Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/9/2017
-
(ACC Blog) Federal Agencies Should Update Their Science — and Industry Scientists are Ready to Help
Mar 9, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
Scientists from the public and private sector as well as academia could all have something to rally behind under the current Administration and Congress: a stronger appreciation for using good science to help drive regulatory decision-making. -
(ACC Mentioned) Prices Rrise for ABS, Polystyrene and PET
Mar 9, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American prices for solid polystyrene, ABS and PET bottle resins all have increased since Feb. 1. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Ratification of POPs Treaty Could Aid Implementation Risk Analysis
Mar 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
American experts on the international treaty on persistent and organic environmental pollutants are pointing to the role the United States could play in advancing risk-based analyses in the treaty's implementation if the Senate ratifies the treaty -- a nascent goal for the chemical industry as European precautionary views have grown in influence. -
US EPA Round-Up
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The agency has announced receipt of information submitted pursuant to a rule, order or consent order under TSCA. -
What's at Stake as the GOP Moves to Slash Regulations? For Starters, Clean Air
Mar 9, 2017 | LA Times
By Evan Halper
Amid the Republican backlash against federal scientists who write rules governing everything from movie theater popcorn to offshore oil drilling, stories abound of overburdened businesses, heavy-handed civil servants and crushing paperwork. -
(ACC Mentioned) Iarc Answers Criticism Over ‘Hazard-Only’ Carcinogen Classification
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) has defended its scheme for classifying carcinogens based solely on scientific and epidemiological hazard data. -
(ACC Mentioned) Architects, Chemists Spar Over Antimicrobial Building Products
Mar 9, 2017 | Construction Dive
By Chris Wood
The American Chemistry Council has criticized a white paper published by global architecture firm Perkins+Will on the risks related to the use of antimicrobial building products in surface and other finish applications, according to Architect. -
Target's Chemicals Commitments 'Up the Ante' for Retail Sector
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US retailer Target's recently published chemicals policy has set the bar for the sector, say NGOs Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). -
Johnson & Johnson Notches Talc Trial Win
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A Missouri jury has sided with multinational conglomerate Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc North America in the latest verdict in an ongoing lawsuit alleging a link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. -
EU Legislation 'Failing to Control' EDCs, PBTs
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Harmful substances, such as endocrine disruptors (EDCs) and persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBTs) chemicals, are inadequately regulated by Europe's complex web of chemicals regulations, due to "significant gaps and inconsistencies" in identifying and prohibiting them, NGOs say. -
Echa, Member States and Industry Consider Substance Grouping
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa, member states and industry are discussing how to address substances in groups instead of individually in order to handle those for which relevant exposure and hazard properties are unknown. -
Echa Round-Up
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Dossiers on two substances, proposing they be identified as SVHCs, have been issued by Echa for public consultation. -
(ACC Mentioned) Exxonmobil to Invest $20 Billion in Capacity Expansions on U.S. Gulf Coast
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Engineering
By Mary Page Bailey
Exxon Mobil Corp. (Irving, Tex.; www.exxonmobil.com) is expanding its manufacturing capacity along the U.S. Gulf Coast through planned investments of $20 billion over a 10-year period, Darren Woods, chairman and chief executive officer, said Monday. -
The Clean Power Plan is Gone — and There's No 'Replace'
Mar 9, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
The White House intends to unravel the Clean Power Plan without providing a replacement, according to a source briefed on the issue. -
Economics, Not Regulation, Driving Energy Transition
Mar 9, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ryan Handy
The rise of renewable energy, and not excessive regulation, is driving the collapse of coal-fired power plants around the country, said Barry Smitherman, a former Texas energy regulator who was a contender to be the new head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. -
U.S. LNG: A Growing Slice of A Growing Pie
Mar 9, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The global liquefied natural gas (LNG) market, which was about 270 million tonnes last year, will grow to 360-370 million tonnes in three years time, and the U.S. Gulf Coast will serve 25-30% of that market, LNG pioneer Charif Souki said Thursday in Houston. -
Big Oil Frets About Trump's Border Tax, Mexico Policies
Mar 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee, Edward Klump and Nathanial Gronewold
On the opening day of the biggest annual conference of energy executives, the chief executive of the biggest U.S. oil producer held forth on tax and trade policy. -
Regulator Disputes NASA Study, Says Methane Cloud is Natural
Mar 9, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
New Mexico's top oil and natural gas regulator blamed natural seeping and coal operations for a massive methane cloud hanging over the southwest United States, disputing recent scientific findings. -
CSX Freight Train Derails, Leaking 4,660gal of Diesel
Mar 9, 2017 | Railway-Technology
A US CSX freight train travelling from Albany to Georgia has derailed on the banks of New York's Hudson River and reportedly leaked 4,660gal of diesel, as well as spilling quantities of sulphuric acid. -
E.P.A. Chief Doubts Consensus View of Climate Change
Mar 9, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said on Thursday that carbon dioxide was not a primary contributor to global warming, a statement at odds with the global scientific consensus on climate change. -
EPA Environmental Justice Leader Resigns, Amid White House Plans to Dismantle Program
Mar 9, 2017 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
A key environmental justice leader at the Environmental Protection Agency has resigned, saying that a recent budget proposal to defund such work would harm the people who most rely on the EPA. -
'Global Climate Change' on the Chopping Block in Upcoming Budget
Mar 9, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The White House has proposed eliminating climate aid as part of draconian budget cuts at the State Department, a source familiar with the funding documents told E&E News.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Federal Agencies Should Update Their Science — and Industry Scientists are Ready to Help
Mar 9, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
Scientists from the public and private sector as well as academia could all have something to rally behind under the current Administration and Congress: a stronger appreciation for using good science to help drive regulatory decision-making.
Congress has already begun to take action. This morning, Dr. Nancy Beck, Ph.D., provided testimony to a Senate Subcommittee about federal agencies’ use of science in the rulemaking process, particularly as it relates to chemical risk assessment. Dr. Beck has also been invited to share some examples of where scientific information in the rulemaking process may have fallen short, and to outline proposals that agencies could use to improve transparency and accountability.
With nearly 20 years of applied public health experience, including serving in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget as a toxicologist and science policy analyst, Dr. Beck is an indispensable resource who knows how to work with others to help bring greater reliability and accountability, transparency, and balance to the regulatory process.
Accountability, reliability and transparency
Science is fast-moving and ever changing. Certain practices and procedures can help ensure risk assessments being relied upon, especially in rulemaking by the federal government, are employing the best available science and the weight of the scientific evidence approaches. Ensuring the greatest weight is given to the highest-quality and most relevant studies results in accountability.
Science should also be reproducible and transparent to increase confidence across the board in scientific information. Making available the underlying data used in regulatory decisions increases transparency and allows for a higher level of reproducibility, especially regarding statistical analysis. This can be achieved while protecting proprietary information, personal information, and confidential business information through smart use of data transfer agreements and other tools consistent with the law regarding trade secrets.
Balance
People often don’t realize that the overwhelming majority of science developed to ensure the safety of chemicals in commerce is conducted by the private sector — and that will continue through both Democratic and Republican Administrations.
Unfortunately, we have often seen situations where Agency peer reviewers say “any industry-funded science should be dismissed,” or they refuse to include industry representatives on peer review panels. This discounts an important voice at the table — and without this science, agencies exclude a large body of research that can help paint a clear picture of a product’s safety.
Industry is far more than just “the regulated community”; we are developing some of the highest-quality science there is. That’s why we believe it’s important to work together with the government to find ways to ensure that scientific protocols are validated, employed, and embraced by private, independent entities (like a peer review panel), that accept the data and the outcome of a high-quality study. The same standards should be applied and adopted by all, be it industry, academia, or a federal agency. This is especially true when it comes to chemical risk assessment.
We believe that we have an exciting opportunity in this Administration, under EPA’s new leadership, for the Agency to have comprehensive reform in the way it performs chemical risk assessments, developing a gold standard of scientific methodologies in chemical assessment and safety. Updating EPA’s risk assessment practices will result in public trust in the Agency’s determinations of safety.
If trusted, these determinations will be embraced by other agencies, state regulators, and consumers.
Why it matters
Our society needs accurate safety assessments and a regulatory environment in which the chemical industry can be at the forefront of new products that help meet sustainability needs and provide the performance that people are looking for in everyday products.
The ‘gold standard’ translates to standardized protocols, giving companies the certainty that, by following the protocols, they will obtain the necessary regulatory approvals and access to the marketplace.
If we all play by the rules prescribed by agencies, and invest in good, quality science, we should be able to get the regulatory green light to provide consumers access to new, innovative products.
That’s why ACC and our members are urging federal agencies to update and improve their science and to call on all scientists to work together to ensure the public can benefit from a more accountable, reliable, balanced and transparent chemical regulatory process.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/03/federal-agencies-should-update-their-science-and-industry-scientists-are-ready-to-help/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Prices Rrise for ABS, Polystyrene and PET
Mar 9, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American prices for solid polystyrene, ABS and PET bottle resins all have increased since Feb. 1.
Regional solid PS and ABS prices each are up an average of 8 cents per pound, while PET prices in the region have ticked up an average of 1.5 cents, according to market sources contacted by Plastics News.
Higher prices for benzene feedstock — which is used to make styrene monomer — played a role in the price hikes for PS and ABS. Regional benzene prices for February were up 67 cents to $3.34 per gallon, a jump of 25 percent vs. January.
It’s the second consecutive monthly price increase for PS in the region. Prices were up 5 cents per pound in January after being flat in December.
North American PS sales for full-year 2016 essentially were flat at just under 4.4 billion pounds, according to the American Chemistry Council. But the largest PS end market — food packaging and food service — saw sales growth of 1.3 percent, to more than 2.7 billion pounds.
ABS prices also were affected by higher prices for acrylonitrile and butadiene feedstocks, sources said. ABS makers now are seeking further increases of 6 cents per pound for March 1 and 5 cents per pound for April 1.
For PET, the 1.5 cent increase also reflects higher prices for feedstocks such as paraxylene and purified terephthalic acid. PET bottle resin prices now have increased for six consecutive months.
Prices for the material were up 3 cents per pound in January. The six increases now have totaled 9.5 cents per pound.
Demand for PET from the bottled water market remains strong. That sector overtook carbonated soft drinks in the U.S. market for the first time in 2016, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp. consulting firm.
But carbonated soft drink sales showed surprising strength in late 2016, according to some market watchers. Sources said that factor, plus strong bottled water sales, may have pushed domestic PET demand up almost 3 percent in 2016.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170309/NEWS/170309896/prices-rise-for-abs-polystyrene-and-pet
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Ratification of POPs Treaty Could Aid Implementation Risk Analysis
Mar 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
American experts on the international treaty on persistent and organic environmental pollutants are pointing to the role the United States could play in advancing risk-based analyses in the treaty's implementation if the Senate ratifies the treaty -- a nascent goal for the chemical industry as European precautionary views have grown in influence.
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Inorganic Pollutants (POPs) has risen from obscurity to become a key concern of the industrial chemical industry.
The American Chemistry Council last December identified ratification of the treaty as one of its two main goals for 2017 -- along with smooth implementation of the overhaul to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
And during a panel discussion at the chemical industry's annual GlobalChem conference, Stockholm Convention experts highlighted industry's concerns and described how the United States could better engage other countries participating in the treaty.
The treaty went into effect in 2004 and covered a dozen chemicals, mainly pesticides. These chemicals were largely controlled in the United States and presented legacy cleanup issues. But in more recent years, European and Nordic countries have pressed for active industrial chemicals to be considered for addition to the treaty's restrictions. The United States, which has never ratified the treaty, has limited ability to negotiate in these decisions, speakers on the Feb. 24 panel said.
Russ LaMotte, an attorney with Beveridge & Diamond and a former State Department attorney, and EPA's Karissa Kovner told attendees at the conference that the best way for industry to influence the international diplomats who implement the treaty and its decisions on chemicals is to encourage the Senate to ratify the treaty. If the United States is a full member, its representatives could bring EPA's technical expertise to bear, and move decision-making back to a risk basis, they suggested.
"I think from our perspective, in the U.S. government, obviously, the most impactful way to get your message heard is to have the U.S. at the table," Kovner said. "I would encourage you all to think about the roles your companies have and the opportunities you have to help move that forward. I'll leave that hanging out there, because I have yet to know what my eventual boss will do on that . . . While we might not always love the way that EPA regulates, when we don't have a seat at the table, this is the downside of that."
LaMotte backed Kovner's response, saying that strong individuals can dominate a meeting of roughly 35 chemical experts who serve on the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC), a subsidiary body to the Stockholm Convention established for reviewing chemicals proposed for listing. "It's amazing how individually driven these meetings are," he said. "If you can get a strong U.S. voice in the process it would definitely move. Just having the U.S. as an observer changes the tenor" of meetings.
LaMotte, in his remarks, explained that upsides of the Stockholm Convention for industry are its basis in risk assessment, rather than hazard assessment, and the transparency by which its assessment and listing processes operate. The downside is that as implemented, "the convention has really turned into a highly precautionary instrument," he said, driven in large part by European and Nordic countries' expertise and focus on controlling hazards, rather than risks.
"Listing is a one-way ratchet," LaMotte said, noting that if a nominated chemical meets the borderline framing of a persistent pollutant, "it is highly likely it will ultimately be listed."
Further, the Convention's decisions have "a global impact up and down the value chain, particularly as chemicals that are still in active use are added. It affects chemicals in products and articles in use around the world," he said.
And Kovner pointed out that what she has seen since the treaty took affect with 50 ratifying countries in 2004, is that added chemicals are of greater interest to the chemical industry but "we're less and less able" to engage in the process because the U.S. has not ratified the treaty.
Some in the audience seemed skeptical, with one attendee pointing to the presentation of the third panelist in the group, Kathy Plotzke of Dow Corning Corporation. She spoke of efforts on the parts of members of the POPRC to add a Dow chemical to the treaty. The attendee said that the presentations indicated to him "a highjacking of the goals and missions of the convention to start with . . . but also the process has been hijacked as well. Which of those two are you going to be most effective with changing if we are actually a party?"
During negotiations on drafting the treaty, "I think the biggest and loudest voice is the U.S. because we brought the science, a history of regulation, because it was going . . . to be a risk-based approach," Kovner replied. She said that when the Stockholm Convention was written, "There were not a lot of regulatory systems at the time with the strength and history of risk-based approach" that the United States has.
As a result, she said, America has "a lot of technical experience because [it has] a risk-based approach, not everyone had a strength in that. . . . If we were to be a party, if we can get a process right, the rest should fall into place. We would be most effective starting at the macro level and working with our colleagues to say, 'This isn't the intention' [of the treaty] and the legal language would support that."
Kovner acknowledged that the treaty's language is unclear "in certain places and [has] very strong language in other places . . . that has been ignored and there isn't a check to stop that." She said that the original design of the Convention's operating structure created a chair on the POPRC that would be occupied alternately by a representative of the United States and Canada. But because the United States has not ratified the treaty, "Canada sits in it all the time. That's an awkward position to put yourself in all the time."
But Kovner also addressed the difficulties and reasons why the Senate has yet to ratify the treaty. While EPA has addressed all of the original 12 chemicals, there were concerns about how EPA would handle regulation of future chemicals added to the treaty, Kovner said.
"There's basically been historical disagreement of what happens when you have a chemical that's been listed internationally, the process the U.S. government, in particular EPA, my office, would go through to review, consider and decide what steps domestically [to take] to regulate that chemical in such a way that we could participate" in the convention, Kovner said. "Achieving congressional, administrative and stakeholder agreement on this has been the sticking point."
Further complicating ratification is the number of congressional committees with jurisdiction, Kovner said. She identified five: the House and Senate agriculture committees, because of the treaty's inclusion of pesticides; the House Energy and Commerce Committee, because of its jurisdiction over industrial chemicals; the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Since the convention's signing in 2001, at least two committees have drafted or passed out of committee ratification legislation, and all five committees have signaled interest in doing so, "but just never at the same time," she said.
Most recently, the issue was included in some early drafts of Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century, which overhauled the Toxic Substances Control Act, along with ratification of two other international treaties on chemicals, Kovner said. But the language was left out of the final bill that President Barack Obama signed last June "not because there was disagreement, but . . . there simply wasn't space to do all the things that we wanted TSCA to do," Kovner said.
One attendee asked panelists which other countries, like the United States, had yet to ratify the treaty. Kovner said that the United States is one of 28 countries that have yet to ratify. LaMotte noted that Russia recently became a party to the treaty.
"Our new friends," he called the Russians. "It's a good illustration of what a change one party can make. They're a party for protecting their own chemical industry, but they do it in a frame of respecting the risk-based provisions" of the Convention.
https://insideepa.com/inside-epa/us-ratification-pops-treaty-could-aid-implementation-risk-analysis
-
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Receipt of information under TSCA
The agency has announced receipt of information submitted pursuant to a rule, order or consent order under TSCA for:
acetaldehyde; and
d-erythro-hex-2-enonic acid, gamma.-lactone, monosodium salt.
Each is subject to testing requirements for a group of high production volume (HPV) substances.
The EPA received testing exemption requests for both substances.
Information collection request – TSCA section 8(e)
The EPA is soliciting comments on an information collection request (ICR), "Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to Health and the Environment under TSCA section 8(e)", prior to its submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
The ICR would continue the agency’s requirement that a manufacturer or processor inform the EPA immediately when it obtains information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.
The current collection was approved until 28 February. Comments on the proposed extension will be accepted until 5 April.
Information collection request – Safer Choice logo
The agency is soliciting comments on an information collection request (ICR), "Safer Choice Logo Redesign Consultations".
This would support the agency’s consultation on its work to refine and enhance its logo redesign and educational approach for the Safer Choice programme, formerly known as Design for the Environment (DfE).
The EPA updated the Safer Choice logo in 2015. The ICR, which expired on 28 February, will allow the agency to continue to collect consumer feedback.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54107/us-epa-round-up
-
What's at Stake as the GOP Moves to Slash Regulations? For Starters, Clean Air
Mar 9, 2017 | LA Times
By Evan Halper
Amid the Republican backlash against federal scientists who write rules governing everything from movie theater popcorn to offshore oil drilling, stories abound of overburdened businesses, heavy-handed civil servants and crushing paperwork.
But another story, one involving a deadly household material, offers a lesson in what can go wrong when government experts are shackled, as currently envisioned under a sweeping regulatory reform bill gliding toward President Trump’s desk.
The GOP-backed legislation revives many of the rule-making hurdles that for years crippled the government’s ability to respond to the asbestos-exposure epidemic, which has been blamed for tens of thousands of American deaths.
“I don’t think lawmakers are focusing on how extreme this legislation is,” said Paul Billings, lobbyist for the American Lung Assn., which has joined several major public health groups imploring congressional leaders to apply the brakes. “It has been viewed as this abstraction that creates improvements in the regulatory process. This would undermine bedrock public health laws.”
The linchpin of the 87-page proposal is a directive to regulators that may be impossible to meet. They would have to prove they have taken the least costly option possible to business before imposing any major new rule. A similar mandate became stifling when applied for decades to the regulation of chemicals such as asbestos because it allowed companies to keep rules at bay by continually arguing for cheaper approaches.
The Environmental Protection Agency gave up trying to ban the substance in 1991, after a federal appeals court ruled it had not proved its regulation was the least financially burdensome approach. The decision became a rallying point for overhauling the Toxic Substances Control Act, which guides EPA authority over such chemicals. The act finally was revised last year, and in November, the EPA announced asbestos was among the first chemicals it was targeting with its new authority to require safety reviews.
By then, however, there was not much left for the EPA to do on asbestos, after legions of cancer victims took matters into their own hands with civil actions that bankrupted the industry. But the years of government inaction took their toll. A quarter-century later, nearly 15,000 Americans still die annually of diseases caused by asbestos exposure during their lifetime, according to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.
The new GOP regulatory reform bill, which swiftly passed the House in January without committee debate, would apply the same test that hobbled regulators on asbestos to every major rule the government wants to impose. That includes setting Clean Air Act limits for how much toxic pollution can be released into the air in dense, asthma-infested urban areas like Los Angeles. Car safety, food safety, worker safety and consumer product safety rule-making also would be affected.
The far-reaching plan has been overshadowed by more immediate headlines springing from the White House, where wiretapping conspiracies, travel bans and Obamacare repeal anxieties are consuming the oxygen. Even the regulatory reform blueprint’s name — the Regulatory Accountability Act — is sleep-inducing, masking the gravity of a proposal the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has placed among its top political priorities at a time when its influence in Washington has surged.
The chamber, which spent nearly $104 million in federal lobbying last year, is aggressively lobbying for and promoting the bill, HR 5. It alerted lawmakers just before the measure passed the House in January that it “is a long-standing priority for the chamber” that is “long overdue.” Lawmakers were cautioned in the letter against supporting any amendments that would moderate the proposed law, warning that such action could reflect unfavorably on the politically potent voting scorecard that the organization publishes to rank lawmakers.
While there are several dramatic proposals before Congress to rein in federal rule-makers, lobbyists are advising clients that the bill is one that actually stands a good chance of advancing to a president who is urgently looking to deliver a blow to the bureaucracy. A few moderate Democrats in the Senate already have expressed interest in helping the GOP leadership secure the 60 votes it needs for passage.
Supporters offer a cache of statistics that frame the bill as a common sense plan to give corporations some influence over a regulatory process they say is suffocating them. They point to a spike over the past 15 years in complex federal rules costing businesses more than a billion dollars, and showcase estimates concluding the rules have become such a drag on the economy that they are costing the average American family $15,000 per year.
“There is a legitimate question of whether you really need this continued churning and accumulation of all these regulations,” said Susan Dudley, who worked on regulatory reform at the George W. Bush White House and is now director of Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University.
But others warn the legislation threatens to go considerably further than slowing the churn of rule-making. It directs agencies that for decades have used science alone in crafting major public health and worker safety protections to change course and find the most cost-effective approach for business.
“It’s not hard to look down the line and see the problems this would create,” said Thomas McGarity, professor of administrative law at the University of Texas. He cited several major public safety challenges with which regulators are wrestling and the potentially tragic consequences of cutting corners on oversight, from undrinkable water in cities like Flint, Mich., to blueprints for self-driving 18-wheelers.
Beyond requiring a cost analysis, the legislation also would put dozens of new obstacles on federal agencies before they can finalize a new rule — a process that already takes years. Companies that don’t like the approach would be empowered with a bounty of new opportunities to file legal challenges and demand reviews.
Yogin Kothari, a lobbyist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, sees irony in it all: “Their solution to too much bureaucracy and red tape is adding more red tape.”
Clean Air Act enforcement, which is based on a painstaking analysis of such factors as how many lives would be saved and cases of asthma averted, could be altered drastically. The toll those rules take on corporate profits would gain new currency. Public health officials warn that enforcement of tobacco laws also would be inhibited.
The Consumers Union advised lawmakers that other landmark protections, including the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Securities Exchange Act, would be weakened substantially. “This dangerous proposal would do severe damage to protections consumers depend on,” the group wrote to lawmakers.
Yet the bill’s champions in Congress are undeterred. Among them are Rep. Doug Collins (R-Georgia), who took to the House floor the same day Consumers Union sent its plea.
“It is time we demand the voice of the American people be heard,” Collins said just before casting his vote in favor of the bill, “rather than letting the others up here, separated in cubicles, decide what is best.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-regulatory-reform-science-20170309-story.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Iarc Answers Criticism Over ‘Hazard-Only’ Carcinogen Classification
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) has defended its scheme for classifying carcinogens based solely on scientific and epidemiological hazard data. It says its critics, which advocate more consideration of risk, “inappropriately conflate the scientific evaluation of hazards with the broader socio-political process of risk management”.
The agency’s carcinogen classification system – as well as other hazard-only classifications such as the UN Global Harmonized System (GHS) for classification and labelling and the EU CLP Regulation – were criticised by a group of academic, industry and regulatory figures in November for causing “unnecessary health scares and unnecessary diversion of public funds”.
The criticisms were made in a commentary article in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, sent to Chemical Watch by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
The group, led by Professor Alan Boobis of Imperial College London, maintained that hazard classifications have become “outmoded” now that the adverse effects of chemicals can be predicted and avoided.
Iarc scientists responded to the criticism, in a letter addressed to the editor of the journal. “Hazard classification is based on a critical evaluation of scientific findings” and specifically includes epidemiological studies reflecting human exposure and response, they say. “The scheme that Boobis et al advocate is largely silent about the important role of epidemiological data."
Iarc says that Professor Boobis’s group is advocating an evaluation approach, based on modes of action rather than true hazard assessment. It recalls past errors in the interpretation of cancers induced in rodents, and points to its decision to up- or down-grade its hazard evaluations when human data are less than sufficient.
Although cancer mechanisms are of interest, “taking scientifically informed actions to mitigate risk in the absence of mechanistic knowledge is the cornerstone of public health”, it says.
In a published reply, the Boobis group accuse Iarc of missing the point through discussion of epidemiological studies. They agree that a lack of mode of action information is no justification for delaying action, but add that when that information is available it should be taken into account.
“Complete understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved is not necessary in order to provide advice to those who must decide the action to be taken. However, the output from such hazard characterisation based schemes can often appear to conflict with the simplistic output from Iarc and GHS, and this brings everyone's efforts into disrepute and does not serve society's interests.”
Political context
The industry objection to the Iarc approach has been repeated several times over the past year. Last September, a US congressional committee began a review into US federal funding of the organisation, suggesting it had a record of "controversy, retractions and inconsistencies".
The committee also expressed concerns about the connections between Iarc assessments and US state law. Specifically, the agency is an 'authoritative body' for the determination of carcinogenic substances under California's Proposition 65, meaning its assessments have immediate regulatory implications.
ACC chief executive, Cal Dooley, told the committee that Iarc's findings lead to alarming headlines and unnecessary public concern. The ACC subsequently launched a campaign to change the way the body works.
Professor Boobis has previously worked as an industry consultant. But he told Chemical Watch that the group had no discussions with the ACC about the commentary article, and that the article and response to Iarc were written independently of the organisation.
“The motivation was experience over the years in reviewing compounds, such as glyphosate, where there was strong evidence that a risk-based approach would be possible and appropriate to ensure consumer safety,” he said. “The hazard-based approach of Iarc, while perhaps well-meaning, was being used by some to sow confusion in the minds of regulators, politicians and the public. Hence, there seemed a need to reform the process to avoid such situations in the future.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/53881/iarc-answers-criticism-over-hazard-only-carcinogen-classification
-
(ACC Mentioned) Architects, Chemists Spar Over Antimicrobial Building Products
Mar 9, 2017 | Construction Dive
By Chris Wood
Dive Brief:
The American Chemistry Council has criticized a white paper published by global architecture firm Perkins+Will on the risks related to the use of antimicrobial building products in surface and other finish applications, according to Architect.
The paper noted that that widespread use of antimicrobials could lead to resistant superbugs, and that building products containing such agents — including boric acid, formaldehyde and silver nanoparticles — present a health hazard and should be avoided.
The ACC responded to the paper, saying that antimicrobial agents are primarily used as building-product preservatives to increase material longevity and have an established safe-use history. Suzanne Drake, co-director of Perkins+Will's Material Performance Lab and co-author of the paper, acknowledged their use as preservatives but said the firm was adding antimicrobial products to its Precautionary List.
Dive Insight:
Other substances on Perkins+Will's list include arsenic, lead, mercury, phthalates and volatile organic compounds. Such material ingredients can be a challenge to avoid, however, due to their prevalence in existing building products and systems.
It will likely take an uptick in the number of specifiers and manufacturers adhering to lists like Perkins+Will's to make a substantial dent in the global antimicrobial coatings market, pegged by Glen Allen, VA–based n-tech Research to hit $3.3 billion by 2020. Similar indexes include one for chemicals banned for use in products that seek to become certified by the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute.
Coating preservatives might one day be unnecessary, if research into living construction materials by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency pays off. As part of its Engineered Living Materials program, DARPA is investigating methods for self-growing and self-healing building products that rely on microorganisms to create building materials such as bio-cement and concrete.
http://www.constructiondive.com/news/architects-chemists-spar-over-antimicrobial-building-products/437676/
-
Target's Chemicals Commitments 'Up the Ante' for Retail Sector
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US retailer Target's recently published chemicals policy has set the bar for the sector, say NGOs Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
The policy, announced earlier this year, includes plans to phase out phthalates, NPEs, parabens, formaldehyde and formaldehyde-donors from formulated products the store sells by 2020. This will include beauty, baby care, personal care and household cleaning products.
It has also committed to phasing out perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) and flame retardants from textiles – including clothing, carpets and upholstered furniture – by 2022.
Mike Schade of the SCHF said that Target's improvements "up the ante" for the retail sector. "We hope these new commitments will help drive a race to the top among the nation's largest retailers."
Competitor Walmart
He added that the store had outpaced its competitor Walmart, in some respects, by setting clear timeframes for action on certain high priority chemicals. In 2016, Walmart announced a list of eight it is phasing out from products it sells.
At the same time, he added, Walmart leads in other areas, such as developing guidance around evaluating alternatives; reporting quantifiable progress in implementing its policy; and by reducing its high priority chemicals by 95% by weight.
"There are elements of each retailers' programme that are laudable," he said.
But Mr Schade added that there are also areas where both retailers could improve, such as by becoming signatories to the Chemical Footprint Project. Additionally they could take action on important "chemically intensive products, such as children's car seats and electronics laden with toxic flame retardants".
Target's policy was also praised by president of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Ken Cook, who said it was “great news for consumers” and showed the company’s leadership in moving away from toxic ingredients.
Supply chain transparency
Target has also set a goal for suppliers to disclose all chemical ingredients, including fragrances, to the store by 2020.
Boma Brown-West, senior manager of consumer health at EDF, said the company had “surpassed its competitors, by committing to gain not only full visibility into the chemicals in final products but also into chemicals used in manufacturing operations”.
But she added that Target was “quiet regarding if and how this enhanced supply chain will translate into greater ingredient transparency to consumers”.
Jennifer Silberman, chief sustainability officer at Target, told Chemical Watch that visibility and transparency between the store and its suppliers was “first and foremost” in removing unwanted chemicals.
“Ultimately, the end goal is to create safer products for our guests,” she said.
Green innovation
Ms Brown-West praised Target’s commitment to investing up to $5m in greener chemistry innovation by 2022. She said the company had shown it understands that “eliminating hazardous chemicals from the consumer product value chain is half the battle; promoting the development or discovery of safer alternatives and enabling their usability in products is as important."
The investment was also welcomed by Mr Schade, as “a positive step in the right direction”.
“Finding safer alternatives to dangerous chemicals is not always easy, and retailers investing in green chemistry research to find [these] can help accelerate the transition to a healthier economy,” he said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54125/targets-chemicals-commitments-up-the-ante-for-retail-sector
-
Johnson & Johnson Notches Talc Trial Win
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A Missouri jury has sided with multinational conglomerate Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc North America in the latest verdict in an ongoing lawsuit alleging a link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer.
The favourable ruling is the first the company has seen in St Louis, which played host to three cases that found the company liable for punitive damages ranging between $55m and $72m last year. The high-profile decisions helped fuel nationwide complaints against the company.
The latest verdict came in the lawsuit of Nora Daniels, who used the company’s talcum powder for several decades and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2013. She is one of thousands of plaintiffs in a class-action suit that has claimed the use of the company’s baby powder for feminine hygiene purposes contributed to injuries from the disease.
In a statement, Johnson & Johnson said the decision is “consistent with the science, research, clinical evidence and decades of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc.” It says it will continue to “defend the safety” of its baby powder as it continues to prepare for additional trials across the US.
The company is appealing the first three Missouri rulings.
Imerys – which was found liable alongside Johnson & Johnson in an October verdict – also expressed confidence in the safety of talc, in view of the most recent decision. “This jury's finding validates that fact and reflects the consensus of government agencies and professional scientific organisations that talc is safe,” it said.
Ted Meadows, an attorney with Beasley Allen who represented Ms Daniels in the most recent trial, said he was disappointed with the outcome, and will continue “carrying the fight forward” on behalf of ovarian cancer victims.
“We continue to maintain that the association between genital talc usage and ovarian cancer remains an issue of public health and demands that consumers be warned of the specific risks,” he said.
Spread of lawsuits continues
While the Missouri court continues to hear individual cases from the class-action suit, lawsuits are playing out elsewhere.
California, for example, is set to go to trial in early July to hear the first case in a similar class-action suit involving hundreds of plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, a group of women in Ireland is considering filing suit, pending the outcome of US litigation.
And, in Chicago, at least one plaintiff has named retailer Walgreens as a co-defendant alongside Johnson & Johnson. It is not clear how many suits will be heard in the Illinois court. The company declined to comment on pending litigation.
Both Johnson & Johnson and Imerys, however, see hope in a New Jersey court’s decision last autumn to throw out two cancer cases on the grounds that plaintiffs’ experts lacked scientific foundation.
According to Johnson & Johnson, this decision “highlights the lack of credible scientific evidence behind plaintiffs’ allegations”.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54105/johnson-johnson-notches-talc-trial-win
-
EU Legislation 'Failing to Control' EDCs, PBTs
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Harmful substances, such as endocrine disruptors (EDCs) and persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBTs) chemicals, are inadequately regulated by Europe's complex web of chemicals regulations, due to "significant gaps and inconsistencies" in identifying and prohibiting them, NGOs say.
Alongside member states and industry associations, they have submitted their comments to the European Commission’s consultation on the regulatory fitness of chemicals legislation, excluding REACH.
Dozens took part in the consultation, including ChemTrust, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), ChemSec, the Centre for International Environmental Law, ClientEarth and the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL).
The review spans all EU chemicals legislation including:
the classification, labelling and packaging Regulation (CLP);
the carcinogens and mutagens at work Directive (CMD);
the waste framework Directive;
the cosmetic products Regulation; and
the pregnant workers Directive.
In its submission, ClientEarth says EU legislation fails to address ‘emerging areas’ of concern, such as EDCs and PBTs, because the evidence requirement is "so high". Inconsistent criteria are used to identify the substances, it says, "thereby undermining the effectiveness of the legislation, as well as the risk management measures to be introduced".
Out of 17 pieces of chemical legislation analysed, only three include criteria to identify EDCs specifically, while PBTs were only mentioned in five, ClientEarth says, adding that the "outcome of an assessment should not depend on the framework under which [the substances] are evaluated".
The failure to consider EDC and PBT properties when classifying hazardous waste is "especially problematic", it says, as more stringent risk management measures, necessary in a circular economy where waste is recycled, cannot be applied.
Robust regulation of EDCs and PBTs are excluded from the scope of the CMD and the cosmetics Regulation, and there is no obligation to identify and prohibit exposure to EDCs under the pregnant workers Directive, ClientEarth says.
Risk management
EEB says the EU's risk-based approach to chemicals management means a safe threshold cannot be established for EDCs, PBTs and carcinogenic substances, leaving people and the environment "exposed to toxic chemicals for much longer" than would be possible under a hazard-based approach.
In risk assessments, exposure characterisations are irrelevant to real life exposures, and exposures to mixtures, low dose effects and vulnerable periods of such are being ignored, according to HEAL.
The NGOs also call for risk management measures based on generic risk considerations because chemicals can act together, and specific risk assessments for individual chemicals are not suitable for all uses of hazardous substances.
Other ‘failures’
In their submissions, the NGOs also said:
food contact materials are widely neglected;
enforcement of CLP is extremely low;
there is "worryingly little" understanding of the hazardous nature of many chemicals that are commonly used by people across Europe;
there is a high burden of proof needed in decision making and there are very few cases where decisions are based on the precautionary principle; and
the large number of notifications through Rapex – the EU alert system for dangerous products – highlight that there are still many gaps that need to be closed.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54127/eu-legislation-failing-to-control-edcs-pbts
-
Echa, Member States and Industry Consider Substance Grouping
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa, member states and industry are discussing how to address substances in groups instead of individually in order to handle those for which relevant exposure and hazard properties are unknown.
The agency, member state competent authorities, the European Commission, industry and NGO representatives discussed the issue at a workshop from 28 February to 1 March on the implementation of Echa’s Integrated Regulatory Strategy.
The latter is built on Echa’s compliance check strategy adopted in 2014. At its December 2016 meeting, Echa’s Management Board discussed details of progress so far and announced plans to screen and conduct compliance checks on registration dossiers for all substances over 100 tonnes – some 4,200 – by the end of 2020.
In an interview with Chemical Watch, Echa’s director of evaluation, Leena Ylä-Mononen, said the parties “hope to advance with a collaborative pilot project” on addressing groups of substances “in the coming weeks”.
Grouping plays a “big role” in addressing effectively Echa’s initiative of ‘mapping the universe’ of the large number of substances with unknown properties. Echa processes, Ms Ylä-Mononen said, have so far been “designed for single substances” and the agency and authorities “have not previously considered whether we can address several substances in one decision”.
Using read-across and categories forms a “complex landscape” of substances, which are linked to each other, she said. “The focus is now on authorities to address groups of substances instead of going one by one and this is quite a challenge for member state authorities, as well as Echa, because they are scientifically and technically very complex.”
The key problem, she added, is that the poor quality of dossiers with insufficient exposure and hazard information is “really hampering” the identification of the right substances for regulatory action.
Lower priority substances
Workshop delegates also discussed how Echa and authorities can communicate more clearly the outcome from the evaluation processes or manual screenings that a substance goes through.
“There is ongoing discussion on how transparent we can be and how we can avoid misinterpretation around substances concluded as being ‘lower priority’ for regulatory action,” said Ms Ylä-Mononen. This can be the preliminary result of a superficial screening but consumers and the chemical industry might mistakenly think authorities consider the substance safe and recommend it.
“The fear is understandable, but Echa believes we can avoid that by proper communication.”
Between themselves, she added, authorities must be transparent on their joint substance conclusions to ensure consistency and avoid repeating the process. They must also agree on how to communicate the conclusions externally, including to registrants “who do not always receive feedback”.
At the workshop, said Ms Ylä-Mononen, representatives from NGOs the European Environmental Bureau, ChemSec, ClientEarth and Humane Society International said the “key message” was transparency, as well as the need to improve quality of dossiers. “They feel there are dossiers that should not have registration in the first place.”
Representatives from Cefic, Concawe and Eurometaux, she added, said they are aware of the issue, but they are in a challenging position as they prepare for the 2018 REACH registration deadline at the same time. However, they are “ready to take the challenge”, and are trying to find other ways to mobilise companies.
“REACH is not over when registration dossiers are submitted – associations understand that, but it is not clear for all companies,” she said.
A report on the workshop will be published this spring, and the issues raised will be brought for discussion to the meeting of the competent authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) in March and June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54106/echa-member-states-and-industry-consider-substance-grouping
-
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
SVHC identification
Dossiers on two substances, proposing they be identified as SVHCs, have been issued by Echa for public consultation.
France has proposed that bisphenol A - which is already on the candidate list on the grounds that it is a reprotoxin - should have a second justification added to the entry - that it has endocrine disrupting properties for human health.
The second dossier, on perfluorohexane-1-sulphonic acid and its salts, was supplied by Sweden. The substance is under consideration for its very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties.
The consultation on both is open until 24 April.
PACT updates
The agency's public activities coordination tool (PACT) has been updated with 12 risk management option analyses (RMOAs) and hazard assessments.
They are for:
2,2’,4,4’-tetrabromodiphenyl ether;
4,4'-(1-methylpropylidene)bisphenol;
4-tert-butylphenol. The analysis concluded that it should be proposed for the candidate list on the grounds that it has endocrine disrupting properties for the environment;
6-tert-butyl-2,4-xylenol;
C9-C14 PFCAs including their salts and precursors. The conclusion says a restriction should be proposed;
dimethyl propylphosphonate;
p-(1,1-dimethylpropyl)phenol. The conclusion is that it should be proposed for the candidate list on the grounds that it has endocrine disrupting properties for the environment;
p-cresol. The national authority concluded it is an endocrine disruptor but the conclusion document is not yet posted on Echa's website;
terephthalic acid;
tetrafluoroethylene;
thiram; and
triphenyl phosphate.
Guidance: read-across approach for multi-constituent and UVCB substances
Echa has released a document addressing key issues on using read-across for multi-constituent and UVCB (unknown or variable composition, complex reaction products or biological materials) substances. It contains model cases to illustrate the complexity of approaches for these substances.
Alternative chemical name requests
All alternative chemical name request dossiers (Article 24 of CLP), including updated dossiers requested by the agency, must be submitted using REACH-IT once the tool is updated at the end of April
To support the transition, the webform for alternative chemical name requests will be open until mid-April.
The exact dates for the change will be announced on Echa's website next month.
Registrants survey
The agency is to conduct a study to identify best practice in updating dossiers. The aim is to help registrants improve data quality. A survey will be sent out to a number of companies at the end of March, and Echa asks that recipients share their experiences.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54086/echa-round-up
-
(ACC Mentioned) Exxonmobil to Invest $20 Billion in Capacity Expansions on U.S. Gulf Coast
Mar 9, 2017 | Chemical Engineering
By Mary Page Bailey
Exxon Mobil Corp. (Irving, Tex.; www.exxonmobil.com) is expanding its manufacturing capacity along the U.S. Gulf Coast through planned investments of $20 billion over a 10-year period, Darren Woods, chairman and chief executive officer, said Monday.
The projects, at 11 proposed and existing sites, are expected to generate thousands of new high-paying jobs and $20 billion in increased economic activity in Texas and Louisiana, Woods said, highlighting the company’s Growing the Gulf initiative in a keynote speech today at the CERAWeek 2017 conference.
“The United States is a leading producer of oil and natural gas, which is incentivizing U.S. manufacturing to invest and grow,” said Woods. “We are using new, abundant domestic energy supplies to provide products to the world at a competitive advantage resulting from lower costs and abundant raw materials. In this way, an upstream technology breakthrough has led to a downstream manufacturing renaissance.”
ExxonMobil is strategically investing in new refining and chemical-manufacturing projects in the U.S. Gulf Coast region to expand its manufacturing and export capacity. The company’s Growing the Gulf expansion program, consists of 11 major chemical, refining, lubricant and liquefied natural gas projects at proposed new and existing facilities along the Texas and Louisiana coasts. Investments began in 2013 and are expected to continue through at least 2022.
Woods said that ExxonMobil’s Gulf expansion projects are expected to provide long-term economic benefits to the region, noting the creation of direct employment opportunities and the multiplier effects of the company’s investments.
“Importantly, Growing the Gulf also creates jobs and lasting economic benefits for the communities where they’re located,” Woods said. “All told, we expect these 11 projects to create over 45,000 jobs. Many of these are high-skilled, high-paying jobs averaging about $100,000 a year. And these jobs will have a multiplier effect, creating many more jobs in the communities that service these new investments.”
According to the American Chemistry Council, chemical manufacturing is one of America’s top exporting industries, accounting for 14 percent of overall U.S. exports in 2015, and exports of specific chemicals linked to shale gas are projected to reach $123 billion by 2030. Most of ExxonMobil’s planned new chemical capacity investment in the Gulf region is targeted toward export markets in Asia and elsewhere.
“These projects are export machines, generating products that high-growth nations need to support larger populations with higher standards of living,” Woods said. “Those overseas markets are the motivation behind our investments. The supply is here; the demand is there. We want to keep connecting those dots.”
http://www.chemengonline.com/exxonmobil-to-invest-20-billion-in-capacity-expansions-on-u-s-gulf-coast/?printmode=1
-
The Clean Power Plan is Gone — and There's No 'Replace'
Mar 9, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
The White House intends to unravel the Clean Power Plan without providing a replacement, according to a source briefed on the issue.
An executive order expected to be released next week also instructs the Justice Department to effectively withdraw its legal defense of the climate rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The move aligns the White House with about two dozen Republican state attorneys general who are challenging the way the rule restricts greenhouse gas emissions at power plants.
The result, if successful, would mean the case is "frozen in place," the source said, preventing the D.C. Circuit, which has six judges appointed by Democrats and four by Republicans, from issuing an opinion this spring. Other legal experts say the case could continue if states or other groups go on defending the rule.
"Justice goes to the court and says ... 'Don't waste your time trying to put together an opinion when the legal basis for the case that you're reviewing could potentially go away,'" the source said. "Normally, a court will grant that. There's no guarantee."
It was unclear until now if the Trump administration would "repeal and replace" the Clean Power Plan, or just set upon a path to undo it. Some had anticipated that the Trump administration might pursue an alternative and much less stringent rule, but the executive order will only call for the withdrawal of the regulation.
That raises questions about whether EPA would fail to satisfy legal requirements to regulate carbon dioxide and other climate pollutants.
The agency in 2009, responding to the Supreme Court, determined that greenhouse gases endanger human health. That requires EPA to regulate emissions, and the agency did that by promulgating the Clean Power Plan.
"I think, as a matter of law, that carbon is a pollutant has been settled," said Christine Todd Whitman, who served as EPA administrator under President George W. Bush. "EPA has to act once you have that kind of a finding."
Waiting for the 'right time'?
The new details are surfacing as the White House confirmed yesterday that the executive order's release would be delayed. It was scheduled to be signed by President Trump this week. Now that will likely occur next week.
The delay follows successful efforts by Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter, and her husband, Jared Kushner, to remove language from the order that was critical of the Paris Agreement on climate change.
The current order does not refer to the global pact, and the source said that issue did not hold up the order's release. The delay was caused by the rise of other priorities, including the release of the Republican health care proposal Monday, the source said.
Trump also caused unforeseen turbulence Saturday by accusing former President Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower.
Coal companies and mining groups, which Trump described as being victimized by the climate rule on the campaign trail, have waited patiently through the delays. But now that he's 49 days into his presidency, there are subtle signs that industry wishes he would act more swiftly.
Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant EPA administrator under Bush who represents opponents to the rule, said it's likely the White House is waiting for the right time to unveil the rule with maximum effect.
"I hope it's soon," he added. "I think everybody, certainly all of my clients, think the Clean Power Plan is dead. But there's always uncertainties."
Fresh lawsuits await
For some Democrats, the order represents a tightrope walk. It's bound to be challenged in court by liberal state attorneys general and environmental groups for not providing an alternative to the Clean Power Plan. But if it did provide one, Republicans in coal states would likely feel that Trump had abandoned his campaign promise to terminate the regulation.
"It's not like [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell [R-Ky.] will say, 'OK, they're gonna do a new rulemaking on power plants, so I'm sure it'll be better,'" said Heather Zichal, Obama's former climate adviser. "They fundamentally don't think coal plants should be held accountable for their carbon pollution. So how do you deal with that piece? I think politically that's hard for them."
Environmental groups are already promising to sue EPA for failing to comply with its own endangerment finding.
"If EPA withdraws [the rule] and does not replace it with strong standards, we will challenge the agency's action in court," said Joanne Spalding, the chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club.
The administration anticipates that. The executive order instructs EPA to "revise or rescind" the Clean Power Plan, wording that's meant to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act by letting EPA, not the White House, determine the fate of the rule.
The agency will then go through the long rulemaking process. But rather than promulgating a new rule, it will terminate an existing one. It will post notice and take comments and then put out a proposed rule. After accepting more comment, the action will be finalized. Then the administration is "off to the races in court," the source said.
The Clean Power Plan is just one part of the executive order, which is geared around "energy independence."
It does not address the endangerment finding, which is the underpinning of current and future EPA regulations on greenhouse gases. No decision has been made by White House officials about whether to attack the finding in subsequent actions, the source said.
"That is a huge issue," the source said. "That's just going to require a lot of thinking."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/09/stories/1060051196
-
Economics, Not Regulation, Driving Energy Transition
Mar 9, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ryan Handy
The rise of renewable energy, and not excessive regulation, is driving the collapse of coal-fired power plants around the country, said Barry Smitherman, a former Texas energy regulator who was a contender to be the new head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Smitherman still advocated for cutting regulations on the power industry, and he is a champion for Texas’ approach to deregulated energy market, which he said brings customers lower prices and more choices. Smitherman spoke on Thursday morning about Texas’ power and was one five panelists, all of whom advocated a gentler approach to energy regulation.
But Smitherman encouraged companies to shut down older coal-fired power plants and cede to the expansion of wind and solar power.
“The trend lines are clearly more wind and more solar and all of that will continue to push fossil off the supply curve,” Smitherman said, adding that reliability of those renewable energy sources is still a problem.
Another Texas power regulator — Toby Baker, one of three commissioners for the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality — agreed that economics, not so much regulations, are changing the nation’s power mix.
“Regulations are important, but at the end of the day, low cost natural gas, zero cost wind are driving this more than the regulation,” Baker said on Thursday. “The regulation might be the nail in the coffin, but (low cost natural gas) is really what’s driving this.”
Baker predicted that a rollback of the Clean Power Plan, an Obama administration set of regulations aimed at reducing emissions from fossil fuel power plants, would have little impact on Texas, where cheap natural gas and wind are already dominant sources of power. President Trump has made the dissolution of the Clean Power Plan a key piece of his energy policy.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/03/09/economics-not-regulation-driving-energy-transition/
-
U.S. LNG: A Growing Slice of A Growing Pie
Mar 9, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The global liquefied natural gas (LNG) market, which was about 270 million tonnes last year, will grow to 360-370 million tonnes in three years time, and the U.S. Gulf Coast will serve 25-30% of that market, LNG pioneer Charif Souki said Thursday in Houston.
Speaking at CERAWeek by IHS Markit, Souki, a cofounder of Cheniere Energy Inc. and later of Tellurian LNG, said anywhere from 12 to 15 LNG cargos will be for sale daily in the global market, controlled by a group of 30-40 players in the industry. There will be 200 tankers moving on the seas with LNG on them at any given time, Souki said. "That's equivalent to 40 Bcf/d," he said. "It's a very, very significant physical market."
While suppliers in the U.S. Gulf Coast stand to capture 25-30% of the market, about one-third of the market will be served by LNG producers in Qatar and another one-third by LNG from Australia, he said. The rest of the demand will be met by smaller LNG suppliers around the globe.
Buyers will source LNG from the closest market and when in a pinch will be willing to pay a premium to snag a cargo on the water, he said. A robust spot market for LNG is coming. "It's just a matter of time until we get there," Souki said.
Souki and other LNG developers take a long view on commodity trends. Oversupply situations have a way of working out. Predictions of stranded cargos in an oversupplied market have not come to fruition, he said. "All the LNG was sold." As with natural gas on land, weather drives demand for LNG on the seas.
"We live in a very, very seasonal industry, very volatile industry where weather has more impact on demand than anything else," Souki said. "So in the same year you found low prices globally, and then you found premium prices in Asia, and then two months later you find premium prices in southern Europe, and then premium prices move, at a lower level, to the Middle East...You have prices that vary on a regional basis from $5, $5.50 to $9, $10 and then back to $5 [per MMBtu] and another area of the world goes up...[T]he gas is finding its way to market..."
Testament to the growing LNG market, and the growing role of the United States in that market, is what is going on at Cheniere Energy's first liquefaction and export terminal in Louisiana, Sabine Pass.
Corey Grindal, Cheniere senior vice president for gas supply, told a CERAWeek audience that LNG exports are likely to be the largest growth market for U.S. natural gas over the next 10 years, if not over the next five.
Last year, Cheniere bought and consumed 235 Bcf of gas to feed its export operation. In the first two months of this year, the company consumed 109 Bcf. "I would have to say that [gas] going abroad is starting to happen and starting to happen in earnest, Grindal said.
It’s not just U.S. natural gas leaving in liquid form from Sabine Pass. Cheniere recently struck a deal to source gas from a Canadian producer.
“The North American continent is available for us to source gas from,” said Cheniere CEO Anatol Feygin, also speaking at CERAWeek. “We are the largest physical gas buyer in the country. We really think that the trade prospects for U.S. LNG are very attractive…”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109696-us-lng-a-growing-slice-of-a-growing-pie
-
Big Oil Frets About Trump's Border Tax, Mexico Policies
Mar 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee, Edward Klump and Nathanial Gronewold
On the opening day of the biggest annual conference of energy executives, the chief executive of the biggest U.S. oil producer held forth on tax and trade policy.
Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods didn't mention President Trump, but he came down clearly on the side of free international trade and against some of the administration's proposals on protective taxes.
"Policies in the forms of subsidies, mandates and trade barriers only hinder progress," Woods told the 3,000 attendees at the annual CERAWeek conference by IHS Markit Ltd.
"They are more expensive and lead to poor investment decisions focused on the limitations imposed, not true innovation," he said.
The second and third days of the conference featured the heads of the No. 2 and No. 3 oil producers — Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. — also talking about tax policy. Chevron CEO John Watson, who supports most of Trump's plan to overhaul the tax system, said a border tax could harm U.S. consumers by raising prices.
"I want to see the U.S. be more competitive, not burdening imports," he said yesterday.
While the oil industry has generally supported Trump, the Big Oil executives gathered here — along with the utility and refining industries — are quietly staking out differences with the administration on a variety of issues, most notably taxes and trade policy.
Trump campaigned on a promise to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement and other trade pacts, and revive American manufacturing by punishing companies that moved jobs overseas. He also made a string of disparaging comments about Mexico and has ordered federal agencies to start planning for a wall along the United States' southern border.
To be sure, Trump could be a boon to the oil industry, Chevron's Watson and other speakers said. The new administration has already fast-tracked two oil pipelines that the Obama administration blocked, and it has begun rolling back regulations on methane emissions from oil and gas facilities and backed away from Obama's aggressive stance on climate change.
The whole economy is starting to respond, said Harold Hamm, the CEO of Continental Resources Inc., pointing to the roughly 10 percent growth in the stock market since the election.
"You get the government's foot off business, and it's going to respond," he said.
But big parts of Trump and the GOP's plan — particularly the border adjustment tax — would put a burden on the energy industry, where companies increasingly buy, sell and build across international borders.
Taxes
The tax proposal, still unclear and evolving, would work like the value-added tax (VAT) common in Europe and East Asia and permitted under the World Trade Organization. VAT is collected at each step in a manufacturing process but rebated if the final product is exported. It's also applied to imports.
Republican leadership in Washington is seeking to pay for possible large corporate tax cuts with a similar system that rewards exports and applies new taxes on imports. The idea has long been viewed with hostility by many in Washington as potentially too disruptive to an economy heavily reliant on foreign imports, including energy.
"I don't think there's been any time in industrial history where protectionism works in the long run," Tom Fanning, CEO of Southern Co., an owner of electric and gas utilities, said during a Tuesday session here.
Southern imports almost all its nuclear fuel, and the border adjustment tax would raise the price, Fanning said.
The economics of the border tax are even more complicated in other areas. Charif Souki, who built the first plant to export liquefied natural gas in the Lower 48 states as head of Cheniere Energy Inc., is working on another plant with his new company, Tellurian Inc.
The plant will use turbines made in Cincinnati that are then assembled into compressors in Florence, Italy, and flown to a site in Louisiana.
"I'm not sure where you assess a tax on that," Souki said during a press conference.
In the refining sector, the border tax could give an advantage to companies on the U.S. Gulf Coast that use more domestic oil and could harm refiners on the East Coast that use imported oil, said Mario Rodriguez, president of NTR Partners LLC.
Mexico
More broadly, the oil industry leaders are concerned about Trump's stance toward Mexico.
The United States exports about 3.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to Mexico, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And Mexico sells 500,000 barrels of oil daily to the United States while importing gasoline and other fuels.
At the same time, Mexico has begun to open its state-controlled oil fields to outside investors, which could be a boon for U.S. companies (Energywire, June 27, 2016).
Mexico won't close off its energy sector to U.S. companies, regardless of Trump's policies, said Jose Antonio Gonzalez Anaya, CEO of Petróleos Mexicanos, the national oil company.
"These changes are here to stay," he said.
Regardless, the energy industry in North America was moving toward further integration before Trump's election. Mexico is being tied closely into the U.S. natural gas pipeline system, and there's an expectation that electricity will eventually be integrated between the United States and Mexico. The United States and Canada already have tightly woven power and gas markets.
Having just won the right to invest in Mexico and export U.S. crude oil, energy companies are hoping to convince leaders in Washington to not shift North American energy trade and integration into reverse.
"We've got to keep great relationships with Mexico and not overturn NAFTA too bad," said Scott Sheffield, executive chairman of Pioneer Natural Resources Co., during a panel discussion Tuesday.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/09/stories/1060051191
-
Regulator Disputes NASA Study, Says Methane Cloud is Natural
Mar 9, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
New Mexico's top oil and natural gas regulator blamed natural seeping and coal operations for a massive methane cloud hanging over the southwest United States, disputing recent scientific findings.
At a confirmation hearing yesterday, acting New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Secretary Kenley McQueen said the methane cloud over Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah dates back millions of years, fed by methane-filled outcroppings in the San Juan Basin.
The former oil and natural gas company executive disputes a NASA study of the cloud. That survey blames natural gas wells, tanks, pipelines and processing centers. The agency said coal and natural seepage from underground formations had little impact. NASA used spectrometers on aircraft to identify methane sources.
McQueen said NASA's study was not comprehensive. As an executive of WPX Energy Inc., he oversaw natural gas operations in New Mexico.
Environmentalists described McQueen's statements as "patently false." The New Mexico Senate confirmed his appointment yesterday.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/09/stories/1060051209
-
CSX Freight Train Derails, Leaking 4,660gal of Diesel
Mar 9, 2017 | Railway-Technology
A US CSX freight train travelling from Albany to Georgia has derailed on the banks of New York's Hudson River and reportedly leaked 4,660gal of diesel, as well as spilling quantities of sulphuric acid.
The fuel leaked from ruptured locomotive fuel tanks after the 77-car train hit a steel company's forklift that had become stuck on the tracks. The incident injured two crew members on the train.
Responding to the incident, US Representative Sean Patrick Maloney said: “While we don’t yet know why the train derailed, we do know that outdated train cars barrelling down the Hudson River carrying hazardous materials are literally a train wreck waiting to happen.
“We have to get smarter about how we transport crude oil, and invest in installing positive train control (PTC) on all our trains, the longer we fail to prioritise investing in rail safety infrastructure and technology, the more innocent lives we put in jeopardy.”
CSX said that four of the cars were carrying sulphuric acid, two had sodium hydroxide, while another one contained aqueous bisulphites.
Crews are working to put the freight train back on the tracks at the New York railroad crossing where the incident took place.
Associated Press reported officials of CSX saying that crews have been attempting to remove the three derailed locomotives and 14 cars. The derailment occurred along the Hudson River's bank in Newburgh, 60 miles from New York City.
http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newscsx-freight-train-derails-leaks-4660-gallons-of-diesel-fuel-5758797
-
E.P.A. Chief Doubts Consensus View of Climate Change
Mar 9, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said on Thursday that carbon dioxide was not a primary contributor to global warming, a statement at odds with the global scientific consensus on climate change.
Speaking of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas produced by burning fossil fuels, Mr. Pruitt told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”
“But we don’t know that yet,” he added. “We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
Mr. Pruitt’s statement is not consistent with scientific research on climate change, including decades of research by federal agencies. His remarks may also put him in conflict with laws and regulations his agency is charged with enforcing.
A report in 2013 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of about 2,000 international scientists that reviews and summarizes climate science, found it to be “extremely likely” that more than half the global warming that occurred from 1951 to 2010 was a consequence of human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
A January report by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded, “The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.”
Benjamin D. Santer, a climate researcher at the Energy Department’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said, “Mr. Pruitt has claimed that carbon dioxide caused by human activity is not ‘the primary contributor to the global warming that we see.’ Mr. Pruitt is wrong.”
Dr. Santer added, “The scientific community has studied this issue for decades. The consensus message from many national and international assessments of the science is pretty simple: Natural factors can’t explain the size or patterns of observed warming. A large human influence on global climate is the best explanation for the warming we’ve measured and monitored.”
Mr. Pruitt’s remarks come as the Trump administration prepares to roll back President Barack Obama’s two signature global warming policies: a pair of sweeping regulations intended to curb carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles and power plant smokestacks.
At the same time, the White House is considering a 17 percent cut to the budget of NOAA, one of the nation’s premiere agencies of climate science research, according to a memo obtained by The Washington Post.
Mr. Pruitt’s remarks on Thursday were consistent with his past public statements questioning the established science of human-caused climate change, but in denying the role played by carbon dioxide, they go a step further.
In his Senate confirmation hearing in January, he said. “Science tells us that the climate is changing and human activity in some manner impacts that change. The human ability to measure with precision the extent of that impact is subject to continuing debate and dialogue, as well they should be.” That statement, while inaccurate, did not specifically mention carbon dioxide.
In addition to putting him at odds with established scientific consensus, Mr. Pruitt’s remarks also suggest that, as the Trump administration moves forward with unwinding Mr. Obama’s climate change regulations aimed at reining in carbon dioxide pollution, it may not issue replacement regulations, which could put the administration in violation of federal law.
In 2009, the E.P.A. released a legal opinion known as an endangerment finding that, because of its contribution to global warming, carbon dioxide in large amounts met the Clean Air Act’s definition of a pollutant that harmed human health. Under the terms of the Clean Air Act — one of the nation’s most powerful environmental laws — all such pollutants must be regulated by the E.P.A. A federal court then upheld the finding and the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to it.
Thus the E.P.A. remains legally obligated to regulate carbon dioxide.
In his January Senate hearing, Mr. Pruitt said as head of the E.P.A. he would not revisit that 2009 legal finding. “It is there, and it needs to be enforced and respected,” Mr. Pruitt said. “There is nothing that I know that would cause it to be reviewed.”
However, energy lobbyists close to the Trump administration have since urged Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Trump and their staffs to consider building a legal case against the endangerment finding.
Mr. Trump is expected next week to announce an executive order directing Mr. Pruitt to begin the legal process of unwinding the climate change regulations on emissions from power plants.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/us/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-global-warming.html?_r=0
-
EPA Environmental Justice Leader Resigns, Amid White House Plans to Dismantle Program
Mar 9, 2017 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
A key environmental justice leader at the Environmental Protection Agency has resigned, saying that a recent budget proposal to defund such work would harm the people who most rely on the EPA.
Mustafa Ali, a senior advisor and assistant associate administrator for environmental justice, has served more than two decades at the agency, working to ease the burden of air and water pollution in hundreds of poor, minority communities nationwide. He helped found the EPA’s environmental justice office during the early 1990s and became a key adviser to agency administrators under Republican and Democratic presidents.
Ali’s departure, initially reported Thursday by InsideClimate, comes as the White House is seeking to close the agency’s Office of Environmental Justice. A budget proposal reviewed last week by The Washington Post would cut the agency’s overall budget by a quarter, leading to a 20 percent reduction in the workforce. It also listed the environmental justice program as among several dozen slated to lose all funding. The document stated that the new administration supports the idea of environmental justice but would eliminate that EPA office and “assumes any future EJ specific policy work can be transferred to the Office of Policy.”
Ali explained his departure in an interview Thursday, saying, “I never saw in the past a concerted effort to roll back the positive steps that many, many people have worked on though all the previous administrations. … I can’t be a part of anything that would hurt those [disadvantaged] communities. I just couldn’t sign off on those types of things.”
He added that it remains early in the Trump era and noted that each new administration sets its own priorities. Still, he said, “I hadn’t seen any positive movement in relationship to vulnerable communities … I hadn’t seen yet any engagement with communities with environmental justice concerns.”
In his resignation letter, Ali implored the agency’s administrator, former Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, to think twice before slashing EPA programs aimed at helping disadvantaged areas.
“When I hear we are considering making cuts to grant programs like the EJ small grants or Collaborative Problem Solving programs, which have assisted over 1,400 communities, I wonder if our new leadership has had the opportunity to converse with those who need our help the most,” Ali wrote. “I strongly encourage you and your team to continue promoting agency efforts to validate these communities’ concerns, and value their lives.”
Environmental justice leaders have been skeptical of Pruitt from the start. The longtime EPA adversary has repeatedly sued the agency in tandem with fossil fuel companies and other corporate interests, often arguing that the agency’s efforts to regulate pollution went beyond its legal authority.
During his Senate confirmation process, Pruitt answered written questions from Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.). One of them read: “How do you define ‘environmental justice’? Do you think it’s a serious issue?”
“I am familiar with the concept of environmental justice,” Pruitt answered. “As I testified, the administrator plays an important role regarding environmental justice. I agree that it is important that all Americans be treated equally under the law, including the environmental laws.”
But Pruitt’s critics note that he received hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil and gas companies during his political campaigns over the years. He also led the Republican Attorneys General Association, which received substantial sums of money from Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Murray Energy and other firms. Since arriving at the EPA last month, he has taken early steps to beginning rolling back Obama-era regulations on everything from methane emissions to vehicle fuel standards.
“The future ain’t what it used to be at the EPA,” Pruitt recently told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
That’s a future Ali decided not to stick around for at the agency.
“I’ve seen too much over the years to allow there to be any rolling back,” he said. “Sometimes people forget that we’re talking about folks lives. If we do our job properly, it can be a huge benefit. If not, it can have big [negative] impacts.”
Michelle Roberts, national co-coordinator of the Environmental Justice Health Alliance, said Thursday that Ali “played a significant role on the issue of environmental justice” by advocating within the EPA on behalf of low-income Americans and those of color. “People were able to have a seat at the table” though Ali’s work, Roberts said, noting that he also helped provide the grants and technical resources that allowed communities to show how they were being disproportionately affected by pollution.
Ali pressed for President Obama to issue a 2013 executive order that improved chemical plant safety, Roberts noted, and served as a crucial intermediary between the town of Mossville, La., and the company building a major plant nearby.
It is unclear whether the proposed cuts will remain in place when the White House releases its budget blueprint in mid-March, and any reductions would have to be approved by Congress through the appropriations process.
Ali also helped shape one of the last major EPA initiatives under the Obama administration — an “EJ 2020 Action Agenda” that would direct more enforcement resources to pollution-affected communities, focus on eliminating disparities in drinking water and air quality around the country and consider environmental justice issues in the agency’s rulemaking and permitting approaches. There have been few indications that the new administration intends to follow through on that plan.
Ali has taken a job as senior vice president at the Hip Hop Caucus, a nonprofit civil and human rights group that tries to foster grass-roots activism among younger Americans through hip-hop music and cultural events. “As one of the leading voices in the social justice movement, he has shown himself to be an extraordinary leader throughout his career and has a proven track record,” the group’s president, the Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., said in a statement.
On Thursday, Ali made his first public appearance for the group at an environmental justice conference in Flint, Mich., home to a poor community nearly three years into a crippling water contamination crisis.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/09/epas-environmental-justice-leader-steps-down-amid-white-house-plans-to-dismantle-program/?utm_term=.da237e3ff6b1
-
'Global Climate Change' on the Chopping Block in Upcoming Budget
Mar 9, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The White House has proposed eliminating climate aid as part of draconian budget cuts at the State Department, a source familiar with the funding documents told E&E News.
The zeroing out of a "global climate change" funding cut is likely a reference to the Global Climate Change Initiative, an Obama-era program aimed at integrating climate considerations into U.S. foreign assistance. It comes as part of a provisional plan from the White House Office of Management and Budget to cut the State Department by 37 percent and zero out a host of core projects.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is said to be haggling with the White House over those cuts. He has proposed softening the blow by spacing the cut out over three years, and sources say his appeal to OMB called for a still-steep cut of around 20 percent in overall funding compared with enacted levels.
But sources say Tillerson did not propose restoring climate aid.
Acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner declined to give many details about the budget at yesterday's briefing at department headquarters, saying they're still in flux. Toner said again that Tillerson's goal was to make the department more effective, not just cheaper.
"Secretary Tillerson is resolved to ensure that this building, that its missions, embassies and consuls overseas have the necessary resources to carry out their mission," he said.
Climate policy experts following the process expect a broader zeroing out of climate-related foreign assistance, almost certainly to include the United Nations' Green Climate Fund and anti-deforestation aid programs. The more popular Power Africa initiative may survive.
There's no indication that the State Department budget would bar staff from working on issues related to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and other climate diplomacy efforts.
Also on the chopping block would be State's Office of Global Women's Issues, humanitarian and development budgets, and other programs, sources say.
Four Democratic senators in a letter yesterday to Tillerson said the reported budget numbers could "undercut leadership abroad."
Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) noted that the State and Foreign Operations budget is only 1.5 percent of all government spending.
Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) told reporters yesterday that Tillerson told him earlier this week he was primarily concerned with boosting the department's efficiency and reducing redundancies. But as the Trump team eyes massive increases to the national security budget, Cardin said, it should also increase spending for diplomacy rather than decrease it.
"Security experts all agree that our military should be a matter of last resort, that our first attack for national security needs to be diplomacy," he said.
"To cut the pie just is counterintuitive to the demands that are out there today," he added.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/09/stories/1060051170
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested