Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/19/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Recycling Partnership Says It Added 400k New Recycling Carts into Service
Apr 19, 2017 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
A new report from the Recycling Partnership shows that nearly 400,000 recycling carts have been placed into service around the country during the past three years by the nonprofit group. -
Chemical Companies, Transportation Carriers Win Safety Awards
Apr 19, 2017 | EHS Today
By Stefanie Valentic
Volunteers from chemical producers, transportation carriers, emergency responders and government agencies recently were honored for their commitment to transportation safety. -
(ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Disagree with Stringency of TSCA Low Priority Designation
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The process by which the EPA identifies ‘low priority substances’ under the new TSCA has been criticised as overly stringent by many in industry – but NGOs have lauded the agency’s proposed approach. -
(ACC Mentioned) Of Foxes, Henhouses And TSCA Implementation: The Chemical Industry Burrows Into EPA’s Toxics Office
Apr 19, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The lead article in this past Sunday’s New York Times is titled “With Trump Appointees, a Raft of Potential Conflicts and ‘No Transparency’.” It features several prominent examples of recent political appointments of industry representatives and industry lobbyists to key policy positions where they are now charged with or involved in reviewing or crafting the very same agency regulations and policies that were the focus of their paid private sector work just prior to their appointments. -
EPA Extends Comment Period For 2 TSCA Rules, Again
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
U.S. EPA granted extensions for the public comment period of two proposed Toxic Substances Control Act rules after an industry group asked for more time to replicate the data the agency used to determine the rules. -
NGOs Call for Stricter Regulations on Chlor-Alkali Industry
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Three NGOs have called on the US EPA to support an "expansive scope" for the risk evaluation of asbestos under the revised TSCA, in an effort to force the chlor-alkali industry to no longer use a manufacturing process that requires the substance. -
Recycled Plastic In Toys Exposes Children To Toxins — Study
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Flame-retardant chemicals are being found in some of the world's best-selling children's toys through recycled plastics, according to a study released today by a European environmental coalition. -
Target Unveils New Packaging Sustainability Goals
Apr 18, 2017 | Retail Dive
By Daphne Howland
Target on Tuesday announced a new commitment to sustainability in packaging, a program first launched in 2013, through five new initiatives. The retailer said it exceeded its previous goals by coming up with 160 enhanced packaging designs that use fewer materials... -
Recalls of EU Personal Care, Household Products Rise 60%
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The number of personal care and household product recalls in Europe increased by almost two thirds last year to 124. -
Echa Calls for Evidence on Lead in Jewellery
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa is calling for evidence to identify information necessary to review the current restriction on lead in jewellery. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chinese Companies Announce Mega Chemical Projects in Louisiana
Apr 19, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
A pair of Chinese companies recently announced two separate chemical plant projects slated for Louisiana that will be worth billions. -
ExxonMobil, SABIC Choose South Texas Gulf Coast to Site World-Class Cracker
Apr 19, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
As anticipated, ExxonMobil Corp. and its Saudi Arabian partner agreed Wednesday to develop a world-class ethane steam cracker on the Texas Gulf Coast near Corpus Christi, a facility that if given final approval would be able to produce 1.8 million metric tons/year (mmty) of ethylene. -
EPA Launches Review Of Methane Rule
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
The Trump administration announced it will reconsider Clean Air Act regulations that directly limit emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. -
Methane Rule Will Cost Less, Help Less Than Expected — Study
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Finding and fixing methane leaks won't help the atmosphere nearly as much as U.S. EPA had predicted, a new analysis finds. -
Energy Executives Hold Secret Meetings On Trump's Rollbacks
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
As President Trump moves to roll back several Obama-era environmental regulations, some energy executives are holding quasi-secret meetings to discuss what's next. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Enviros Butt Heads At Safety Rule Delay Hearing
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Chemical industry representatives and environmental groups clashed this morning at a public hearing on U.S. EPA's proposed delay in implementing new safety regulations. -
DHS Chief Kelly: Infrastructure Is 'Being Bombarded' By Hackers
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Retired Marine Gen. John Kelly called hackers "a tremendous danger to our American way of life" yesterday in his first public speech since winning confirmation as secretary of Homeland Security in January. -
EPA Cites Trump Energy Order In Bid To Delay Utility MACT Suit Arguments
Apr 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA is citing President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) on reducing energy industry regulatory burdens as one of the reasons why it says a federal appeals court should halt argument in two pending suits over the Obama-era utility air toxics rule, saying it is assessing whether the rule is subject to potential revision under the order. -
Energy Attorney Weissman Says Trump Order Could Impact Nearly All Environmental Regulation
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E TV
Could President Trump's recent executive action on climate and energy have impacts that are so far-reaching, they could potentially affect almost all environmental regulations with ties to energy? -
Democrats Call for Investigation of US EPA Leadership
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Democratic members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology have called for an open investigation into whether senior political appointees at the US EPA have intentionally misled Congress. -
Financial Regulation Bill Could End Most Climate Resolutions
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
A top House Republican and one of Washington's most powerful lobbying groups are working to dismantle a tool investors use to challenge companies on issues like climate change: the corporate ballot box. -
EPA Reports Emissions To The U.N. -- But For How Much Longer?
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell 2.3 percent in 2015 compared with the previous year, President Trump's U.S. EPA has reported to the U.N. climate regime. -
Policy Advisers Urge Trump to Keep U.S. in Paris Accord
Apr 19, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
President Trump’s most influential policy advisers are urging him to keep the United States in the landmark Paris climate accord of 2015, a move that would break one of his signature campaign promises and further downgrade the counsel of his senior strategist...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Recycling Partnership Says It Added 400k New Recycling Carts into Service
Apr 19, 2017 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
A new report from the Recycling Partnership shows that nearly 400,000 recycling carts have been placed into service around the country during the past three years by the nonprofit group.
The Falls Church, Va.-based organization works with corporate sponsors and local municipalities to drive increased curbside recycling, including plastics, through the placement of roll-out carts.
These carts are easier for citizens to handle, compared with carry-out bins, and can hold much more material. It’s this ease of use and added capacity that drives increased participation.
“Day to day, we’re always looking forward, actively creating more opportunities for Americans to recycle, building sustainable improvements across our nation’s recycling industry,” Partnership CEO Keefe Harrison said in a statement. “Together with our funding partners and our colleagues across the supply chain, we are succeeding. Through partnership, we are doing things that individually we never thought possible.”
Along with granting financial assistance to communities looking to switch to recycling carts, the group also provides technical assistance and community education to help boost recycling rates.
Craig Cookson is senior director of recycling and energy recovery at the American Chemistry Council. “The Partnership’s innovative approach delivers more feedstock for manufacturing that is hungry for recycled material,” he said in a statement.
Procter & Gamble Co. is a big user of plastics in its packaging and is a member of group.
“Recycling is a major focus area for P&G and we value our relationship with the Recycling Partnership and support their signature approach of targeted grants and technical assistance to drive positive change for customers and the environment,” said Steve Sikra, technology manager at P&G.
The Recycling Partnership said the group has now assisted more than 250 communities around the country to help improve recycling opportunities for 19 million households.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170419/NEWS/170419896/recycling-partnership-says-it-added-400k-new-recycling-carts-into
-
Chemical Companies, Transportation Carriers Win Safety Awards
Apr 19, 2017 | EHS Today
By Stefanie Valentic
Volunteers from chemical producers, transportation carriers, emergency responders and government agencies recently were honored for their commitment to transportation safety.
The Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency (TRANSCAER) Awards Program recognizes individuals, companies and organizations that go above and beyond in helping communities across the country prepare for hazardous material emergencies.
“We greatly appreciate the strong commitment and leadership of our dedicated volunteers to help keep emergency responders across the country and the communities they serve safe,” said National TRANSCAER Task Group Chairman Keith Silverman, VP of global operations, quality and EHS at Ashland in a statement. “Because of them, TRANSCAER has been able to provide valuable, life-saving training to 50,000 emergency responders throughout North America to better prepare and more effectively handle transportation incidents involving hazardous materials.”
Volunteers consist of representatives from chemical producers, transportation carriers, distribution, industry associations, emergency response personnel and industries, responders and government agencies.
Companies provide resources at training sites that may include hands-on training, emergency planning assistance, support for community drills and exercises, technical information and reference and training materials. The training helps communities deal with primarily highway and rail related transportation incidents involving crude oil, ethanol and a variety of hazardous materials.
This year there were 41 Individual Achievement Awards and 142 Certificates of Appreciation Awards among the awards given, including recipients from NBSF Railway, Benjamin Moore & Co., CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Renewable Fuels Association, The Dow Chemical Company and more.
The full list of current and previous award recipients is available by visiting the TRANSCAER website.
http://ehstoday.com/safety/chemical-companies-transportation-carriers-win-safety-awards
-
(ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Disagree with Stringency of TSCA Low Priority Designation
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The process by which the EPA identifies ‘low priority substances’ under the new TSCA has been criticised as overly stringent by many in industry – but NGOs have lauded the agency’s proposed approach.
The new TSCA requires the designation of chemicals as either substances of high priority for risk evaluation, or low priority where this is not warranted. The former are those that may present a health or environmental risk because of a potential hazard and route of exposure under the conditions of use, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors.
In its prioritisation draft rule, the EPA has proposed to designate as high priority a chemical where available information suggests it may present a hazard and where there is exposure from at least one condition of use. The agency says this sets a "fairly low bar", and it "expects that a large number of chemical substances will meet this definition".
By contrast, a low priority substance would be one where the hazard and exposure potential for all of its conditions of use are "so low that EPA can confidently set that chemical substance aside, without doing further evaluation".
It says this definition is "fairly rigorous", and effectively requires it to determine that under no condition of use does the chemical meet the high priority standard. And, as a consequence, it "expects it will be more difficult to support such designations".
Industry objects to rigour of standard
But industry groups have baulked at the tough standard for designating low priority substances.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) said in comments that the statute does not support such an "imbalance" between high and low priority designations.
"The prioritisation process should enable EPA to actively move forward on low priority designations, which is necessary to narrow the universe of existing chemicals to appropriate candidates for consideration as high priority," it said.
Instead, it said the EPA should consider the following criteria for identifying low priority candidates:
· substances "comprehensively addressed" by existing regulations;
· low exposure and/or low hazard substances;
· substances deemed not to present unreasonable risk by other jurisdictions, including Canada and the EU;
· chemicals that have been through the new chemical review programme in recent years;
· polymers exempt from pre-manufacture notice (PMN) requirements; and
· substances exempt from the chemical data reporting (CDR) rule.
The National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) said the EPA should make either high or low priority designations based on one, some or all conditions of use – depending on the substance in question.
"Not every chemical should be treated identically as each has different properties and different conditions of use," it said. The EPA should "modify its thinking" on this and not create a system where chemicals are "automatically designated high priority".
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) described the agency’s proposed interpretation of the low priority designation as "short-sighted, contrary to congressional intent, and inconsistent with best available science".
Rather than basing such designations on all uses, said the group, the EPA should be able to set aside chemicals for which certain uses do not meet the ‘may present unreasonable risk’ standard.
This will "help EPA meet its deadlines for scoping risk evaluations, will conserve resources, and will enable the agency to focus its risk evaluation efforts on chemicals that meet the high priority criteria under certain conditions of use."
NGOs laud high bar
But the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said the law was "unambiguous in stating that chemical substances, not particular uses or conditions of use, are to be subject to prioritisation".
And a failure to consider all uses in determining a low priority designation, it added, would result in a "highly suspect" determination, "because of the distinct possibility that the designation might not have been warranted had all conditions of use been considered".
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, in comments endorsed by several NGOs, said demonstrating the absence of unreasonable risk for all uses is essential, given that low priority chemicals will not be subject to risk evaluation and "will be perceived as ‘safe’ by users and the general public".
"Such an aura of safety would be misleading and, indeed, irresponsible, where data to establish the absence of risk is non-existent or incomplete, or where some uses cannot, in fact, be shown to lack the potential for unreasonable risk," it said.
The SCHF urged the EPA to make low priority designations subject to peer review as an "essential safeguard against unwarranted ‘false negatives’", the likes of which could result in 'serious consequences' for consumers and communities relying on the agency’s judgement.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55313/stakeholders-disagree-with-stringency-of-tsca-low-priority-designation
-
Apr 19, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The lead article in this past Sunday’s New York Times is titled “With Trump Appointees, a Raft of Potential Conflicts and ‘No Transparency’.” It features several prominent examples of recent political appointments of industry representatives and industry lobbyists to key policy positions where they are now charged with or involved in reviewing or crafting the very same agency regulations and policies that were the focus of their paid private sector work just prior to their appointments.
Add EPA’s implementation of the newly amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the list.
Dr. Nancy Beck has just been appointed Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and reportedly started in that position on Monday, April 17, 2017. Dr. Beck is moving into her new position at EPA directly from her job as Senior Director, Regulatory Science Policy, Division of Regulatory & Technical Affairs at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a position she has held since January, 2012. ACC is the main trade association for the chemicals industry, with a membership of more than 150 chemical companies, including such behemoths as BASF, Dow, DuPont and ExxonMobil.
In her new job, Dr. Beck is expected to play a key role in implementing the new reforms made to TSCA, including in critical decisions that EPA will be making literally any day now, many of them driven by firm statutory deadlines. These decisions will directly affect the financial interests of the companies represented by ACC. And they will involve deciding whether or not the agency should take positions for which Dr. Beck has advocated on behalf of her former employer, as recently as last month. Any reasonable person would see a conflict here, one sufficient to seriously question whose interests Dr. Beck will be representing in playing such a role in TSCA implementation. But as the Times article indicates, this Administration appears to have little concern about the fox guarding the henhouse.
Nor does this situation bode well for the prospect of creating a credible federal system capable of restoring public and market confidence in the safety of chemicals – which was the key reason that such strong bipartisan and stakeholder support gelled behind the major reforms made to TSCA just last June. Placing a key chemical industry player in a position where she will now have direct and major influence over the direction that reform will take raises serious new doubts about the industry’s claims that it supports providing EPA with stronger, independent authority and resources to vigorously establish the safety of chemicals in and entering commerce.
ACC’s and Dr. Beck’s deep involvement in TSCA reform and implementation
Dr. Beck’s employer until last week, ACC, was deeply involved in the debate over and negotiations that led to last year’s reforms of TSCA, and it remains highly active in seeking to influence the pace and direction of its implementation. In her capacity as a senior director at ACC, Dr. Beck was personally involved in these activities, representing ACC at numerous fora, testifying on behalf of ACC before Congress, and authoring comments submitted to EPA that provided ACC’s views on various TSCA implementation activities being undertaken by EPA, including the development of the rules that will govern how the law is implemented for years or decades to come.
ACC’s advocacy is to be expected, given ACC’s purpose, as was Dr. Beck’s while at ACC. However, the depth and breadth of both her and her very recent employer’s engagement and interest in influencing EPA’s actions in implementing TSCA raise clear and pressing concerns with respect to her new position at EPA.
Dr. Beck’s engagement in TSCA implementation while at ACC was so important to her that it was the main feature of an August 2016 profile of her that appeared on her alma mater’s web page:
A key part of Beck’s current role at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is to actively engage with agencies on proposed policies, procedures, and guidance related to chemical risk assessment. She will focus in the coming year on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century, signed into law by President Obama on June 22, 2016. The legislation updates the Toxic Substances Control Act passed in 1976.
Here are a few examples of recent materials and comments from Dr. Beck that advocate for ACC’s positions on issues directly relevant to TSCA implementation and illustrate the currency and extent of her efforts on behalf of ACC to influence the very decisions she will now be in a position to help make at EPA:Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, at a Hearing on the agency’s use of science in the rulemaking process, April 9, 2017ACC Comments to Inform EPA’s Rulemaking on the Conduct of Risk Evaluations under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, August 8, 2016Transcript: Chemical Safety Advisory Committee Open Meeting – Peer Review Draft Assessment for TSCA Work Plan Chemical 1-Bromopropane, May 24, 2016 [this chemical is one of the first 10 on which EPA will conduct risk evaluations under TSCA]
ACC’s interest in key decisions in which Dr. Beck will be involved
Dr. Beck’s role will likely encompass decisions related to multiple rules EPA has recently proposed that are mandated or authorized under the new law. The proposed rules include several that will establish the framework under which the new law will operate for years to come and which the law requires to be finalized by June of this year. The proposed rules also include several that would ban or otherwise restrict high-risk uses of three highly toxic chemicals. Another proposed rule under development in which she can be expected to have a role will establish an industry fee system authorized by the new law under which EPA can collect fees from chemical manufacturers and processors to cover the agency’s costs of administering various aspects of the new law’s chemical review and regulatory program.
Other near-term actions mandated or authorized under the law in which Dr. Beck can be expected to play a significant role include: defining the scopes of the first 10 risk evaluations EPA will undertake under the new law, including which uses, hazards and exposures of each chemical, and which potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, will be included; guidance that will prescribe the form and content of draft chemical risk evaluations that the chemical industry or other persons can submit to the agency for its consideration; a strategic plan promoting the development and use of non-vertebrate testing methods and strategies; various agency practices and procedures and policy decisions and guidance documents affecting the agency’s identification, prioritization, risk evaluation and regulation of both existing chemicals (those already in commerce) and new chemicals (those companies intend to produce or import); and myriad chemical-specific decisions mandated or authorized under TSCA.
ACC member companies make or process all of the specific chemicals for which EPA has proposed restrictions, and most or all of the chemicals for which EPA has initiated risk evaluations and is now determining their scopes. ACC member companies also routinely notify EPA of their intent to manufacture new chemicals, including many that are now under active review by EPA’s new chemicals program. These companies will also be directly impacted by the policies, procedures and guidance being developed for use by EPA in carrying out its mandates and authorities under TSCA.
In all of these activities, ACC and Dr. Beck on its behalf have taken and strongly advocated for positions intended to further the financial interests of their members. For example, ACC’s positions call for inclusion or modification of provisions in EPA’s rules to limit requirements or burdens on ACC member companies. It also seeks to incorporate and prescribe in detail specific scientific policies and procedures and testing and assessment methods that are favored by ACC and its members and for which ACC and Dr. Beck have advocated for many years in many different fora.
More questions
All this leaves us with more questions than answers in Dr. Beck’s case. For example:On what specific issues will she be working in her new position at EPA?What aspects of her work at EPA would constitute a conflict of interest or an appearance of a lack of impartiality?Will she recuse herself from any deliberations or decisions at EPA? If so, which ones?
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/04/19/of-foxes-henhouses-and-tsca-implementation-the-chemical-industry-burrows-into-epas-toxics-office/
-
EPA Extends Comment Period For 2 TSCA Rules, Again
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
U.S. EPA granted extensions for the public comment period of two proposed Toxic Substances Control Act rules after an industry group asked for more time to replicate the data the agency used to determine the rules.
The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance asked for a four-month extension for the comment period on the rules, which pertain to trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (DCM) and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP). The current deadlines were set to close today after an extension of one month was already granted.
Instead of the 120 days HSIA asked for, EPA pushed back the comment period by one month, a delay that still disappointed the environmental groups that pushed back on HSIA's request.
"Every day that passes is another day someone's health is put at risk from the exposures EPA is proposing to address," said the Environmental Defense Fund's Jennifer McPartland in a statement.
The rules identify "clear-cut cases of unreasonable risk to health, based on several years of review and opportunity for public input," she continued.
TCE is a volatile organic compound commonly used in vapor degreasing, and DCM has a variety of uses like paint and coating removal.
The proposals are based on risk assessments completed in 2014 that HSIA says do not reflect the scope required by TSCA and raise legal and policy issues.
Under the TSCA reform law enacted last summer, EPA is required within two years to mitigate the impact of any chemical it finds to carry an "unreasonable risk." TCE, DCM and NMP were included in EPA's top 10 chemicals to be evaluated under the new law (E&E News PM, Nov. 29, 2016).
In its public comment extension request, HSIA said moving the deadline would allow for "significant new scientific information" to come forward related to the rules.
HSIA specifically wants to redo a 2003 study EPA used to determine whether TCE poses health threats to fetuses.
In a comment on the proposed DCM rule, Elizabeth Hitchcock of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families called HSIA's rationale for the delay "flimsy."
Hitchcock also said the request reflects a "troubling focus on its members' commercial interests at the expense of timely action to eliminate a well-documented chemical threat."
The new public comment period closes May 19.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/19/stories/1060053296
-
NGOs Call for Stricter Regulations on Chlor-Alkali Industry
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Three NGOs have called on the US EPA to support an "expansive scope" for the risk evaluation of asbestos under the revised TSCA, in an effort to force the chlor-alkali industry to no longer use a manufacturing process that requires the substance.
The Healthy Building Network, Environmental Health Strategy Center and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, quoting the US Geological Survey, said the US chlor-alkali industry consumed 88% of asbestos imports in 2014, a number that jumped to 100% in 2016.
Asbestos is among the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation under the revised TSCA.
However, a comment by the Vinyl Institute to the EPA said the use of asbestos in semi-permeable diaphragms for chlor-alkali production is a commercial application that is carefully controlled and regulated throughout its lifecycle and is not associated with consumer use or exposure.
"Based on existing regulations and practices for environmental emissions and employee occupational exposure, coupled with the chlor-alkali industry’s continual record of successful compliance, this existing use does not present an unreasonable risk and further risk management action is unnecessary," the Vinyl Institute said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55261/ngos-call-for-stricter-regulations-on-chlor-alkali-industry
-
Recycled Plastic In Toys Exposes Children To Toxins — Study
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Flame-retardant chemicals are being found in some of the world's best-selling children's toys through recycled plastics, according to a study released today by a European environmental coalition.
In a global survey of products, the study found that 90 percent of the samples contained two toxic flame-retardant chemicals — octabromodiphenyl ether and decabromodiphenyl ether. Both are widely used in electrical equipment.
A third chemical, hexabromocyclododecane, was found in 43 percent of the samples. It's primarily used in building insulation.
The study comes from IPEN, an organization of environmental and health groups, and Arnika, an environmental group in the Czech Republic.
"Recycling materials that contain toxic chemicals contaminates new products, continues exposure, and undermines the credibility of recycling," said Pamela Miller, IPEN's co-chair.
The study examined the three chemicals in Rubik's Cubes and other children's products typically made from recycled plastics.
The authors are urging the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to set hazardous waste limits in addition to stopping the recycling of materials containing the chemicals.
Liz Hitchcock of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, which was not involved in the study, supported the coalition's recommendation for stronger standards "to protect us from recycling hazardous chemicals into children's toys."
"Recycling plastics that contain toxic chemicals leads to a newly made item contaminated with toxics," Hitchcock said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/19/stories/1060053291
-
Target Unveils New Packaging Sustainability Goals
Apr 18, 2017 | Retail Dive
By Daphne Howland
Target on Tuesday announced a new commitment to sustainability in packaging, a program first launched in 2013, through five new initiatives. The retailer said it exceeded its previous goals by coming up with 160 enhanced packaging designs that use fewer materials, more recycled content and were recyclable themselves, according to a company blog post.
The five new initiatives include: Eliminating expanded polystyrene in its packaging; Sourcing (at first through its own Spritz, Pillowfort, Cat & Jack, up & up, Smith & Hawken and Threshold store brands) from sustainably managed forests; Adding the standardized “How2Recycle label” on more packaging; Joining national recycling nonprofit the Recycling Partnership; and boosting demand for recyclable packaging by joining efforts of The Material Recovery Facility of the Future and Beyond 34.
Earlier this year, Target announced a major initiative to reduce chemicals in consumer goods (in both products and processes) — a move hailed by many environmental and consumer health groups. Dive Insight:
Sustainability is emerging as a major differentiator for Target this year. The new packaging goals announced Tuesday come after the announcement of a new forestry policy earlier this month, as well as a chemical-free effort announced in January.
Target's commitment to greener retail goes beyond similar campaigns spearheaded by its rivals. It has pledged to list ingredients in all owned and national brand products by 2020; will formulate beauty, baby care, personal care and household cleaning products without phthalates, propylparaben, butyl-paraben, formaldehyde, formaldehyde-donors or nonylphenol ethoxylates by the same time; will produce textiles without adding perfluorinated chemicals or flame retardants that are potential carcinogens or pose harm to guests, workers or communities by 2022; and will leverage its size and scale to work with vendors to make products and operations greener. Target also said it expects to invest up to $5 million in green chemistry innovation by 2022.
While “natural” products and packaging have been around for a while — and niche brands like The Honest Company are seizing on consumer interest in the natural trend — groups that have pressed for increased disclosure of chemical additives and decreased use of toxins in products praised Target’s move as something of a game-changer.
“This is a big deal,” Mike Schade, director of activist coalition Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families' Mind the Store campaign, told Retail Dive in an email. “Target deserves a lot of credit for expanding their commitment to drive harmful chemicals out of products. Target has set clear deadlines for action on priority chemicals of concern such as phthalates and flame retardants, and committed to publicly report on progress in implementing their new policy. The company to their credit also expanded their chemical reduction actions to other product categories such as textiles.”
Target's move is an even more vital shot across the bow in an era when consumers are better informed about chemicals and their effects on humans, especially on child development, Schade added.
http://www.retaildive.com/news/target-unveils-new-packaging-sustainability-goals/440766/
-
Recalls of EU Personal Care, Household Products Rise 60%
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The number of personal care and household product recalls in Europe increased by almost two thirds last year to 124.
The highest number were for bath gels, foams and soaps as detected through the EU’s Rapid Alert System for dangerous products (Rapex).
Rapex covers dangerous non-food products and ensures that information about products withdrawn from the market or recalled from consumers is quickly circulated between member states and the European Commission.
Seventy-six products were recalled in 2015. During 2016, within the cosmetics, personal care and household products (CPCH) category, chemicals constituted the biggest element of risk with 99 recalls – or 80% of the total – analysis by inspection and testing company SGS found. Microbiological risk was the cause for 17 recalls.
CPCH product recalls accounted for 6.5% of all EU market recalls in 2016, rising from 4% the year before, SGS said. The greatest number were in the following groups:
· bath/body wash and skin cleansing (gel, foam, soap and lotion) with 18;
· incense sticks and other scents with 13;
· skin-lightening products, creams with 13;
· tattoo inks with 10;
· hair dye and colouring products with 9; and
· skin products (cream, care) with 8.
Products from the US generated the largest share of CPCH recalls on the European market at 22, closely followed by India and China, with 19 and 16 respectively.
Germany was the leading notifying country, with 20 notifications in CPCH products. Measures ordered by public authorities, such as a ban on sales or product withdrawal, accounted for 59% of actions, compared with voluntary actions adopted by producers or distributors at 41%.
The latest Rapex report, which was published in March, showed that hazardous chemicals in products present the second biggest risk to health and safety in the European market, comprising 23% of all notifications in 2016. Injury from use of a product topped the risk categories at 25%.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55316/recalls-of-eu-personal-care-household-products-rise-60
-
Echa Calls for Evidence on Lead in Jewellery
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa is calling for evidence to identify information necessary to review the current restriction on lead in jewellery.
This is related to a possible migration limit, and whether the following four current derogations are still justified:
· crystal glass as defined in Annex I (categories 1, 2, 3 and 4) to Council Directive 69/493/EEC;
· internal components of watch timepieces inaccessible to consumers;
· non-synthetic or reconstructed precious and semiprecious stones, unless they have been treated with lead or its compounds or mixtures containing these substances; and
· enamels, defined as vitrifiable mixtures resulting from the fusion, vitrification or sintering of minerals melted at a temperature of at least 500°C.
The deadline for providing input is 7 July.
In March, the Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi) analysed 143 pieces of jewellery and found that nearly a third of the marketed items tested contained levels of lead and cadmium above permitted levels.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55289/echa-calls-for-evidence-on-lead-in-jewellery
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chinese Companies Announce Mega Chemical Projects in Louisiana
Apr 19, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
A pair of Chinese companies recently announced two separate chemical plant projects slated for Louisiana that will be worth billions.
The first announcement came last week from Wanhua Chemical Group, one of the world’s largest producer of methylene biphenyl diisocyanate (MDI). After years of negotiations with Louisiana Economic Development (LED), the company landed a $4.3 million infrastructure grant to build a $1.12 billion chemical plant.
The company has yet to pinpoint an exact location for the complex but says it will be used to manufacture MDI, which is most often used to produce the kind of rigid polyurethane found in thermal insulators for freezers and refrigerators.
LED said that the project could produce as many as 170 direct and 945 indirect jobs.
Yuhuang Chemical Inc. also announced last week that it could end up spending billions more than projected to complete its current methanol project in St. James.
The company started work at the 1,300-acre site earlier this year and had originally estimated it would require $1.85 billion to finish construction. Now the company estimates the project will cost about $3 billion.
According to local media, Yuhuang projects that the first phase of construction will take three years and create as many as 1,200 jobs. Once the methanol plant is operational, the company plans to hire around 100 employees with an average salary around $85,000 a year.
The company also responded to public concerns about air pollution by asking the Environmental Protection Agency for an air permit with stricter rules on specific pollutants.
Chinese companies are being lured to the Gulf Coast region by the abundance of natural gas. A local economist recently commented that it is typically cheaper for the companies to make products in the U.S. and then ship those products to China, than to ship liquefied natural gas to Chinese plants.
The American Chemistry Council has estimated that as of March, about 62 percent of the 294 chemical projects that have been announced in the U.S. is from foreign companies. Those projects are valued at $179 billion.
https://www.chem.info/news/2017/04/chinese-companies-announce-mega-chemical-projects-louisiana
-
ExxonMobil, SABIC Choose South Texas Gulf Coast to Site World-Class Cracker
Apr 19, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
As anticipated, ExxonMobil Corp. and its Saudi Arabian partner agreed Wednesday to develop a world-class ethane steam cracker on the Texas Gulf Coast near Corpus Christi, a facility that if given final approval would be able to produce 1.8 million metric tons/year (mmty) of ethylene.
The proposed project, jointly owned by Saudi Basic Industries Corp., aka SABIC, is to be sited in San Patricio County in South Texas, feeding a monoethylene glycol unit and two polyethylene units. The cracker, which as planned may be the largest in the world, is one of 11 projects ExxonMobil has announced as part of its 10-year, $20 billion Growing the Gulf initiative.
"This decision represents a significant milestone for both the local community and the state of Texas," said ExxonMobil Chemical Co. President Neil Chapman. "We wish to thank local and state officials who have been instrumental in the site selection process, as well as everyone in the community who attended meetings to learn more about the project and provided us with constructive feedback. We will continue listening to local residents and businesses and look forward to continuing to work together."
Following months of at times contentious debate and public protests, leaders in the rural Coastal Bend county last month said they would welcome the steam cracker. The Gregory-Portland Independent School District Board voted 6-0 to provide tax abatements to the project for more than 15 years, which followed a tax break agreed to by the San Patricio County Commission.
Four sites were under consideration for the cracker, with San Patricio the only one under advanced study. Another site under consideration was in Victoria County, north of San Patricio, as well as Louisiana's St. James and Ascension parishes.
The proposed facility could generate thousands of jobs during the construction phase, and once in operation it would provide 600 full-time jobs and 3,500 indirect jobs. In addition, ExxonMobil has estimated the cracker would create more than $22 billion in economic output during the construction phase alone, with $50 billion-plus in economic output during the first six years of operations.
ExxonMobil Chemical is one of the largest petrochemical companies worldwide, with more than 90% of its chemical capacity integrated with large refineries or natural gas processing plants.
With the site selection completed, the partners now plan to apply for the necessary air and wastewater permits from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Each company would make a final investment decision about the facility once the required permits have been granted.
"We are focused on geographic diversification to supply new markets," said SABIC CEO Yousef Abdullah Al-Benyan. "The proposed venture would capture competitive feedstock, capitalize on the growing global demand for ethylene-based products, and reinforce SABIC’s strong position in the value chain."
SABIC, which operates in more than 50 countries, ranks among the world's top petrochemical companies, and is a market leader in producing polyethylene, polypropylene, advanced thermoplastics, glycols, methanol and fertilizers.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said with ExxonMobil and SABIC's decision to pursue permits for the proposed facility, the state "has shown the business world that our state is the place where innovation and ingenuity thrive. This decision by SABIC and ExxonMobil is a tremendous win for not just San Patricio County, but for the entire state of Texas. This record-breaking project illustrates that our business climate is exactly what leading and growing companies are seeking when investing in their future."
The ethane cracker, if built, would join a bevy of South Texas infrastructure projects in San Patricio and adjacent Nueces County -- greenfields and expansions -- centered around a surfeit of U.S. natural gas and oil output, particularly from the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale.
The Port of Corpus Christi, the nation's sixth largest, is in the process of extending and deepening the La Quinta Ship Channel to make way for more trade, including liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, expanded petrochemical deliveries and continuing support for an already extensive Gulf of Mexico oil and gas business.
One of the biggest projects underway is by Corpus Christi Liquefaction LLC, a subsidiary of Cheniere Energy, which is developing an estimated $13 billion LNG export terminal with production capacity of up to 13.5 mmty. Trains 1 and 2 are underway, and the third train is permitted.
Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s Oxy Ingleside Energy Center LLC, which began oil loading last year, is sited at the former Naval Station Ingleside in San Patricio County. The $55 million project is designed to export LNG and liquefied petroleum gas.
Among the many pipelines scheduled to terminate around Corpus Christi, which is in Nueces County, is NAmerico Energy Holdings LLC’s newly formed Pecos Trail Pipeline Co., a 468-mile intrastate gas system originating in the Permian. As well, DCP Midstream LP and a unit of Kinder Morgan Inc. are building the Gulf Coast Express Pipeline Project to carry gas from the Permian to Agua Dulce, which is near Corpus in Nueces County.
In addition, Buckeye Partners LP earlier this month said it would hold a binding open season in 3Q2017 for the proposed South Texas Gateway, an oil pipeline that would carry Permian crude to Corpus for refining and export. As well, Epic Pipeline Co. LLC in March began offering capacity for a proposed crude/condensate pipeline that would run from the Permian to Corpus.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110168-exxonmobil-sabic-choose-south-texas-gulf-coast-to-site-world-class-cracker
-
EPA Launches Review Of Methane Rule
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
The Trump administration announced it will reconsider Clean Air Act regulations that directly limit emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
U.S. EPA outlined its decision in a letter to industry groups that petitioned the agency to reconsider the June 3 rule. EPA also announced a 90-day stay on compliance requirements.
The Texas Oil and Gas Association, the American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups criticized the potential costs of the regulations and called them unnecessary.
Companies have long called for addressing methane via voluntary measures. They also objected to specific provisions, including the inclusion of low-production wells.
As part of the reconsideration process, EPA will provide opportunity for public comment on issues raised in the petitions, the agency said.
Administrator Scott Pruitt said EPA is continuing to follow through with President Trump's March 28 "energy independence" executive order, which directed the agency to review methane regulations.
"American businesses should have the opportunity to review new requirements, assess economic impacts and report back, before those new requirements are finalized," Pruitt said.
EPA actions against methane were a key part of the Obama administration's goal of lowering emissions from the oil and gas industry between 40 and 45 percent by 2025 compared with 2012 levels (Greenwire, May 12).
Environmentalists argue that the regulations played a vital role in falling rates of methane emissions during the Obama administration (Climatewire, April 19).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/19/stories/1060053295
-
Methane Rule Will Cost Less, Help Less Than Expected — Study
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Finding and fixing methane leaks won't help the atmosphere nearly as much as U.S. EPA had predicted, a new analysis finds.
The study from Stanford University focused on the effectiveness of EPA's requirement that operators of new and modified oil and gas facilities find and repair all possible methane leaks within a specific time frame. EPA estimated that rule would cost $530 million. At the same time, it would provide $690 million in climate benefits, preventing the release of 0.46 million metric tons of methane by 2025.
Researchers, however, say both estimates are overblown.
"[The mandate] is not going to cost as much as EPA thinks, but it also might not save as much gas as EPA thinks it will save," said postdoctoral researcher Arvind Ravikumar, who led the study, published today in Environmental Research Letters.
Ravikumar and his co-author, Adam Brandt, found that the agency rule would cost EPA 27 percent less than the agency had predicted in its own analysis. At the same time, the emissions reductions that facilities could achieve through detecting and plugging methane leaks were much more variable, with reductions that were in certain instances 20 to 50 percent lower than EPA's estimates. They based their results by using computer modeling to analyze publicly available data on oil and gas facilities.
The study comes as EPA is reviewing the rule as part of President Trump's recent executive order calling for an evaluation of any regulations that may curtail domestic energy development. The mandate is part of the updated 2012 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), which were finalized last year.
Ravikumar said the reason their results are so different is that EPA overestimated the effectiveness of using infrared cameras for detecting methane leaks.
"EPA's assumption was if an operator uses this technology two times per year, they will reduce leaks 60 percent. If they do it four times per year, it would be an 80 percent reduction," he said.
The cameras help operators to see the potent greenhouse gas, which is invisible to the naked eye. The agency suggested the use of the cameras as an alternative to an older approach for detecting volatile organic compound leaks.
While the technology is an important tool, Ravikumar said the cameras have their limitations. The researchers found weather changes significantly affected how well operators were able to detect methane leaks.
"The assumption before was that this was not a big deal. What we did here was to really quantify how much of an effect weather conditions will have," he said.
The rule would be less expensive to implement precisely because the infrared cameras are not as good at detecting leaks as EPA had assumed. Instead of facilities repairing hundreds of detected leaks, they will be paying to repair something closer to 10 leaks, Ravikumar said.
But the researchers said they don't want to suggest that using the cameras is not a good way for the oil and gas industry to detect leaks.
"In general, we found that using infrared cameras is a reasonably cost-effective way to detect methane emissions; you can get a lot of CO2-equivalent gas deductions with relatively little effort," Brandt said.
Instead, they said, variation in emissions reductions among facilities shows that facilities might be better able to reduce emissions with a more tailor-made approach. They suggest EPA should use an alternative regulatory framework that is more flexible and allows oil and gas companies the use of emerging leak detection technologies. This would allow operators to adopt detection methods that are progressively cheaper and less labor-intensive to use, like mounted cameras or equipment sensors that allow operators to track methane emissions remotely.
"Instead of mandating a particular approach, we should set a target for allowable emissions and allow producers to use whichever one they find most cost-effective," said Brandt.
"We are not proposing a performance-based target with no consequences; we are proposing this with sensible and credible consequences," he added.
Mark Brownstein, vice president of the Climate and Energy Program at the Environmental Defense Fund, noted that much of the variability the researchers outlined was based on how operators performed the tests, and the Stanford study substantiated that when companies do leak measurements correctly, there are "tremendous" benefits detecting and repairing leaks.
He added that EPA had included a provision allowing companies to get an exemption to use new technologies that reduce methane equally well to or more effectively than using infrared cameras. While a performance-based standard "makes a great deal of sense," he said, there isn't a lot of technology currently available that would make the standard possible.
"If there is room for improvement here, it's in providing greater guidance to companies in terms of how the field inspections are to be done," Brownstein said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/04/19/stories/1060053263
-
Energy Executives Hold Secret Meetings On Trump's Rollbacks
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
As President Trump moves to roll back several Obama-era environmental regulations, some energy executives are holding quasi-secret meetings to discuss what's next.
Last month, Royal Dutch Shell PLC convened a quasi-secret meeting about a "cleaner energy" future with other energy companies including Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and Apache Corp. (Energywire, April 18).
Now it turns out that the University of Houston's Bauer College of Business hosted a similar meeting.
Topics of conversation at the meeting included the value of the Paris climate accord, pipeline permitting obstacles and working with environmentalists rather than against them.
"The decision to dismantle environmental regulations tends to stir up grassroots activism without significant benefit in terms of returns for the oil and gas industry," wrote University of Houston professor Chris Ross and Interim Vice Chancellor Ramanan Krishnamoorti in a summary of the meeting (David Hunn, Fuel Fix, April 17). — MJ
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/19/stories/1060053237
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Enviros Butt Heads At Safety Rule Delay Hearing
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Chemical industry representatives and environmental groups clashed this morning at a public hearing on U.S. EPA's proposed delay in implementing new safety regulations.
Industry officials cheered the potential extra time to look at rule changes to the Risk Management Program.
The delay would give EPA and the public "the time necessary to review all relevant facts and data to determine whether new regulations, if any, are needed to further reduce the risk of accidental chemical releases," Bill Erny of the American Chemistry Council said at the hearing.
The proposed effective date of the regulations, which could apply to as many as 12,500 chemical plants, would be February 2019, two years later than originally scheduled (Greenwire, March 31).
The regulations are intended to strengthen accident prevention requirements, protect firefighters and other first responders from chemical exposure and increase information availability.
EPA issued the new regulations after a 2013 chemical fire at a Texas fertilizer facility killed 15 people (Greenwire, April 24, 2013).
Several industry representatives, including Erny and Matthew Hodges of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, noted that the regulations stem from what was thought to have been an accidental chemical release at the facility but turned out to be arson.
Erny testified that the disclosure of sensitive chemical information under the proposed rules could "unintentionally invite similar criminal acts."
Additionally, industry officials argue that current requirements have been effective in reducing accidental releases.
"The original rule has proven to be very effective in preventing accidental releases, according to EPA's own data, while the revised rule would negatively impact the safety and security of our facilities," said AFPM President and CEO Chet Thompson in a statement.
Environmental groups urged EPA to continue with the rules as planned, saying they are modest, common-sense and necessary for safety.
The public has "lived in the shadow of danger for too long," said Madeleine Foote of the League of Conservation Voters.
Foote added that 1 in 3 children attends school in a vulnerability zone of a hazardous facility.
"EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt again demonstrated that his focus is on protecting the profits of chemical manufacturers and refineries, rather than protecting firefighters, emergency medical technicians, workers, and the lives of 134 million Americans living near dangerous chemical facilities," said Michele Roberts of the Environmental Justice Health Alliance in a statement.
The public hearing continues this afternoon, and written public comments are due by May 19.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/19/stories/1060053282
-
DHS Chief Kelly: Infrastructure Is 'Being Bombarded' By Hackers
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Retired Marine Gen. John Kelly called hackers "a tremendous danger to our American way of life" yesterday in his first public speech since winning confirmation as secretary of Homeland Security in January.
"They target our critical infrastructure," he warned at an event hosted by the George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security in Washington. "Systems throughout America are being bombarded on a daily, even hourly basis — our water treatment plants, our transportation systems, our electric grid, our financial sectors and everything in between."
Kelly asked audience members to think about "what would happen if a major American city lost power," navigation systems went dead or the stock market crashed under pressure from a sophisticated cyberattack.
"We rely on technology for everything, from our coffee makers to running global corporations. But this reliance — and perhaps overreliance — brings risks," Kelly said, noting that he considers the consequences of digital threats "no less significant than threats from the physical world."
Kelly touched on a range of homeland security concerns in his prepared remarks, from homegrown terrorism to drug smuggling and human trafficking. At times, the Marine veteran grew combative, seeking to "set the record straight" in the face of "inaccurate" reporting and critiques from Congress.
"If lawmakers do not like the laws that we enforce, that we are charged to enforce, that we are sworn to enforce, then they should have the courage and the skill to change those laws, otherwise they should shut up and support the men and women on the front lines," Kelly said, drawing applause from an auditorium packed with current and former Department of Homeland Security officials, students and journalists.
But he went on to soften his tone somewhat, crediting Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) for his "very engaged" staff tackling the cybersecurity dilemma during a question-and-answer session with Frank Cilluffo, former special assistant to the president for Homeland Security.
"The secretary is right that McCaul is one of the best people on these issues and one of the most knowledgeable on the Hill," said Betsy Cooper, executive director of the Berkeley Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity at the University of California. "It shows that [Kelly] is getting spun up on this issue. ... [I]t seems like he's getting comfortable with the big players. I think that's a good sign that we're going to see more engagement going forward."
Kelly suggested that solving digital threats could only come through partnering "to the greatest degree possible, with commercial concerns," citing his own recent meeting with Microsoft Corp. executives in Seattle.
Still, he offered no timeline for a delayed executive order on cybersecurity from President Trump.
"Standing by with bated breath — can't wait," Kelly said of that widely anticipated action (Energywire, Jan. 25).
"He might be holding his breath for a while," said Cooper, who noted that the order is "long overdue."
The Trump administration "now have leadership in the White House in this area, so it would be an excellent time to move that [order] forward," she added.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/19/stories/1060053250
-
EPA Cites Trump Energy Order In Bid To Delay Utility MACT Suit Arguments
Apr 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA is citing President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) on reducing energy industry regulatory burdens as one of the reasons why it says a federal appeals court should halt argument in two pending suits over the Obama-era utility air toxics rule, saying it is assessing whether the rule is subject to potential revision under the order.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) on EPA's behalf late April 18 filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to delay the scheduled May 18 oral argument in Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, et al. The case challenges the previous administration's final cost assessment underpinning the agency's declaration that the utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule was “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act.
DOJ notes that a slew of groups that intervened in the suit to defend the rule oppose the motion, including “clean” utilities Exelon Corporation and Calpine Corporation, public health and environmental groups including the American Lung Association, Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund, and state and local litigants including Massachusetts, Virginia, California, and cities including Baltimore, New York and Chicago.
However, the groups that filed the petitions for judicial review of the rule -- including Murray Energy, the utility group ARIPPA, and several states such as Texas and West Virginia -- support the motion.
In a separate April 18 motion, DOJ also asked the court to postpone argument slated to take place the same day in a related case, ARIPPA v. EPA, which consolidates utilities' and environmentalists' lawsuits challenging the Obama administration's denial of petitions to reconsider certain aspects of the rule. The filing in Murray is more extensive, and the filing in ARIPPA cites that motion and notes that the two cases have significant overlap.
DOJ says that ARIPPA and the power sector organization Utility Air Regulatory Group support the motion, while the Chesapeake Climate Action Network will file a response in opposition.
Ann Weeks, legal director of the Clean Air Task Force, another environmental group that opposes any delay in the suits, said in an April 18 press release that “[d]elaying the argument in the utility MACT case serves no public purpose whatsoever.”
In addition, an industry attorney told Inside EPA earlier this week that EPA could struggle to convince the court to grant the motions given that oral argument is only a month away -- and that EPA has already filed a brief in defense of the cost assessment.
However, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's request to postpone argument in litigation over a 2015 rule tightening the federal ozone standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb, just eight business days before argument was set to take place. Still, the court in that decision said that it “disfavors” filing to delay argument and said the court should “be notified promptly when a potential issue arises that affects the date of oral argument.”
EPA's Arguments
In the Murray Energy case, EPA attempts to justify the delay request by citing Trump's EO 13783, which calls on EPA and other agencies to reconsider rules that pose “undue” regulatory burdens on the energy sector. The agency is currently reviewing whether the supplemental cost assessment for the utility MACT is potentially subject to the order, according to DOJ's motion.
DOJ also says the delay in argument -- known as a “continuance” -- is warranted because “recently-appointed EPA officials in the new Administration will be closely scrutinizing the Supplemental Finding to determine whether it should be maintained, modified, or otherwise reconsidered.”
The Obama EPA issued the utility MACT cost finding in response to a Supreme Court ruling that faulted the agency for not considering costs in its initial determination that the rule was “appropriate and necessary” under the air law. The supplemental finding said that the rule was still valid after weighing the costs, but critics of the rule highlighted what they claimed were several flaws in how EPA conducted the cost review.
DOJ says the supplemental finding “implicates significant legal and policy issues about a [Clean Air Act] rule of national importance -- issues that new EPA officials will need time to carefully review.”
To further bolster its case for delaying argument while it reviews a prior administration's rule, DOJ cites a number of federal court rulings to argue that, “Agencies have inherent authority to reconsider past decisions and to revise, replace or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law and supported by a reasoned explanation.”
In the ARIPPA filing, DOJ references the Murray filing that was submitted roughly an hour earlier and says that the overlap between the cases -- including the fact they are slated for oral argument the same day -- warrants putting both arguments on hold while the agency considers potential changes to the rules.
“Because both cases relate to the same EPA rulemaking, and because EPA’s actions with regard to the Supplemental Finding could impact some or all of the issues in this case, it was appropriate for the two cases to be scheduled for oral argument at the same time and before the same panel, and therefore oral argument in this case should also be continued,” according to DOJ's motion.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-cites-trump-energy-order-bid-delay-utility-mact-suit-arguments
-
Energy Attorney Weissman Says Trump Order Could Impact Nearly All Environmental Regulation
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E TV
Could President Trump's recent executive action on climate and energy have impacts that are so far-reaching, they could potentially affect almost all environmental regulations with ties to energy? During today's OnPoint, Andrew Weissman, senior counsel at Pillsbury Law and founder of EBW Analytics, an energy market research and analysis group, explains why he believes the EO is a game changer for regulation, litigation and the options available for industry.
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Andrew Weissman, a senior counsel at Pillsbury Law and founder of EBW Analytics, an energy market research and analysis group. Andrew, thank you for joining me.
Andrew Weissman: My pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Andrew, the Trump administration in its first 100 days has taken some pretty dramatic steps on energy and climate that are counter to what we saw, of course, during the Obama administration. You believe the impacts of the executive action could be far-reaching. Potentially, almost every environmental regulation that affects energy in any way could be impacted. Talk a bit about what you see coming ahead on regulation and litigation in terms of energy and environment policy.
Andrew Weissman: It's energy regulations across the board. They don't even have to be specifically environmental regulations.
What I think is particularly important is provisions in President Trump's March 28 executive order. That executive order has a very high profile because it's the executive order that it contained all the provisions rolling back President Obama's Climate Action Plan, but I think there's actually a more important set of provisions in the executive order that deserve significantly more attention. That's actually the first two pages of the executive order.
There are really two parts. The first part, as you were indicating, specifically requires every federal agency and department, no limitations whatsoever, to review all its existing regulations, policies, guidelines, orders and practices and assess quickly whether they in any way burden energy development, and if they do, within a very short time frame those agencies are required to determine whether they should potentially rescind entirely or modify potentially in very major ways those regulations in order to facilitate energy development and economic growth.
Monica Trauzzi: What is that metric for determining whether energy development is negatively impacted?
Andrew Weissman: Well, when I put my lawyer's hat on, that's actually a particularly interesting aspect of it because the way I interpret it, and we'll see how all this is applied in practice, but the way I interpret it, in effect it's an effort to create — it's almost a new legal standard for determining where the line ought to be drawn in regulating industry.
Specifically, what it does is basically, again, initially at least, it's aimed at existing regulations, policies and orders and, therefore, presumably regulations, policies and orders that are consistent with existing statutes or whatever authority the agency was using.
What the executive order says, basically, is that's not good enough. You need to go back a couple of steps, and you need to make a new assessment of whether that regulation or order burdens energy development or use in any way, and if you do, then the standard you apply, it's a very broad one, it's a public interest standard that essentially contemplates that you will weigh and balance all the factors that caused you to draw the regulatory line here to begin with and whether it's really in the public interest to be that stringent or whether when you take into account the public interest and the effects on energy development, you should potentially rescind the regulation entirely or at least relax it potentially in a major way.
Monica Trauzzi: Then, of course, all of that will be challenged in court.
Andrew Weissman: Probably over and over and over again. We'll see. It's possible there'll be generic challenges to these orders, but I think it's more likely that what will happen is every single time an agency applies this, at least where it's doing so pursuant to an existing statute, that its application of this new standard is likely to be challenged in court.
Monica Trauzzi: What kind of door does this open for industry in terms of how they act?
Andrew Weissman: Well, my view, again, it depends how this is applied in practice, but this executive order goes many steps further than the previous Trump administration executive orders relating to regulation, and it opens the door for industry and potentially others to seek reconsideration basically of dozens or hundreds of regulations by almost every administrative agency.
It is directed in part to environment regulation. There's no question about that. If you look so far, the environmental regulation that's received the most attention is EPA regulation. For EPA, such a broad area, there's still dozens and dozens of areas where this can be applied where there's no action, but includes every other federal agency that regulates in any way health issues, environmental issues, safety issues, and I think it potentially can be applied much more broadly, even to agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Monica Trauzzi: Talk a bit about the FERC element.
Andrew Weissman: Well, again, this is all very early, so this is my thinking. We'll see whether it evolves in the way that at least it might, but if you think about the FERC, again, there are many different ways this executive order could be applied.
One of the most straightforward, and an area where I think it's certain to be applied, relates to the policies and practices regarding approval of pipelines. There are many, many changes that can be made there that industry might seek.
I think that there's room at least for creative lawyers or creative companies within the energy industry to use it even more broadly. The FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over the market rules for the power markets in about 70 percent of the country at this point. Those rules have a huge effect on energy development and use. They affect nuclear. They affect coal. They have huge effects for renewables, and I think that there is room here to go before the FERC and say, "FERC, you've never really explicitly looked at the extent to which your market rules are impeding energy development." They are in a very major way.
If you look at current price levels in the structured wholesale markets around the country, they're actually virtually all the forward curve, the future strip is actually too low to justify any more construction of new power plants.
The FERC market rules have actually had a major role in periling the nuclear industry and forcing the shutdown of a number of nuclear plants for which I think there's actually a very strong justification to operate them, and it's certainly affected some coal-fired plants, and within the renewable community, I think there's concern that the current market rules actually may slow renewable development very soon.
I think that a possible use of this rule could be critical is to say, "FERC, you have to review all your current market rules and consider potentially major changes so that they will be more consistent with the goals of the president's order promoting energy use and economic growth."
Monica Trauzzi: We'll be talking to FERC later this week, and I'll be asking specifically about this.
Andrew Weissman: I'll definitely pay a lot of attention to the interview when you conduct it.
Monica Trauzzi: One final question before we run out of time, on the Clean Power Plan, because that is an element of the executive order, of course. What are the steps that you're watching most closely, and what are the key benchmarks that you'll be looking out for? Then there's this question of whether it's just rescinded and/or potentially rewritten.
Andrew Weissman: Well, I think there's a major issue. That's actually an area that's near and dear to my heart, because I helped pioneer the use of emissions trading in the United States years ago under an earlier federal program.
It remains to be seen. I think the agency obviously is going to initiate a rulemaking important issue that I'm sure you're tracking closely regarding whether there'll be a court ruling first, but the review of the regulation is certainly gonna occur. It will be very interesting to see the kind of record that's developed and whether EPA can actually justify relaxing the current program, which really doesn't have all that much bite.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it right there. Certainly a lot to watch.
Andrew Weissman: Definitely.
Monica Trauzzi: It won't be a boring four years.
Andrew Weissman: No question.
Monica Trauzzi: Thank you so much for coming on the show.
Andrew Weissman: Thanks for having me. Thanks, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
https://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2219/transcript
-
Democrats Call for Investigation of US EPA Leadership
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Democratic members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology have called for an open investigation into whether senior political appointees at the US EPA have intentionally misled Congress.
In a letter addressed to committee chairman Lamar Smith (R–Texas), the minority party cited a media report alleging that EPA leadershipsilenced agency employees over the cost of implementing a proposed bill – the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act.
Reportedly, agency staff believed the transparency measure would cost at least $250m a year, but those comments were not included in the official EPA comments sent to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Based on the information it received, the budget office concluded the bill would only cost $1m annually to implement.
"This is a very serious matter, and it deserves the Congress’s immediate action," said Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–Texas) in the letter calling for an investigation of senior political appointees.
"Each and every member of Congress relies upon forthright agency comments to evaluate the merits of proposed legislation. If executive branch officials are intentionally misleading Congress, then it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for members of the legislative branch to effectively do our jobs."
Mr Smith did not provide a comment by press time as to whether the committee will take up an investigation.
The call for action in the House follows a request from Senate democrats for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to release all documents related to the agency’s analysis of the HONEST Act (HR 1430).
The measure passed the House by a 228-194 vote on 29 March. It has been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
It is one of several bills introduced in the House and Senate aimed at improving the agency’s transparency and its use of science.
If it becomes law, it would block the EPA from proposing, finalising or disseminating regulations, assessments, guidance and other actions, unless all scientific and technical information relied upon to develop them is:
· the "best available science";
· specifically identified; and
· publicly available in a manner "sufficient for independent analysis [and] substantial reproduction of research results".
https://chemicalwatch.com/55260/democrats-call-for-investigation-of-us-epa-leadership
-
Financial Regulation Bill Could End Most Climate Resolutions
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
A top House Republican and one of Washington's most powerful lobbying groups are working to dismantle a tool investors use to challenge companies on issues like climate change: the corporate ballot box.
Every year, investors of public companies in the United States send letters to firms in which they own stock, urging them to pay attention to a given topic, consider a new concept or change how they run their business. The resolutions are then put to a vote at the companies' next meetings and, if they pass, are implemented. It's called the shareholder proposal process, and it involves hundreds, if not thousands, of resolutions annually.
The "Financial CHOICE Act" — a sweeping bill sponsored by House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) that aims to replace the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act — aims to hobble that process.
The latest version of the bill would change Securities and Exchange Commission rules to bar any investor with less than a 1 percent stake in a company from filing a resolution, according to a committee memo. At some companies, 1 percent could be tens of thousands of dollars. At others, it could be billions.
"This is basically ripping up the rule of law, throwing it on the ground and stomping on it," said Heidi Welsh, executive director of the Sustainable Investments Institute, a research firm for institutional investors. "It would kill the process."
The Business Roundtable, a lobby group for executives from dozens of Fortune 500 companies, issued a list of similar suggestions last year, also including the 1 percent restriction. The group wrote a letter to the White House in February, calling the "shareholder proposal process" a top federal "concern."
The change to the SEC rule could upend the entire shareholder process, cut off lines of communication between businesses and their stockholders and effectively squelch criticism, ideas or feedback from the vast majority of investors if it adopted a 1-percent-ownership cutoff rule.
Such an action at the agency — whether forced by a law Congress passed or through a new series of rules — could also wipe away the dozens and dozens of climate change resolutions filed annually from ever being heard.
"It's also not a good business idea," Welsh said, adding that mainstream investors and Wall Street companies are studying environmental issues because it makes economic sense, not because they care about nature. "Michael Bloomberg doesn't do stuff just because he thinks it's nice."A 'radical repression of dissent'?
At the world's top companies, like $745 billion Apple Inc., most investors would be barred if Hensarling's bill became law. Stockholders would need more than $7 billion worth of shares to submit a proposal at Apple, and that wouldn't guarantee it would pass, since companies almost always oppose resolutions and investors almost always vote their stocks the way management recommends.
Even the New York City pension fund system, which files dozens of resolutions every year and has hundreds of billions of dollars in assets, wouldn't be able to meet the threshold at some major corporations, according to Welsh.
Public companies have seen a surge of hundreds of resolutions filed in recent years about social and environmental issues, including climate change, methane emissions, oil spills and local pollution. After the Paris climate summit in December of 2015, resolutions about climate change reached an all-time high of 94 (Climatewire, March 9, 2016).
Many investors and researchers say resolutions help bring to light new ideas and risks to a board of directors, while companies and executives have been known to call smaller investors who file resolutions "nuisance" stockholders. And the majority of petitions, which address diverse topics such as religious discrimination, pay equity and political spending, come from small investors.
A spokesman for Hensarling did not respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for the Business Roundtable also declined interview requests but said the SEC process needs to updated so it can "work better for shareholders with a meaningful, long-term economic interest."
"In too many cases, activist investors with insignificant stakes in public companies make shareholder proposals that pursue social or political agendas unrelated to the interests of the shareholders as a whole," Mark Costa, CEO of Eastman Chemical Co. and a Business Roundtable member, wrote in February to Gary Cohn, a top economic adviser to President Trump.
Investment groups that frequently petition U.S. companies about social and environmental causes are worried about losing their voices.
"We're really concerned about it," Josh Zinner, CEO of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a network of long-term investors founded in 1971.
Staffers at ICCR talk with companies and bring up how complex and long-term themes — like human trafficking, mineral extraction in conflict zones and child labor — not only trigger moral questions but also raise red flags financially.
"We're at the table, year in, year out, reminding companies about reputational and legal risks," Zinner said. Breaking apart this feed of incoming information would be tantamount to gutting a level of security, he said.
"This is very shortsighted," he added. "It's an early warning system for companies to allow them to see the risk."
As a representative of smaller investors at the environmental advocacy group As You Sow, Danielle Fugere said outsiders with small stakes in a company can hardly expect to push around massive corporations. Still, she said, the proposed rules would amount to censorship if ever enforced.
"Essentially, they're saying we want to muzzle shareholders ... the owners of the company," she said.
Welsh, who pores over piles of SEC documents filed each year, including messages back and forth between companies and their stockholders, was harsher.
"This is a radical repression of dissent," Welsh said. "Why would you put your head in the sand?" she asked. "It's just dumb."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/04/19/stories/1060053261
-
EPA Reports Emissions To The U.N. -- But For How Much Longer?
Apr 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell 2.3 percent in 2015 compared with the previous year, President Trump's U.S. EPA has reported to the U.N. climate regime.
The 633-page report to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change satisfies a requirement of the 25-year-old treaty that the United States submit an updated inventory of its greenhouse gas emissions and sinks. The inventory covers the years 1990 to 2015.
The United States ratified the UNFCCC in 1992 and has since periodically submitted reports showing its efforts to keep emissions to a level that will help the world avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
"Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner," the inventory notes, quoting the UNFCCC text.
But while the Friday transfer was routine, it's also notable given the Trump administration's position on climate change. Both the president and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have disputed the scientific consensus of man-made warming, and Trump's budget blueprint for fiscal 2018 proposes the virtual elimination of EPA's climate programs.
An EPA internal document from March shows a proposal to cut $19.4 million from EPA's climate change research that is conducted in coordination with the U.S. Global Change Research Program, doing away with 47 full-time equivalent employees (Climatewire, April 4).
"Obviously you need to have somebody home to do the work," said Jake Schmidt, international climate director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "If they zero out the climate office at EPA, it will be kind of hard to do that."
The report requires input from a wide variety of federal agencies and requires staff to process energy-sector data to produce a clearer picture of its emissions. Such inventories are conducted under guidelines from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in compliance with a mandatory reporting rule EPA finalized in October 2009.
Even if that rule stays in place and staff exist to prepare these periodic reports in the future, it's not clear yet that the United States will remain a party to the UNFCCC or to its 2015 Paris Agreement. The Trump White House is weighing options for drastically ratcheting down its commitment to international climate efforts, including an exit from the Paris deal or the broader U.N. negotiating process on climate. A meeting to discuss those possibilities was postponed yesterday, but a final decision is due to be announced late next month.
The inventory attributes the 2015 downtick in emissions to a shift from coal to natural gas in power generation, less power demand and a warm winter that lowered demand for heating fuels. Overall, the United States has reduced its emissions 11.5 percent since 2005, due mostly to economic trends.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/04/19/stories/1060053257
-
Policy Advisers Urge Trump to Keep U.S. in Paris Accord
Apr 19, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
President Trump’s most influential policy advisers are urging him to keep the United States in the landmark Paris climate accord of 2015, a move that would break one of his signature campaign promises and further downgrade the counsel of his senior strategist, Stephen K. Bannon.
Mr. Trump plans to make a final decision on the fate of the Paris agreement before a meeting of the Group of 7 leading economies at the end of May, according to Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary. A team of Mr. Trump’s principal advisers was scheduled to meet Tuesday afternoon at the White House to discuss the decision with the aim of recommending a path forward, but the meeting was canceled after some of the planned attendees flew with Mr. Trump to an event in Wisconsin, according to a White House spokeswoman.
The spokeswoman, Kelly Love, said the meeting was still expected to take place, although the exact timing was unclear.
On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump vowed to “cancel” the climate deal, and his most politically conservative advisers, including Mr. Bannon, have pushed him to follow through. But Mr. Bannon’s influence has waned in recent weeks, while authority has risen for Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who advocate staying in the accord.Continue reading the main story
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, the former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, has also spoken in favor of “keeping a seat at the table” in the climate pact, and in recent days, major corporations have stepped forward to embrace that position.
While no decision has been made, experts tracking it say that view is gaining traction.
“We do not currently believe the Trump administration plans to withdraw from either Paris agreement,” wrote Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington firm, in a memo to clients on Monday.
While Mr. Trump does not have the power to undo a multilateral United Nations accord, he could withdraw the world’s largest economy from the pact, weakening it substantially. Such a move would win cheers from the nation’s most powerful conservative political advocates, and give Mr. Trump bragging rights in coal country.
But withdrawing from the landmark accord that committed nearly every nation to take action against planet-warming emissions could create diplomatic blowback, while weakening American leadership in arenas far afield from energy and the environment.
Besides, keeping the United States’ name on the accord does not obligate the Trump administration to abide by the ambitious emissions-control pledges of Mr. Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama. At least one senior White House climate policy adviser, George David Banks, has advocated staying in the agreement while replacing the Obama plan with a weaker, more industry-friendly pledge.
Over recent weeks, Mr. Banks has asked top officials at several major corporations, including Exxon Mobil, who have similar views, to submit letters to the White House confirming their support for staying in the Paris deal, even if in a modified form.
In response, Peter Trelenberg, the manager of environmental policy and planning at Exxon Mobil, wrote to Mr. Banks, “Exxon Mobil supports the Paris agreement as an effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change.”
Royal Dutch Shell and BP, European companies with significant investments in the United States, have also endorsed the accord.
Last month, Representative Kevin Cramer, a Republican from oil-, gas- and coal-rich North Dakota, wrote, “The U.S. should present a new pledge that does no harm to our economy.” Mr. Cramer, an early supporter of Donald J. Trump, advised Mr. Trump on energy issues during his presidential campaign.
Colin Marshall, the chief executive of Cloud Peak, a major coal producer in Wyoming, the nation’s largest coal-mining state, also wrote to Mr. Trump: “By remaining in the Paris agreement, albeit with a much different pledge on emissions, you can help shape a more rational international approach to climate policy.”
Regardless of his decision, Mr. Trump has already undermined the United States’ ability to meet its Paris pledge. Mr. Obama declared that the United States would reduce its planet-warming carbon pollution about 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. Its primary policy for meeting that target would be the Clean Power Plan, a set of Environmental Protection Agency regulations designed to shutter hundreds of heavily polluting coal-fired power plants, the nation’s chief source of greenhouse emissions.
Last month, Mr. Trump directed Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, to begin the legal process of dismantling the Clean Power Plan. Whether or not the United States remains in the Paris pact, it almost certainly will not be able to meet its pledged pollution-reduction targets.
Mr. Pruitt has emerged as a leading voice for withdrawal from the Paris deal. Last week, he told Fox News, “It’s something we need to exit.”
That reflects the views of powerful conservative political advocacy groups such as Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by the influential libertarian brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch.
“What we say to the White House is that it’s clearly a terrible agreement for the American people,” said Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity.
That view is also backed by economists at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that has supplied the Trump administration with many of its policy proposals.
Harold G. Hamm, the chief executive of Continental Resources and a Trump campaign adviser, has also condemned the pact. “Cancel the Paris climate treaty and any other agreements entered into unilaterally and without the consent of Congress,” Mr. Hamm wrote in a letter to Mr. Trump before his inauguration.
Bob Murray, the chief executive of the coal company Murray Energy, who is personally close with the president, has also strongly criticized the deal.
Mr. Book, the analyst, noted that the risks of withdrawing from the Paris deal include not only diplomatic ill will, but also the possibility of trade reprisals. Countries that tax emissions of carbon dioxide pollution could place a carbon tariff on imports of American-made goods. The European Union currently charges polluters fees for carbon emissions, while China, Mexico and Canada are in the process of carrying out such programs.
“If the U.S. were to pull out, it would do so in the context that would invite trade reprisals,” Mr. Book said. “It could lead to a carbon tariff trade war.”
Daniel M. Bodansky, an expert in international environmental agreements at Arizona State University, said that remaining in the Paris deal but weakening the United States’ commitment could still have the effect of generating some ill will — but without the repercussions of trade sanctions.
“They could just submit a new plan,” he said. “People internationally would not be happy, but they’d be a lot less unhappy than if the U.S. actually pulled out.”
Clifford Krauss contributed reporting from Houston.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/us/politics/trump-advisers-paris-climate-accord.html?_r=0
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested