Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 24/05
-
Big Oil is Betting on Plastics. It May Be a Risky Bet.
May 23, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Myers Jaffe
Big Oil is betting on plastics. In a world awash with oil, and amid mounting consensus that demand for oil-based transport fuel for automobiles might decline over time, the world’s largest oil companies are counting on a rising need for petrochemicals.... -
Budget Calls for 30-Year Low in EPA Staff Levels
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
EPA staffing would plummet to its lowest levels since the mid-1980s, according to the Trump administration's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget. -
EPA Requests More Chemicals Staff, Paid in Part by Industry Fee
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The staffing levels and appropriations for the EPA's chemicals office would get a boost under President Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request—due, in part, to fees that chemical makers are expected to pay. -
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Consults on ACC Petition to Delist Three Silicone Substances
May 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Maine Department of Ecology is consulting on a petition from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to remove three silicone substances from the state’s list of chemicals of concern. -
NGOs Increasingly Using Devices to Identify Product Ingredients
May 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
NGOs are increasingly investing in technology which allows them to analyse and identify chemicals in products. -
Minnesota Guide on Teflon Chemicals Addresses Water Supplies
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
The Minnesota Department of Health updated its health advisory values for two industrial chemicals for public water supplies and private wells in two residential areas. -
Composite Wood Makers Get More Time to Comply With EPA Rule
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies making, importing, supplying and selling composite wood would get more time to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's formaldehyde emissions limits under a direct final rule the agency is scheduled to publish May 24. -
Groups Sue FDA Over Exemption For Food Additives
May 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A group of consumer, health and food safety NGOs are suing the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over a final rule which they claim allows new food additive chemicals into products, without having their safety properly assessed. -
EU Commission Seeks Cobalt Salts Restriction
May 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The European Commission has asked Echa to prepare a REACH restriction dossier, to protect workers from five carcinogenic cobalt salts used in industrial metal treatment. -
Echa, Cefic Assess Plastic Additives Use and Exposure
May 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A joint project by Echa and Cefic is expected to generate an inventory of substances used as plastic additives, by the end of the summer. This will include their technical functions. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA, Industry Pursue Settlement in Waste Generator Rule Case
May 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA and industry groups are asking a federal appeals court to stay industry's challenge to an Obama-era Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) rule governing hazardous waste generators, as they plan to engage in settlement discussions to resolve the groups' concerns about various provisions of the regulation. -
(ACC Mentioned) Lamar Smith and Selective Transparency: Why I’ll Be Livetweeting the EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting
May 23, 2017 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Michael Halpern
For the past few years, the Environmental Protection Agency has held a meeting with outside groups to discuss its annual scientific integrity report. -
EPA Delays Landfill Methane Rules to Reconsider Select Provisions
May 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has formally issued a 90-day stay of its methane standards for new and existing landfills while it reconsiders several provisions, targeting portions of the regulations it says were added “without the benefit of public comment” and that it intends to revise to enhance flexibility. -
Trump's Budget Calls for Even Cheaper Energy
May 23, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre & Darius Dixon
President Donald Trump’s budget proposal released Tuesday says lowering energy costs must be a national priority to benefit U.S. households — but that call's likely to fall flat with many oil, natural gas and power producers that have been struggling with the weak prices for their products in recent years. -
Trump Budget Proposes Deep Cuts in Energy Innovation Programs
May 23, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport & Brad Plumer
President Trump’s budget proposal for 2018 envisions a flurry of changes to domestic energy policy, reaping billions of dollars in one-time revenue from oil and gas resources while cutting research into future energy technologies that could pay long-term dividends. -
Budget Seeks Shutdown of 'Duplicative' Chemical Safety Board
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The Trump administration kept its earlier promise to propose eliminating the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, describing the independent federal agency as “largely duplicative” of other government departments in its proposed budget released May 23, even as the board sent its own request for a small funding increase. -
Trump Wants to Give CSB Money- To Phase Itself Out
May 23, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
President Trump's "skinny budget" shocked the U.S. Chemical Safety Board when it proposed zeroing out the agency. The White House budget request out today would fund the agency for fiscal 2018 with over $9 million — but there's a catch. -
States, Industry at Odds Over Crude by Rail Pressure Standard
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Six state attorneys general and petroleum industry groups are battling over a pressure standard for transporting crude oil by rail tank cars. -
Budget Chief: Trump Won't Continue Obama's ‘Crazy’ Spending on Climate
May 23, 2017 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
President Trump’s top budget official says that the administration will not continue former President Obama’s “crazy” spending on climate change science. -
Environmental Groups Jumping on Alaska LNG Docket
May 24, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The Alaska LNG project -- a pipeline and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal that would finally commercialize the state’s North Slope natural gas -- is seeing its FERC docket expand with mounting environmentalist objections to the project. -
Senators Spar Again Over EPA's Ozone Standard
May 24, 2017 | E&E News Daily
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA's 2015 ground-level ozone standard is: A) So strict that some parts of the United States may never be able to meet it, with potentially significant economic fallout. B) Not strong enough to fully protect public health. -
US is Leader in Climate Change Litigation- UN
May 23, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
The United States is at the forefront of a global increase in climate-change-related litigation, according to a report released today by the U.N. Environment Programme. -
China Joins EU, Canada in Backing Climate Deal Before Trump Plan
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marine Strauss & Brian Parkin
China, Canada and the European Union are joining forces to advance the Paris Agreement while President Donald Trump is still deciding whether the U.S. should stick with the landmark deal on climate change.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Big Oil is Betting on Plastics. It May Be a Risky Bet.
May 23, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Myers Jaffe
Big Oil is betting on plastics. In a world awash with oil, and amid mounting consensus that demand for oil-based transport fuel for automobiles might decline over time, the world’s largest oil companies are counting on a rising need for petrochemicals.
There’s some justification for that. McKinsey & Co.’s projected demand for oil to make petrochemicals shows a robust gain of 1.4% a year between now and 2050, or roughly 60% of the total demand rise expected for oil. As many as 3 million barrels a day of increased oil demand globally is expected to come from the chemicals sector between now and 2025 while demand from light-duty vehicles may be neutral to negative over the same period. As Chinese consumers embrace e-commerce, burgeoning consumer packaging demand can be expected. And, ironically, the very electric cars that consumers might choose to reduce environmentally harmful greenhouse gas emissions from internal combustion engines require specialty plastic casing to prevent batteries from overheating.
Exxon Mobil announced recently it was writing down its $20 billion Kearl Oil Sands Project, and told shareholders it would be investing a similar amount in refineries, petrochemicals and other projects on the U.S. Gulf Coast. And petrochemicals are now a cornerstone of ExxonMobil’s strategy to alter perceptions that the company is poorly positioned to compete long-term given its high-cost oil and gas reserve assets in the Arctic and Canada.
But Big Oil may find that the future for petrochemicals isn’t as rosy as its hopes. For one thing, the petrochemical sector is known for its cyclical overbuilding. This month, Dow Chemical abandoned plans to increase prices for polyethylene when it became clear that sufficient market demand was not apparent. More capacity from other competitors is due to come on line later this year, with bets that Chinese and Indian demand will absorb the chemicals. Petrochemical demand is highly dependent on GDP growth and any unexpected faltering of the global economy could create overcapacity virtually overnight, a crisis the petrochemical industry has experienced repeatedly in past decades.
Moreover, plastics themselves are an environmental problem. Increasingly, countries are looking to develop policies to curb their use. McKinsey suggests that the trend toward plastics recycling and design efficiency that reduces the amount of plastics needed per package could contribute to the phenomenon now referred to as peak oil demand. McKinsey’s peak demand scenario postulates that recycling alone could eliminate one quarter of oil use from plastics.
Many localities have banned the use of plastic bags in retail stores but other, more stringent policies may come to the fore in the future that could make the industry’s bet on petrochemicals riskier than it currently seems.
Will consumers remain on board with the rise in plastics pollution world-wide? Signs of a nascent global advocacy movement to address plastics pollution are emerging. The World Economic Forum with support from the United Nations, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Co. has published a plan to organize a global compact to reduce plastics use in the coming decades.
They warn that at least 8 million tons of plastics leak into the ocean each year, resulting in about 150 million tons of plastics pollution in the ocean today. If no action is taken, the ocean could contain as much as one ton of plastic for every three tons of fish by 2025. By 2050, the oceans would actually contain more plastics than fish. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the plastics sector would account for 15% of the total annual carbon budget under a 2 degrees warming scenario.
The new plan calls for a “circular future for plastics” based on the establishment of a global protocol that would promote innovation in intelligent plastics design, the promotion of renewable feedstocks (substitute bio-based products reliant on crops like cotton, corn and sugar cane) and recycling.
If such plastics conservation efforts take hold, the rosy scenarios behind Big Oil’s bet on plastics will need to be revised, but there will be more room for fish as well as better climate management for the rest of us.
https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/05/23/big-oil-is-betting-on-plastics-it-may-be-a-risky-bet/
-
Budget Calls for 30-Year Low in EPA Staff Levels
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
EPA staffing would plummet to its lowest levels since the mid-1980s, according to the Trump administration's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget.
The administration called for a 11,611-staff level at the Environmental Protection Agency in fiscal year 2018. That would mark a reduction of more than 3,000 employees, or roughly one-fifth of the current level. In 1984, EPA had 11,420 employees.
The EPA said the budget request's staff level and overall $2.6 billion budget reduction “supports the agency's return to a focus on core statutory work.” But the document is expected to meet significant resistance on Capitol Hill.
Shortly after its release, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the second-highest ranking Republican in the chamber, predicted the budget request will undergo change. And the top Republican appropriator for teh EPA also said lawmakers will exercise their power of the purse.
“I will work to provide our agencies with the resources necessary to fulfill their missions while also finding efficiencies to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used judiciously,” said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs House Appropriations’ Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies’ Subcommittee.
Targeted Cuts
The staffing cuts are linked to programs slated for elimination, with the administration putting climate initiatives firmly in its crosshairs.
The proposed budget would ax the agency's Global Change Research program, which supports climate change mitigation efforts. That would be put nearly 50 employees on the chopping block.
Greenhouse Gas Reporting voluntary programs are also targeted for elimination. The budget blueprint doesn't specific the amount of accompanying staff cuts, but an earlier version of the budget proposal said that elimination would bring about roughly 225 staff cuts. Those programs include Energy Star, Center for Corporate Climate Leadership, Coalbed Methane Outreach Program, Green Power Partnership and an array of others.
Some critics of the EPA applauded the aggressive stance.
“I see the first EPA budget as a good start. I think there's clearly a lot of excess spending and high employment levels at EPA that aren't needed,” Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Bloomberg BNA. “[President Donald Trump] wants to cut regulatory jobs that are not needed. The environment will be just fine if the EPA is getting leaner and strictly [does] things that Congress mandates.”
Ebell led Trump's EPA transition team. He and other EPA critics accused it of regulatory overreach under President Barack Obama.
Staff Cuts ‘Make Sense’
Both on the campaign trail and since Election Day, Trump has vowed to scale back the EPA.
The called-for cuts to programs would necessarily induce wide-ranging staff cuts, Ed Krenik, a Bracewell LLP attorney and former EPA congressional liaison in the George W. Bush administration, told Bloomberg BNA.
“If the staff reductions correlate with where they're eliminating programs, it kind of makes sense. If the programs don't exist, you don't need the people to run them,” he said. “They obviously sent the signal that the budget was going to be reduced.”
The proposed budget calls for roughly 50 staff cuts as part of environmental justice and minority business promotion programs, about 125 staff cuts to Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes programs, and more than 70 staff cuts tied to lead risk reduction efforts.
During the agency's last years in which it functioned at similar staff levels, it had a far smaller statutory portfolio, meaning the agency issued fewer regulations. Still, the agency operated then on a roughly $4 billion budget.
On the Heels of Cuts
Authorization for agency staff has already decreased by nearly 3,000 employees over the past 20 years, and many EPA supporters say the agency can't handle additional downsizing.
“We're at bare-bone staffing levels already,” John O'Grady, an EPA employee and union representative based in Chicago, told Bloomberg BNA. “This would bring us to a point where we would have to close regional offices and laboratory facilities.”
Current and former EPA officials have told Bloomberg BNA the agency is exploring the possibility of closing regional offices.
O'Grady said the threat of cuts could encourage EPA employees to take the agency up on a buyout proposal in the works. The agency aims to spend $12 million over the remaining four months of fiscal year 2017 on early retirement and lump-sum departure offerings, which would likely lead to a 400-to 500-employee reduction in staff levels.
Congress will have to authorize additional cuts, however. As part of the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill, lawmakers prohibited EPA from outright staff cuts. That process is likely to be contentious.
Budget lawmakers and leadership will first have to identify top-line budget numbers before the appropriations committees flesh out a specific allocation for EPA and other agencies, Krenik said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112450416&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112450416&jd=112450416
-
EPA Requests More Chemicals Staff, Paid in Part by Industry Fee
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The staffing levels and appropriations for the EPA's chemicals office would get a boost under President Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request—due, in part, to fees that chemical makers are expected to pay.
The administration's request for new staff and resources contrasts sharply with the president's fiscal year 2018 budget request that would significantly slash many other Environmental Protection Agency programs.
Industry fees authorized by the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 would pay for 53.7 of the 240.7 full-time employees the EPA is requesting for its chemical risk review and reduction program, according to the agency's Congressional Justification.
The EPA also has requested $65 million for the program—a $6.59 million increase in the amount the agency estimates it will receive compared with 2017 funding levels.
Anticipated industry fees would reimburse the EPA for some of its chemicals management expenditures. The TSCA amendments authorize the agency to collect fees of up to 25 percent, or $25 million—whichever is lower—of its costs for administering certain requirements of the law. The agency can charge fees for its oversight of new chemicals and existing chemicals, and for costs for obtaining new toxicity, exposure, or other data on existing chemicals.
The EPA expects to propose a draft TSCA fee rule this summer and to issue a final rule in February 2018, allowing it to collect some revenue from chemical manufacturers, importers, and processors during fiscal 2018.
Speeding New Chemicals Reviews
The EPA's budget request is designed to continue reducing a backlog of industry requests to make or import new chemicals. The agency recently told Bloomberg BNA that it has made progress in reducing the backlog of new chemical requests from several hundred to fewer than 200.
To speed the review of new chemicals, the EPA said its evaluations “will be based on the intended use of chemicals.”
Under the revised law, the EPA is to evaluate chemicals based on their conditions of use. Congress defined that term as the “intended, known, or reasonably foreseeable circumstances the administrator determines a chemical substance is manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.”
Intended Uses
Environmental, health and labor organizations have said the requirement means the agency must consider intended, known and reasonably foreseeable uses. Industry groups have said the language gives the administrator administrator discretion to focus on intended, known or reasonably foreseeable uses or a combination of them.
The EPA expects to receive more than 1,000 requests to make new chemicals in 2018, which is about the number it typically gets annually.
The agency pledged to speed its new chemical reviews and make decisions “as close to the 90-day review as possible.” The law directs the EPA to complete its new chemical reviews in 90 days.
The amended law, however, increased EPA's oversight responsibility by requiring the agency to make an affirmative finding for each new chemical. The agency must state whether the chemical presents or may present an unreasonable risk or is not likely to do so. The original law allowed a new chemical to enter commerce after 90 days if the EPA did not act.
Dimitrios Karakitsos, a partner with Holland & Knight LLP's Washington, D.C., office, recently told Bloomberg BNA the amended law emphasized Congress’ intent that the agency meet the 90-day review limit. If the EPA exceeds the 90-day statutory new chemicals review period, the TSCA amendments require the agency to return the fee chemical manufacturers and importers pay for it to review their new chemicals, said Karakitsos. He previously served as counsel to the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. In that role, he served as a principal drafter and negotiator of the amended chemicals law.
EPA's Congressional Justification said: “Scheduling will reflect a need for the agency to eliminate the backlog of reviews in order to ensure chemicals go to market in a manner that better promotes economic development.”
“The EPA's toxics program will maintain its ‘zero tolerance’ goal for preventing the introduction of unsafe new chemicals into commerce,” it said.
Data on 12 Chemicals
The Congressional Justification echoes the commitment that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt made Jan. 18 during his nomination hearing. He pledged to meet the statutory deadlines in the amended chemicals law.
The EPA will “maintain an ambitious schedule,” allowing it to meet those deadlines, the Congressional Justification said describing deadlines it must meet in 2018 and 2019.
In addition, the agency could require toxicity, exposure or other tests for up to 12 chemicals to inform its chemical prioritization and risk evaluation decisions, according to the justification.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112450421&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112450421&jd=112450421
-
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Consults on ACC Petition to Delist Three Silicone Substances
May 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Maine Department of Ecology is consulting on a petition from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to remove three silicone substances from the state’s list of chemicals of concern.
In its petition, the ACC says that current science and regulatory safety determinations by authoritative bodies illustrate that the substances do not meet the criteria for listing under the Kid’s Safe Products Act.
It has requested that the DEP delist:decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5);dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6); andoctamethyltrisiloxane (L3).
Maine’s chemicals of concern list includes nearly 1,400 substances. From this, the state designates chemicals of high concern which, upon further review, may be elevated to priority chemical status. Manufacturers who use priority chemicals in certain consumer products, above de minimis levels, are required to report to the state.
The DEP is accepting comments on ACC’s petition until 23 June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56055/maine-consults-on-acc-petition-to-delist-three-silicone-substances
-
NGOs Increasingly Using Devices to Identify Product Ingredients
May 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
NGOs are increasingly investing in technology which allows them to analyse and identify chemicals in products.
Roger McFadden, former senior scientist at retailer Staples, told Chemical Watch that the use of handheld devices, which was previously limited to skilled scientists and engineers, is becoming more widespread.
Technology, such as x-ray fluorescence (XRF) guns, are used by product manufacturers and government regulators to screen consumer products for hazardous chemicals.
But Mr McFadden, who now runs his own consultancy business, said that NGOs and advocacy groups more often have scientists on their staff who are aware of the analytic devices available and invest in technologies such as XRF. For example, US NGOs Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) and HealthyStuff.org have used XRF and fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) devices to find chemicals, such as brominated flame retardants and phthalates, in a range of consumer products.
This increases risk to retailers and brands, he said, making it "more important than ever" for companies to explain which substances are in a product and why they are there, and to identify and eliminate chemicals of concern from their products.
Mike Schade of SCHF said that advances in technology are making it "easier than ever before" for NGOs to analyse consumer products for chemicals of concern and predicted this will continue as technology advances further.
Phone apps such as Friends of the Earth Germany's ToxFox are allowing the public to send thousands of requests to companies, asking if particular products contain any substances on the REACH candidate list. The apps are based upon laboriously compiled databases and apply to a limited product range. However, the integration of a mobile device with XRF technology will give easy access to much more information on chemicals in products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56050/ngos-increasingly-using-devices-to-identify-product-ingredients
-
Minnesota Guide on Teflon Chemicals Addresses Water Supplies
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
The Minnesota Department of Health updated its health advisory values for two industrial chemicals for public water supplies and private wells in two residential areas.
The department announced May 23 revised values for two perfluorochemicals, PFOA and PFOS. The chemicals were widely used to make stain-resistant carpets, clothing, and paper packaging for food. Most humans have perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) traces in their blood, though most U.S. companies have been voluntarily phasing out their use since about 2000, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The new value for PFOA is 35 parts per trillion and for PFOS, 27 parts per trillion—much stricter than EPA's current health advisory value of 70 parts per trillion for the chemicals. The Minnesota values are “health recommendations” for state officials operating public water supplies. They are also useful for private drinking water well owners in eastern Minneapolis and the small Minnesota town of Bemidji, located about 150 miles south of the Canadian border.
Drinking water with PFOA or PFOS, even at concentrations above the updated values, does not pose an immediate risk to human health, and the values were established with the most vulnerable individuals in mind, making them over-protective for the general population, the department said May 23 in a statement.
A separate department, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, also will use the values in guiding companies remediating contaminated sites.
In November, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a health advisory for PFOA and PFOS and is evaluating the chemicals as possible drinking water contaminants in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112450418&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112450418&jd=112450418
-
Composite Wood Makers Get More Time to Comply With EPA Rule
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies making, importing, supplying and selling composite wood would get more time to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's formaldehyde emissions limits under a direct final rule the agency is scheduled to publish May 24.
“Our industry is eager to see this rule implemented, but we understand the practical rationale for this,” ” Jackson Morrill, president of the Composite Panel Association, told Bloomberg BNA May 23.
Third-party certifiers, which will verify whether composite wood manufacturers meet the EPA's national formaldehyde emission limits, needed more time to work with clients to make sure verification procedures are in place, Morrill said.
The EPA set emissions limits in a final rule (RIN: 2070-AJ44) issued Dec. 12, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 89,794).
‘Long Overdue’ Rule
The Environmental Defense Fund wants to see this “long overdue” emissions limit rule go into effect as soon as possible so the public can benefit from reduced exposure to formaldehyde, Tom Neltner, the group's chemicals policy director, told Bloomberg BNA May 23.
Congress ordered the EPA to set national formaldehyde emissions in 2010 when it passed the Composite Wood Products Act, which added Title VI to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The law said that by Jan. 1, 2013, the EPA should set national limits that matched those set by the California Air Resources Board in 2007.
Lawmakers passed the Composite Wood Products Act after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in 2005, displacing victims who lived in trailers that released high levels of formaldehyde.
A nationwide outcry to limit formaldehyde emissions arose again in 2015 following a 60 Minutes report that alleged Lumber Liquidators Inc.'s China-made laminated wood flooring exceeded California's limits. In March, Lumber Liquidators agreed to pay $2.5 million as part of an administrative settlement with the California Air Resources Board.
Extension Affects Three Dates
The direct final rule extends three compliance dates unless someone files an objection by June 8, which the agency said it doesn't anticipate:
• The emission limits, recordkeeping, and labeling requirements of the rule must be complied with as of March 22, 2018, instead of Dec. 12, 2017.
• Importers of articles made with composite wood products, such as furniture or kitchen cabinets, must certify the articles comply as of March 22, 2019.
• Laminated products producers have one additional year, until March 22, 2024, to comply with the emissions.
One More Change Sought
Morrill said domestic panel producers and importers should be allowed to voluntarily label their compliant products prior to the March 22, 2018, compliance date. Currently they are not allowed to do so, he said.
That creates a situation where an importer, builder or other company could order compliant products prior to March 22, 2018, but those products could not be labeled as compliant, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112450419&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112450419&jd=112450419
-
Groups Sue FDA Over Exemption For Food Additives
May 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A group of consumer, health and food safety NGOs are suing the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over a final rule which they claim allows new food additive chemicals into products, without having their safety properly assessed.
Issued last August, the rule includes criteria defining when a substance in human or animal food is "generally recognised as safe" (Gras). Unlike other food additives, Gras substances are not subject to FDA pre-market approval but, the agency says, must meet the same safety standards. Once a chemical meets the criteria, notifying its use to the FDA becomes voluntary.
The Gras exemption was originally intended for common food ingredients like vinegar and vegetable oil. But the NGOs say industry has stretched it into a loophole that allows new chemicals through without scrutiny.
They claim the FDA is illegally allowing food and chemical manufacturers to decide themselves that food chemicals are safe, without giving notice to the agency, or the public.
The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the southern district of New York. Behind it are the Centre for Food Safety, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Environmental Working Group, with legal counsel from the Centre for Food Safety (CFS) and the environmental law group Earthjustice.
This is the second time that the Gras exemption is facing a legal challenge. In 2014, CFS successfully challenged the FDA’s use of an interim rule that initially put the voluntary notification procedure into place.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56053/groups-sue-fda-over-exemption-for-food-additives
-
EU Commission Seeks Cobalt Salts Restriction
May 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The European Commission has asked Echa to prepare a REACH restriction dossier, to protect workers from five carcinogenic cobalt salts used in industrial metal treatment.
The Commission request is based on the conclusions of a recent Echa risk assessment that found "excess cancer risk" values. "Whilst there is no agreed level of excess cancer risk that is deemed unacceptable, risk levels ... have been seen as requiring some level of risk management action," it said.
Echa will add an entry for a potential restriction to its website's Registry of Intentions by July. After that, it has 12 months to decide whether a restriction is justified and – if the answer is yes – submit a dossier to the Commission.
The five cobalt salts are sulphate, dichloride, dinitrate, carbonate and diacetate.
All are category 1B carcinogens and 1B reproductive toxicants under CLP. Echa identified them as substances of very high concern and added them to the candidate list for authorisation back in 2010.
But, in December 2012, the Commission said that a restriction might be preferable to authorisation because at least one of the uses posed a risk to human health that was not adequately controlled. It asked Echa to conduct an assessment of these, and temporarily suspended the authorisation process – a move welcomed by industry.
However, the results, published in 2013, raised further questions. In particular, they said there was uncertainty about the mode of action associated with the cancer endpoint. The assessment also found deficiencies in the registration dossiers, mainly related to the absence of relevant exposure scenarios.
A second assessment by Echa concluded that the substances were genotoxic carcinogens by inhalation with a non-threshold mode of action. This conclusion was criticised by industry – but supported by Echa’s Risk Assessment Committee.
The agency has now published an updated assessment of uses, supplementary to that of 2013, that accounts for the mode of action conclusion, as well as recent dossier updates.
It covers use of the substances:in surface treatment;as a pigment for PET plastic;as a catalyst for the production of some plastics, such as PET, and their intermediates;as a catalyst in oxygen scavenging processes;in animal feed;in fertiliser;in biogas production;in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and in vitro diagnostics; andin humidity indicators.
It finds that workers experience the highest exposures when handling the substances in solid form, as powders, granulates or dust. They are lower with aqueous solutions or articles.
The combined EU tonnage for the five substances is about 10,000 tonnes a year, according to data collected by the Cobalt REACH Consortium, which oversees REACH compliance for the industry.
In the EU, more than 80% of that tonnage is accounted for by use as a chemical intermediate.
Industry has not identified clear substitutes with the specific properties of the five cobalt salts, said Violaine Verougstraete at industry group Eurometaux. "For example, substitution is not possible in biotechnology applications as cobalt is an essential element."
She added that, in some cases, nickel or chromium compounds might be considered, but this would be pointless because of their hazard profiles.
Eurometaux expects Echa to launch a call for evidence soon.
Echa says that there are no plans to add the substances to the authorisation list.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56054/eu-commission-seeks-cobalt-salts-restriction
-
Echa, Cefic Assess Plastic Additives Use and Exposure
May 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A joint project by Echa and Cefic is expected to generate an inventory of substances used as plastic additives, by the end of the summer. This will include their technical functions.
It forms part of the agencys' work to identify ways to prioritise substances for further regulatory risk management, by addressing data gaps related to hazard properties, and information on exposure and uses.
Plastic additives are widely used and in many different types of articles, including consumer products. The potential for exposure to them can vary widely, Echa says.
The discussion on approaches to determine the release potential of additives from plastic articles is a key part of the project, it says.
The activities are designed to complement and inform rather than replace ongoing and planned regulatory processes, such as compliance checks and substance evaluations, the agency adds.
The group is also developing a sector use map for plastic compounding and conversion.
Current participants in the project include:Cefic’s plastic additives groups;Eurocolour;European Plastics Converters (EuPC); and
Other stakeholders and member states could also contribute, Echa says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56056/echa-cefic-assess-plastic-additives-use-and-exposure
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA, Industry Pursue Settlement in Waste Generator Rule Case
May 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA and industry groups are asking a federal appeals court to stay industry's challenge to an Obama-era Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) rule governing hazardous waste generators, as they plan to engage in settlement discussions to resolve the groups' concerns about various provisions of the regulation.
Waste generators have made an overhaul of the RCRA Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule a top priority, highlighting the rule in response to EPA calls for suggestions on existing measures that could be revised to ease requirements on industry.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and a host of other industry groups, along with EPA, filed a joint motion May 22 in ACC, et al. v. EPA, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to stay the litigation in order to allow for settlement discussions between the agency and petitioners.
"The parties have engaged in initial discussions about Petitioners' concerns with the Rule, and believe that further discussions could result in either resolution of the case or narrowing of the issues," the joint motion says. "The parties further believe that holding the case in abeyance would facilitate such discussions."
Seven industry groups sued EPA in February over the rule, which the agency published last Nov. 28. EPA in finalizing the rule made more than 60 revisions to regulations governing hazardous waste generators with an eye toward providing more flexibility to regulated entities and making the rules easier to understand.
While industry has welcomed aspects of the rule, they also have raised concerns over certain provisions. In an April statement of issues filed with the court, the petitioners said their suit would focus on the harsh repercussions that would befall a generator if it fails to meet various "conditions for exemption" from storage facility permitting requirements. They said they are challenging the rule's penalties for generators' failure to comply with the conditions for exemption.
Specifically, the petitioners say that if even a single requirement is not met by a generator under the condition for exemption found in various parts of the standards, then the generator would be considered to be operating "unlawfully as a storage facility" under RCRA.
This would subject the generator to penalties and injunctive relief under RCRA section 3008 “for violations of any or all of the several dozens of RCRA permit and interim status design, operation, and administrative rules that apply to storage facilities," the petitioners said in their statement of issues.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-industry-pursue-settlement-waste-generator-rule-case
-
May 23, 2017 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Michael Halpern
For the past few years, the Environmental Protection Agency has held a meeting with outside groups to discuss its annual scientific integrity report. All kinds of organizations have attended in the past, from the American Chemistry Council (which represents chemical companies) to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which represents scientists) to the American Lung Association (which represents people who breathe). They’re all invited again to this year’s meeting on June 14.
The EPA-produced report describes the actions the agency has taken under the EPA scientific integrity policy over the previous year. The meeting is an opportunity for organizations to ask questions about the report, to give feedback to the agency, and to identify new or emerging challenges. It’s not a perfect process, and the agency gets criticism from all sides (including UCS). But it’s an impressive attempt to reach out to the agency’s stakeholders. To my knowledge, no other agency or department does this.
Yesterday, House Science Committee Chairman Smith sent a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt expressing concern about this meeting. As rat smellers go, he doesn’t exactly have the best nose, but he smells a rat. Chairman Smith seems to be trying to drum up controversy about the meeting, as he explicitly objects to some of the invitees (including me), and is calling for the agency to make it open to the public.
I wholeheartedly agree. So on June 14th at 3:00pm, I’ll begin livetweeting the EPA scientific integrity meeting. You can follow along at @halpsci. It’s usually a fairly humdrum affair, so I can’t promise everything will be interesting (although these days, let’s face it, everything at the EPA has some fireworks). But I can promise it will be transparent, and I will make at least a couple of attempts to be funny.
Better yet, I’d encourage the agency to put it on Periscope, or livestream it on Facebook, so the Chairman and his staff and anyone with an Internet connection can hear every question posed about an agency under siege by an administrator who is hostile to the science that it creates and communicates. That is, if the EPA still has the budget to pay for enough Internet bandwidth by the time the meeting happens.Real talk about transparency
Chairman Smith claims to care about transparency. So let’s talk about that. Here is the type of transparency we deserve:
I’d like to know whether anyone from the Obama administration or the oil and gas industry influenced language in the EPA’s press release and executive summary about the impact of fracking on drinking water. Unfortunately, our FOIAs to help answer that question came back heavily redacted.
I’d like to know who from the chemical industry met or communicated with the EPA in advance of Administrator Pruitt’s decision to reject scientific advice and keep a dangerous pesticide on the market that has been shown to hurt endangered species and harm human brain development. Perhaps any such meetings or phone calls, too, should have been open to the public. They should at least have transcripts and recordings. While we’re at it, maybe these meetings should include representatives from groups like the American Public Health Association. Maybe they should even include some independent scientists with expertise in the impact of the chemicals on developing brains!
I’d like many more EPA meetings to be made open to the public. Every time they meet with lobbyists from an industry trade group or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I want it broadcast, live. I want to see Snapchat stories about industry input. I’d like to know, for example, exactly what was discussed at two consecutive days of meetings in North Carolina between EPA officials and representatives from the American Petroleum Institute on April 19 and 20. It could be completely innocuous, but I want to know.
So where the deuce are the chairman’s letters for any of that? Selective transparency does not suggest good faith.
Of course Chairman Smith’s letter to Pruitt is absurd, even by the ever-downward-spiraling standards of the House Science Committee. It is a clear attempt to cast doubt on the work of the agency’s scientific integrity office and thereby weaken its credibility and investigative authority. This attempt should be roundly rejected.
I know Dr. Francesca Grifo, the EPA’s Scientific Integrity Official, quite well. And I know that she travels all around the country talking about scientific integrity with anyone who will listen. She has given scores of presentations about the agency’s scientific integrity policy. She meets with environmental groups. She meets with industry organizations. She will fully investigate scientific integrity complaints from anyone who files them.
So I’m looking forward to June 14th, and can’t wait to share all of the details. It could possibly be the most interesting meeting yet.
http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/lamar-smith-and-selective-transparency-why-ill-be-livetweeting-the-epa-scientific-integrity-stakeholder-meeting
-
EPA Delays Landfill Methane Rules to Reconsider Select Provisions
May 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has formally issued a 90-day stay of its methane standards for new and existing landfills while it reconsiders several provisions, targeting portions of the regulations it says were added “without the benefit of public comment” and that it intends to revise to enhance flexibility.
The move is consistent with a joint statement released by two waste industry groups -- the National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) -- earlier this month, in which they described a May 10 letter from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announcing his intention to reconsider parts of the rules and delay certain requirements.
Pruitt signed a May 22 notice delaying the effective date of the rules, noting that he had announced “the convening of a proceeding for reconsideration” of several provisions in the rules in a separate May 5 letter to the rules' regulatory dockets, though the letters do not yet appear to have been posted.
At issue are July 2016 regulations setting landfill gas standards for new and modified municipal solid waste landfills under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act and for existing landfills under section 111(d). Both rules update and strengthen standards for new and existing landfills issued by the Clinton administration in 1996 and served as part of the Obama administration's agenda to reduce emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
The waste sector had initially offered cautious support for the proposed versions of the rules, though NWRA, SWANA and other waste groups later challenged the rules in federal appellate court and filed petitions to reconsider aspects of the rule. Proposed briefing formats for the litigation are due May 26.
The May 22 notice says Pruitt's May 5 letter outlines several topics in the rules EPA will reconsider, including: tier 4 surface emission monitoring (SEM); annual liquids reporting; corrective action timeline procedures; overlapping applicability with other rules; the definition of cover penetration; and design plan approval.
EPA as part of the reconsideration proceeding “will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide the petitioners and the public an opportunity to comment on the issues identified in that letter,” the notice says, adding that the agency “has not taken action” on other issues raised in reconsideration petitions.
The EPA notice focuses in particular on the tier 4 SEM provisions, noting that the final rule “imposed restrictions on the use of tier 4 SEM . . . that were not included in the proposal.” The agency adds: “While we believe that the restrictions are appropriate in light of the potential impact of the results of tier 4 SEM, we recognize that they were added without the benefit of public comment.”
EPA in the notice says the tier 4 SEM provisions are “of central relevance” to the rules, warranting a delay of the regulations while the agency reconsiders this provision and others.
“Tier 4 SEM can be used as a site-specific methodology for determining whether and when the requirement to install a gas collection and control system is triggered. The restrictions limit an owner's/operator's ability to use tier 4 SEM for those purposes, thereby reducing intended flexibility in the rule,” the notice reads. “If we had the benefit of public comment on the restrictions, we might have structured the rule in such a way as to minimize any potential impacts on flexibility.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-delays-landfill-methane-rules-reconsider-select-provisions
-
Trump's Budget Calls for Even Cheaper Energy
May 23, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre & Darius Dixon
President Donald Trump’s budget proposal released Tuesday says lowering energy costs must be a national priority to benefit U.S. households — but that call's likely to fall flat with many oil, natural gas and power producers that have been struggling with the weak prices for their products in recent years.
And the call to lower energy prices, which follows Trump's campaign promises to boost U.S. oil and gas output, seems to overlook data that shows the energy burden for most households is at its lowest level in at least 25 years.
Since taking office, the Trump administration has moved to open up new lands and offshore areas for drilling, approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines and removed Obama-era rules that the industry has complained stood in the way of its growth.
And Tuesday’s budget calls for increasing energy production explicitly “for strengthening our national security, lowering the price of electricity and transportation fuels, and driving down the cost of consumer goods so that every American individual and business has more money to save and invest.”
But U.S. oil producers have been breathing a sigh of relief since oil prices rebounded from lows in the mid-$20s per barrel early last year. That selloff triggered a wave of bankruptcies and tens of thousands of layoffs in the industry. Now, with oil prices hovering near $50, oil producers have resumed drilling new wells, raising expectations that production could reach record levels next year — even as retail gasoline prices hover near $2.36 a gallon.
“When oil prices were high and U.S. economy was weak — at $100 a barrel and 10 percent unemployment — upstream jobs made a big difference,” said Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners. “Now that oil prices are low and the economy is stronger — $50 a barrel and 5 percent unemployment — policy emphasis appears to have returned to its usual focus: end-users.”
The White House is also seeking to sell much of the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserves. Trump’s budget would put 270 million barrels of oil on the market, a move the White House says could shave $16.6 billion off the federal deficit over the coming decade by selling half the inventory the Energy Department holds for emergencies. However, in this case, the budget takes a bullish stance for oil prices: To reach the deficit reduction goal, DOE would have to sell the oil at more than $61 a barrel, 20 percent higher than the current price.
In the power sector, retail electricity prices in the U.S. have been rising steadily over the past two decades — but they have lagged inflation, shrinking their hold on household budgets.
In fact, Americans in 2015 spent the smallest share of their income on energy since the Energy Information Administration started tracking the number in 1992. U.S. consumers are spending less than 6 percent of U.S. GDP to buy electricity, gasoline, natural gas and other fuels, according to EIA statistics, down from nearly 10 percent in 2008.
Many power producers have struggled as demand growth for electricity flattened out in recent years, and as cheap wind and solar power — as well as plentiful natural gas — cut deeply into the profits of nuclear and coal-fired power over the past decade. In the West, solar power has made electricity in California so inexpensive that it’s even thrown the economics of some gas-fired power plants there into question and the state has resorted to shipping excess electricity across state lines.
Meanwhile, several states across the Midwest to the East Coast have seen power prices fall to their lower point since the decade began, fueled in large part by the rising flow of natural gas. The prices are so low that some utilities and power companies with large “baseload” facilities have pressed states and federal regulators to craft new market rules the industry hopes will provide more cash for those big plants.
The American Petroleum Institute, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the Edison Electric Institute declined to comment on the Trump budget call for lower prices.
While voters and lawmakers alike lament spikes in gasoline prices, sustained low prices can also stall the deployment of new technologies, such as electric cars, potentially putting the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world and missing a big trade opportunity.
“There’s an enormous emerging market in China for electric vehicles. Do we want to be exporting to China?” said Josh Freed, Third Way’s vice president for clean energy. “It wouldn’t appear so from this budget.”
Trump’s budget also leans too heavily on cost factors while ignoring the need to sustain a mix of energy sources on the electric grid that are also clean, Freed said.
“Leaving it to one or two cheapest-at-the-moment commodities is a very, very risky bet for the future of the American economy, our ability to create jobs and American security,” he said. “Closing your eyes and keeping your fingers crossed that the market will always move in one direction with fossil fuels — which, in essence, is what the Trump administration proposes with this budget — is not what any smart business person or political leader would pin their future economic hopes to.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/05/trumps-call-for-cheap-energy-could-hurt-industry-157274
-
Trump Budget Proposes Deep Cuts in Energy Innovation Programs
May 23, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport & Brad Plumer
President Trump’s budget proposal for 2018 envisions a flurry of changes to domestic energy policy, reaping billions of dollars in one-time revenue from oil and gas resources while cutting research into future energy technologies that could pay long-term dividends.
Mr. Trump’s budget, released Tuesday, says it will raise about $36 billion over the next 10 years by selling off major American energy resources and infrastructure, opening up vast new areas of public land for oil and gas drilling, and redirecting state revenues from oil and gas royalties back to Washington.
At the same time, the budget would cut $3.1 billion from energy research programs at the Energy Department, an 18 percent reduction from last year’s spending. These programs are aimed at developing innovative technologies like better batteries for electric vehicles or carbon capture for coal and gas plants — all of which could one day help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat global warming.
Critics say these cuts could imperil American leadership in cutting-edge clean energy industries.
“It is incredibly shortsighted to slash funding for energy R&D and let other countries take the lead in developing new technologies and markets that are going to grow quickly in the years to come,” said Jason Bordoff, the director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.
The cuts and program changes represent a modest portion of Mr. Trump’s $4.1 trillion budget. Nearly all of them would require approval from Congress, which appears highly unlikely. Still, the document lays down a detailed marker of the administration’s energy philosophy.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEgraphicA Crack in an Antarctic Ice Shelf Grew 17 Miles in the Last Two Months FEB. 7, 2017Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year JAN. 18, 2017Large Sections of Australia’s Great Reef Are Now Dead, Scientists Find MARCH 15, 2017
The budget would significantly scale back public financing for federal energy research. The Energy Department focuses on the next generation of energy technologies — from advanced nuclear reactors to algae biofuels — conducting basic research in its network of 17 national laboratories, and aiding private companies struggling to bring risky new technologies to market. Yet Mr. Trump’s proposal envisions sweeping cuts that would neuter most of the agency’s critical energy programs.
The agency’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which has helped nudge down the cost of solar power, faces a 69 percent cut. The Office of Fossil Energy, which invests in methods for capturing carbon dioxide from coal plants and burying it underground, faces a 54 percent cut. The Office of Nuclear Energy, which is pursuing technology to help extend the life of the United States’ existing nuclear reactors, faces a 31 percent cut.
The Trump administration’s plan was heavily influenced by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that argues that the federal government should fund only very basic scientific research and get out of the business of helping companies commercialize new energy technologies.
Accordingly, Mr. Trump’s plan would provide no funds for initiatives like the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program, which in 2010 provided Tesla with a crucial $465 million loan six months before the electric car manufacturer went public.
In the natural resources sections of the budget, the administration proposes opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, estimating that royalties and fees from exploring for fossil fuels in the protected area could generate $1.8 billion in new federal revenue by 2027. But drilling in the Arctic refuge is an intensely contentious proposal that has failed repeatedly in Congress.
Mr. Trump also proposes repealing part of a 2006 law that diverted about 37 percent of the revenues from oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico to Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama from the federal government.
The White House estimates that repealing the law and redirecting the state oil revenue back to Washington could yield $3.5 billion over 10 years. Those states, and the oil lobby, are expected to push back fiercely.
The budget also proposes selling off half of the oil in the federal government’s 700,000-barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which was established after the oil crises of the 1970s to provide a cushion against unexpected shortages. Mr. Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters on Tuesday that it was “no longer necessary” to hold so much crude in reserve, thanks to the boom in domestic oil and gas drilling over the last decade.
The administration estimates that selling the oil will generate a profit of $16.5 billion over 10 years. While the Energy Department has the authority to sell some oil in the reserve, such a major reduction would almost certainly need action from Congress, and the prospects of success for such a move are unclear.
“There are credible arguments that the optimal size of the S.P.R. should be smaller than it is,” Mr. Bordoff said. “But if we’re selling off a big chunk of a national security asset that we’ve held for 40 years, that should be rooted in a detailed analysis of the country’s energy needs, not short-term budget considerations.”
In the meantime, Congress will probably resist major changes to federal research spending. Last week, a group of six Republican senators, led by Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, wrote a letter to the White House warning against major reductions at the agency. “Federally funded research is imperative to ensuring we meet our energy, science and national security needs for generations to come,” they wrote.
Mr. Trump’s budget also proposes a drastic restructuring of the way electricity is bought and sold in Western states, which rely heavily on cheap hydroelectric power generated by government structures like the Hoover Dam in Nevada. Mr. Trump proposes selling off thousands of miles of government-owned transmission lines that move this electricity to homes across nearly 20 Western states, from Arizona to Wyoming, creating estimated revenue of about $10 billion over a decade.
Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee, said the plan had no chance.
“Selling government-owned transmission lines to the highest bidder will just have the effect of jacking up power rates, and no one in that region is going to be in favor of this,” she said.
The proposal would also restart the Nuclear Waste Fund fee program, which charges electricity users money to be funneled toward construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada, with estimated revenues of about $3 billion over 10 years. But that money would be specifically earmarked for construction of the nuclear waste repository, which has been mired in delays and disputes for decades.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/climate/trump-budget-energy.html?mtrref=query.nytimes.com
-
Budget Seeks Shutdown of 'Duplicative' Chemical Safety Board
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The Trump administration kept its earlier promise to propose eliminating the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, describing the independent federal agency as “largely duplicative” of other government departments in its proposed budget released May 23, even as the board sent its own request for a small funding increase.
The White House first proposed closing the Chemical Safety Board in its “skinny budget” released in March. Under the official budget proposal released May 23, CSB would receive $9.42 million in fiscal 2018—but only to fund its closure. The board received $11 million in fiscal 2017.
CSB board members, industry figures and labor unions have said the safety board is not duplicative because similar agencies do not perform the same kind of watchdog work.
While other agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration may also investigate incidents that the CSB probes, they lack the board's mandate to seek the root cause of an investigation. These other agencies can only issue citations and fines, which may dissuade plant operators from sharing information.
And even a Republican-controlled Congress has not called for closing CSB.
In its justification for the proposal, the budget notes Congress’ intent that the agency “be an investigative arm that is wholly independent of the rulemaking, inspection, and enforcement authorities of its partner agencies in making recommendations on actions that can be taken to prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future.” However, the document argues CSB “more often than not” creates friction with other agencies. The CSB has also focused too much on “the need for greater regulation of industry, which has frustrated both regulators and industry.”
The CSB May 23 released its own budget request calling for $11.629 million for fiscal 2018—an increase of 5.72 percent from fiscal 2017. Under its authorizing statute, the board is permitted to issue its own request without approval of the White House.
The request said that a “modest increase will allow the CSB to maintain its current investigations and safety advocacy capacity.”
No Duplication, Officials Contend
Jordan Barab, who served as OSHA deputy director from 2009 to 2017, told Bloomberg BNA May 23 the CSB is “not at all duplicative.”
“To say that other agencies perform the same function is completely false,” Barab said.
Barab said OSHA improved its relationship with CSB over the past several years by working with the board to ensure OSHA could realistically meet recommendations, such as modifying interpretations or enforcement strategies rather than recommending complex new regulations that would be hard to issue due to procedural barriers.
The White House budget proposal also mentions controversies that occurred under the tenure of former CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso, resulting in reports by the EPA inspector general and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in 2014. Moure-Eraso left the CSB more than two years ago.
“While CSB's new leadership is making progress on the previous management challenges,” the document said, “due to the duplicative nature of its work, the Budget recommends eliminating the agency.”
Members Confused
Board members said at a meeting April 13 they did not understand why the agency was targeted. They found out about the White House plan to seek the agency's closure March 15, the day before the release of the skinny budget.
In its budget justification, the CSB noted the legislative history of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990—which established the board—stated agencies with both regulatory and enforcement functions like OSHA and EPA too often zero in on violations of existing rules and the cause of accidents, but leave out “other contributing factors for which no enforcement or compliance actions can be taken.”
By looking at the big picture, the document said, the CSB can more effectively promote safety and save billions of dollars if even one chemical accident is avoided.
“Safety and prosperity are not incompatible, and strong safety programs are critical for the economic success of industries that use hazardous chemicals,” the document said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112450412&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112450412&jd=112450412
-
Trump Wants to Give CSB Money- To Phase Itself Out
May 23, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
President Trump's "skinny budget" shocked the U.S. Chemical Safety Board when it proposed zeroing out the agency. The White House budget request out today would fund the agency for fiscal 2018 with over $9 million — but there's a catch.
The funds would be available only for the purpose of closing the agency.
The budget request says moving to eliminate CSB is a part of the administration's plan to "move the nation towards fiscal responsibility and to redefine the proper role of the federal government."
CSB is an independent agency that provides the industry with recommendations after investigating chemical accidents among other things. It has no regulatory power.
The agency received $11 million in the fiscal 2017 omnibus spending bill.
In a prepared statement, the agency said it submitted its own budget request today, which it has the authority to do as an independent agency.
"Congress intended for the CSB to examine the role of both the regulator and the regulated in its investigations and makes recommendations to both," Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland said in the statement.
When the skinny budget proposed zeroing out the agency, Allen Sutherland called it an "attack on the safety and security of America's workers" (Greenwire, March 17).TSCA funding
The White House budget request would provide an additional $40 million over fiscal 2017 for U.S. EPA to evaluate new chemicals and propose rules under the recently reformed Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA.
The fiscal 2018 funding request of $65 million would be prioritized toward reviewing new chemicals, according to EPA.
Chemicals prioritized in the review schedule would "reflect a need for the agency to eliminate the backlog of reviews in order to ensure chemicals go to market in a manner that better promotes economic development," according to EPA.
Recently, EPA got an earful from environmental groups when it held a public hearing on rolling back potential regulations under the new law (Greenwire, May 1).
While environmental groups may see the proposed funding increase as a win, they likely won't cheer the budget request's elimination of EPA's Lead Risk Reduction Program.
The program has a current $13.3 million funding level but would get nothing in 2018 under the president's request.
EPA held a similar public hearing for rolling back several lead exposure regulations this month, which sparked concern among environmental groups and residents
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/23/stories/1060055010
-
States, Industry at Odds Over Crude by Rail Pressure Standard
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Six state attorneys general and petroleum industry groups are battling over a pressure standard for transporting crude oil by rail tank cars.
The attorneys general say the increased transportation of crude oil by rail and a suggested pressure standard under consideration by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration increases the possibility of exploding or flammable trains near high-population areas.
But some industry groups say that standard would impose “unreasonable costs” on crude oil transportation, and that vapor pressure isn't a reliable indicator of flammability. Vapor pressure is generally used as a measure of the volatility of a liquid.
PHMSA is weighing a petition from New York's attorney general, who asked the agency to require a Reid vapor pressure limit of less than 9 pounds per square inch for crude oil transported by rail. If PHMSA grants the attorney general's petition, the agency would need to determine whether 9 pounds per square inch is a preferable limit.
The attorneys general and industry groups, which include the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, submitted their comments in response to an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that asked for input on the pressure standard (RIN:2137-AF24).
States See Increased Crude Movement
The attorneys general for New York, California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, and Washington state submitted joint comments pushing for a vapor pressure standard lower than the one PHMSA is considering for crude transported by rail tank cars.
Before 2011, crude oil wasn't transported across Washington state by rail. But in 2013, the attorneys general said, Washington had seen about 700 million gallons of crude by rail, most on its way from North Dakota to refineries in Washington or California.
North Dakota, which has its own pressure standard, intends to defend it despite any federal rule, according to comments from the state's Industrial Commission. Their standard is higher or more lax than PHMSA's proposal.
Across the U.S., about 275,000 barrels of crude oil are transported by rail each day, according to the Energy Information Administration's February 2017 estimates.
“We have seen some of the rail traffic slack off a bit, but it's going to be upticking again,” Tyson Slocum, energy program director at Public Citizen, told Bloomberg BNA.
The fact that there have been fewer recent accidents may be a result of lower volume, he said, but a federal standard is still necessary.
“We've had too many accidents to sacrifice safety for oil and rail industry profits,” Slocum said.
Setting a Limit
While federally-funded research into the flammability and explosive potential of crude oil continues, the attorneys general argue a lower pressure standard is safer.
The North Dakota Petroleum Council commented that New York's petition shouldn't assume that limit is appropriate because federally-funded research has not been completed. Until an ongoing study at Sandia National Laboratories is completed, PHMSA shouldn't move ahead, the council stated.
The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers commented that instead of pressure, the presence of heat is more important when considering crude oil's flammability and explosive potential.
A rail accident including the collision of tank cars “virtually guarantees” that crude oil will ignite, and restricting vapor pressure won't make much of a difference, the association said.
The association represents companies such as AECOM, Exxon Mobil Corp, and Formosa Plastics Corp.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112450386&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112450386&jd=112450386
-
Budget Chief: Trump Won't Continue Obama's ‘Crazy’ Spending on Climate
May 23, 2017 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
President Trump’s top budget official says that the administration will not continue former President Obama’s “crazy” spending on climate change science.
Speaking with reporters Tuesday, the day the Trump administration rolled out its first full budget proposal, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said climate spending has often been wasteful.
“I think what you saw happen during the previous administration is that the pendulum went too far to one side, where we’re spending too much of your money on climate change, and not very efficiently,” Mulvaney said when asked about climate science spending.
Spending for climate science is significantly reduced in Trump's budget across multiple agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which would see an overall 31 percent cut.
“We don’t get rid of it here. Do we target it? Sure. Do a lot of the EPA reductions aim at reducing the focus on climate science? Yes. Does it mean that we are anti-science? Absolutely not,” he continued.
“We’re simply trying to get things back in order to where we can look at the folks who pay the taxes and say, ‘Look, yeah, we want to do some climate science, but we’re not going to do some of the crazy stuff the previous administration did.'”
Mulvaney justified his position in part by bringing up a National Science Foundation grant that gave $700,000 to a theater company to produce a climate change science education musical. He incorrectly said the grant was given last year.
“Do you think that’s a waste of your money?” he said to the reporter who asked the initial question.
Mulvaney struck a similar tone in March when he rolled out a basic budget outline, declaring that climate funding is “a waste of your money.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/334744-budget-chief-no-crazy-climate-spending-like-obama
-
Environmental Groups Jumping on Alaska LNG Docket
May 24, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The Alaska LNG project -- a pipeline and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal that would finally commercialize the state’s North Slope natural gas -- is seeing its FERC docket expand with mounting environmentalist objections to the project.
Recently filing motions to intervene at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [CP17-178] are the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Northern Alaska Environmental Center.
“...Sierra Club members everywhere will be affected by the greenhouse gases emitted by the increased natural gas production induced by the project, by emissions directly from the project itself, and by emissions from ‘downstream’ of the project, associated with transporting, regasifying, and burning exported LNG,” Sierra Club said in its motion.
The CBD cited the concerns of Alaskans living near the project as well as potential effects on the environment.
“The proposed pipelines and terminal will adversely affect an array of ecosystems, including the Arctic, Cook Inlet, and other coastal and terrestrial habitats, and the health of aquatic, marine and terrestrial species in those areas,” the group said. “The project will emit or result in the emission of substantial amounts of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.”
Fairbanks, AK-based Northern Alaska Environmental Center told FERC in its motion to intervene that its members would be affected by the project and said Alaska LNG is not in line with the group’s priority for a transition away from fossil fuels. “At this time, Northern Center does not know enough about the details and potential impacts of the Alaska LNG project to take a position as to whether, or in what manner, the project should be constructed.”
The project was formally filed at FERC in April. Alaska LNG is composed of a gas treatment plant at Prudhoe Bay, an 800-mile pipeline to Southcentral Alaska with up to five offtakes for in-state use, and a natural gas liquefaction plant in Nikiski to produce LNG for export.
The project would give market access to 35 Tcf of proven gas resources stranded on the North Slope. Alaska Gasline Development Corp., a state of Alaska entity overseeing the project, anticipates 9,000-12,000 jobs for design and construction plus 700-1,000 jobs for long-term operations.
Earlier this year in pre-filing comments, the city of Valdez and mayors of the Fairbanks North Star Borough, city of Fairbanks, and city of North Pole, along with the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, told FERC that regulators are obligated to consider their preferred "Valdez alternative" for the project’s pipeline route and plant site. The alternative route would bring the pipeline closer to their communities -- providing more readily available access to gas -- and would site the LNG liquefaction and export terminal at Valdez instead of Nikiski.
More recently,Brendyn Shiflea, president of the Kenai Peninsula Economic Development District in Alaska, wrote to FERC in support of the project. “Alaska holds America’s largest concentration of proven, conventional, but stranded gas. The Alaska LNG Project will liberate these resources and provide America with a major new energy infrastructure that can supply domestic needs and provide a stable source of gas supply for trading partners in the Asia-Pacific region and positively reduce of trade imbalance,” Shiflea said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110555-environmental-groups-jumping-on-alaska-lng-docket
-
Senators Spar Again Over EPA's Ozone Standard
May 24, 2017 | E&E News Daily
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA's 2015 ground-level ozone standard is:
A) So strict that some parts of the United States may never be able to meet it, with potentially significant economic fallout.
B) Not strong enough to fully protect public health.
Between those familiar poles, a Senate panel spent almost 90 minutes yesterday taking testimony on the merits of two bills that would roll back implementation of the 70-parts-per-billion ozone benchmark until the middle of the next decade.
Despite some of the nation's toughest regulations, California's San Joaquin Valley has "reached the point where we cannot attain the federal standards" even if all businesses, agricultural operations and truck traffic were eliminated, said Ahron Hakimi, executive director of a metropolitan planning organization in the area.
But ozone exposure can harm health at levels as low as 60 ppb, Dr. Monica Kraft, a past president of the American Thoracic Society, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety. It's "not just the young, the ill and the frail that feel the detrimental effects of ozone," Kraft said. "It's everyone."
Under S. 263, introduced in February by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), the subcommittee's chairwoman, implementation of the 70 ppb limit would effectively be frozen until 2025. Among the bill's co-sponsors is Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has also introduced a separate measure, S. 452, that would similarly roll back implementation.
In addition, both bills would permanently rewrite the Clean Air Act to require EPA to revisit the standards for ozone, particulate matter and four other "criteria pollutants" only once every decade instead of once every five years.
"Ground-level ozone is already declining nationwide due to emissions controls," Capito said in her opening statement. "There is no need to rush into implementation of new standards when the trend lines are positive." She added that EPA issued implementing regulations for its 2008 ozone standard only two years ago, potentially requiring states and industry to abide by two standards at the same time.
But Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) accused the fossil fuel industry of resorting to politics to short-circuit the 2015 limit from taking effect. Although the Trump administration recently won an open-ended pause in litigation in order to reconsider the 70 ppb, he said, "there is neither the law nor the science to dismantle the ozone standard quickly through administrative action."
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog, is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in sunshine. Along with vehicle emissions, a major source of NOx is coal combustion.
In tightening the standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb in October 2015, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy had cited the need to protect public health in light of recent research. States turned in their nonattainment recommendations last fall; the agency is currently scheduled to make the final designations by this October, triggering the start of a compliance process that will take years to fully play out.
Critics, including many congressional Republicans, question whether the 70 ppb standard is achievable in parts of the western United States, both because of naturally occurring background ozone and because of foreign emissions sources.
Yuma County, Ariz., for example, has little industry but still exceeds the standard, courtesy of upwind pollution from California, Mexico and China, said Misael Cabrera, director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
Arizona is among the states suing to overturn the standard on the grounds that it is unnecessarily strict. The American Thoracic Society is allied with environmental and public health groups arguing in court that the science instead warrants a 60 ppb threshold.
Yesterday's hearing was the latest in a series that Congress has held on ozone regulation, with similar arguments on both sides. Cabrera, for one, testified on Yuma County's circumstances before a House panel last year.
Capito introduced a similar measure last year in the 114th Congress, but the legislation never moved out of committee. In a brief interview after yesterday's hearing, Capito said she hoped to soon get a markup on S. 263. A companion bill, H.R. 806, introduced by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), is awaiting action by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The legislation has provoked a lobbying battle between industry and public health groups. In a statement yesterday, the American Chemistry Council said that both Senate measures would help ensure that manufacturers "can obtain permits in a timely and efficient manner." In a letter to senators earlier in the week, the thoracic society and more than a dozen other organizations wrote that Capito's bill would threaten "the health of children, seniors and people with chronic disease."
Gary Ewart, the society's chief of government relations, said he thinks that the measure has less chance of advancing than would be true in a "more normal" Senate environment, but still has to be taken seriously.
"We're concerned because we have to be concerned," Ewart said after the hearing. "I'm not sure that it's going to be moving in the foreseeable future."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/24/stories/1060055042
-
US is Leader in Climate Change Litigation- UN
May 23, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
The United States is at the forefront of a global increase in climate-change-related litigation, according to a report released today by the U.N. Environment Programme.
As of March 2017, climate change litigation had been filed in 25 countries, including the European Union. In the United States, plaintiffs had filed 654 climate-related cases, compared with about 230 cases filed in the rest of the countries combined, the report found.
A prior survey of cases decided before 2014 found climate change litigation present in 12 countries. Still, the report noted, most countries have experienced "little or no climate change litigation."
Among the types of cases that currently dominate the global climate docket are ones in which citizens and nonprofit groups sue the government to ensure it meets climate change commitments. Other cases seek to link resource extraction to greenhouse gas emissions and to hold specific emitters liable for pollution.
UNEP developed the report in conjunction with Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
"The report's timing is no coincidence," report authors Michael Burger and Justin Gundlach, both of the Sabin Center, wrote today in a blog post. "As various articles and analyses have observed, climate change litigation is becoming an increasingly prominent and significant feature of the climate law and policy landscape."
Several factors are driving the increase in climate-related litigation around the world, the UNEP report found.
Those include laws codifying national and international responses to climate change, greater awareness of the impacts of climate change, and the overall slow movement of governments to respond to global warming.
The authors of the report used a system of keywords to survey cases, including "climate change," "global warming" and "sea-level rise." They didn't include cases that made only passing mention of climate change or cases that aimed to achieve climate goals but didn't specifically reference climate-related issues.
After the United States, plaintiffs have filed the second-highest number of climate-related cases — 80 — in Australia. Other countries with active litigants include the United Kingdom, the European Union, New Zealand and Spain.
In the majority of cases, plaintiffs challenge their federal governments.
"Government defendants have been called upon to justify decisions large and small," the report says.
On the large end of the spectrum is Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court case that said U.S. EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The smaller cases, which make up the majority of non-U.S. cases, focus on particular projects, such as the expansion of coal mines and the development of renewable energy facilities.
The report identified five major trends in the types of climate-related cases brought worldwide.
Many cases seek to force national governments to take steps to address climate change, typically by citing laws and constitutional provisions that aren't specific to the issue.
In some cases, the Paris Agreement, in which countries committed to national emissions reductions targets, is helping buttress the claims of plaintiffs, the report found.
"The Paris agreement is emerging as a novel and unique anchorage for law suits of this sort," the report says.
For example, a court in Austria recently agreed with nongovernmental organizations and individuals that the expansion of an airport would run counter to the commitment that the country made under the Paris Agreement, as well as the greenhouse gas emissions reductions set forth in a national law.
Another group of cases seeks to tie resource extraction to climate change impacts, the report found, while a third category aims to hold specific entities liable for greenhouse gas emissions.
This latter type of case has so far been unsuccessful in the United States. The prime example of this type of case is American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court concluded that the Clean Air Act pre-empted common law claims against companies.
The United States is home to test cases in the two other categories of suits — those challenging the pace of adaptation efforts and those in which plaintiffs bring claims under the public trust doctrine.
A lawsuit brought by the Conservation Law Foundation against Exxon Mobil Corp. is testing the theory that plaintiffs can bring suits alleging potential injury caused by a failure to act on climate change.
And a lawsuit brought by youth plaintiffs against the U.S. government has raised the theory that the federal government has a duty to protect the public trust by ensuring that the atmosphere, water, seas, seashore and wildlife are safe for future generations.
In all the types of cases, the report found, parties tend to dispute whether claims can be brought in the first place, the extent to which laws apply to climate change, and the scope of court injunctions and other remedies.
"As climate change litigation has expanded," the report says, "attorneys and judges have engaged with a multiplicity of legal theories relying on a variety of sources of legal rights and obligations."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/23/stories/1060054998
-
China Joins EU, Canada in Backing Climate Deal Before Trump Plan
May 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marine Strauss & Brian Parkin
China, Canada and the European Union are joining forces to advance the Paris Agreement while President Donald Trump is still deciding whether the U.S. should stick with the landmark deal on climate change.
Canada's environment minister Catherine McKenna, EU Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete and China's special envoy for climate change Xie Zhenhua are meeting May 23 in Berlin to discuss climate leadership and how to maintain momentum if the U.S. pulls out of the Paris Agreement.
The collaboration between the three countries is another sign that Trump, and the U.S., will become isolated from the rest of the world. Almost 200 nations pledged to fight climate change when the Paris deal was signed in 2015 and since then only the U.S. has indicated it may step off that path.
“It's very important that we continue the shared programs on climate change,” McKenna said in an interview at the Petersberg Climate Dialog hosted by Chancellor Angela Merkel. “There is a need to bring together key players. We think that China, Canada and the EU are in a good position to bring together other countries at the ministerial level to have high-level discussions about how we're going to move forward on the Paris Agreement.“
Trump has given mixed signals about the fate of the Paris deal under his administration. He's called climate change a hoax and said during his campaign last year he would scrap the deal if elected. Since then, he's said he would keep an open mind but has prioritized stimulating fossil fuels and especially coal, which conflicts with U.S. promises under the deal. Trump's advisers are divided on the issue.
Germany is assuming Trump will indicate the position the U.S. will take regarding the Paris accord at a Group of Seven summit in Sicily on May 26 and May 27, Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks said at a climate conference in Berlin May 22. Signatory states of the Paris accord won't let their agenda be derailed whatever the outcome of Trump's decision and subsequent policy, Merkel indicated May 23.
“We are often asked about our position when looking at the U.S. uncertainty,” said Chinese envoy Xie. “The Paris Agreement is a hard-won achievement, and all signatories should stick to it instead of walking away. China will stick to its word.”
The United Nations climate conference, which Germany is hosting this year in Bonn, is pressing ahead with its agenda, Merkel said May 23. Global warming is “something that concerns us all,” she told delegates. We must “uphold the spirit of Paris.“
Concerns were also raised by a number of global corporate and political leaders, including the OECD which said that bringing growth and climate-change agendas together could lift 2050 economic output by as much as 2.8 percent, a report released May 23 said. Taking into account the economic benefits of avoiding climate change impacts such as flooding, that number goes up to almost.
“This trio is emblematic of the kind of distributed leadership we're seeing, with a diversity of countries putting their shoulders to the wheel on climate,” said David Waskow, International Climate Director at the World Resources Institute. “It ranges from major emitters to many of the most vulnerable, and many in between.”
The agreement is broader than any previous climate accord. It calls for reducing pollution in hopes of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above temperatures at the outset of the industrial revolution.
“The Paris Agreement was a signal to the market and now it's about how to take advantage of this opportunity and how do we make sure that every country is part of it,” McKenna said. “There's a huge opportunity and now it's bigger than just one country.“
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112450392&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112450392&jd=112450392
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested