidates to make Paris an issue.
Conservative British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has promised publicly to try to influence the United States to stay in Paris, but Nick Mabey of London-based E3G said the U.K. government has been reluctant to weigh in on the G-20 and smaller Group of Seven (G-7) climate agendas until the new U.S. administration's stance is better-known.
"The main reason for this is to avoid an unproductive clash with U.S. on Paris if possible," he said.
Overall, analysts who work on the issue predict foreign ministers will tread lightly during what will for many be a first meeting with Tillerson. The secretary of State, who was confirmed Feb. 1, repeatedly said the United States should retain a "seat at the table" when asked in his Senate hearing about the Paris Agreement. Trump famously vowed to "cancel" the deal.
"I would imagine at this stage, because it comes so early in this administration, that they're probably not going to bang on that drum quite as hard as they have initially done because I don't think they want to box the U.S. into a position to respond to things like that," said Sarah Ladislaw of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
But activists hope foreign leaders bang the drums to convince Tillerson that the United States will lose an important diplomatic battle if it leaves Paris or, worse, drops out of the U.N. climate process altogether.
"There may be an inclination from other governments to treat him with kid gloves in his first outing," said Alex Doukas of Oil Change International. "I think that other countries are going to have to put Tillerson on the spot and say that climate change and climate action is a priority for them."
But Jasper Eitze, coordinator for energy, climate and environmental policy at Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, the foundation of Germany's center-right party the Christian Democratic Union, said Tillerson shouldn't need to be persuaded to keep the United States in the Paris accord.
"Tillerson already proved to be a reasonable, pragmatic politician," he said, noting the secretary of State's statement during his Jan. 11 confirmation hearing about the importance of maintaining a "seat at the table" on international climate negotiations. "To me, this seems a wise interpretation of the maxim 'America First,'" he said.
'We really mean it' diplomacy?
This week's foreign ministers meeting is part of an eight-month string of events leading up to July's leaders summit in Hamburg. Trump is slated to attend that summit, which will be presided over by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The agenda for the process was charted before Trump was inaugurated last month, and observers say Merkel would be unlikely to jettison climate change, for both political and personal reasons.
Eitze, who is from the same political party as Merkel, noted that the onetime environment minister hosted the first Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn in 1995 and has "negotiated the issue with several U.S. presidents and numerous heads of state throughout these years."
"Why should Chancellor Merkel avoid discussing it during the G-20 presidency?" he asked. "On the contrary: It is likely that the other countries (and the German people) expect Chancellor Merkel to push the issue forward."
Merkel's lead in her own race for re-election in September has dwindled recently, and German experts say climate change is a popular issue with the electorate. The chancellor led the G-7 last year in promising to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And last year's G-20 leaders summit in Hangzhou, China, saw the 20 members pledge to ratify the Paris Agreement, phase out subsidies and invest in green technology.
But the German presidency will also feel pressure to build on the fossil fuel subsidy reform language from last year's communiqué, despite the fact that a consensus is required and will be harder to get past the current U.S. team.
The United States and China each produced a self-review of its fossil fuel subsidies last year, which was then peer-reviewed by other members of the G-20. Both were found to have price supports in place for high-emitting energy industries. But Tillerson said at the same confirmation hearing last month that he did not believe the United States subsidized the production and use of fossil fuels.
The German presidency also plans to consider voluntary transparency rules or climate-related business risks like future regulations or extreme weather. That, too, is likely to be controversial with the new U.S. team.
One George W. Bush-era White House official dismissed the annual practice of attaching climate language to the G-20 communiqué as "we really mean it" diplomacy. The issues vary little from year to year, he said.
And while some foreign ministers might prioritize climate change, others will want the group to spend time forging consensus on other economic and security issues, the official said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/16/stories/1060050166
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested