Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - October 25, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Support for Representative Peter Roskam [Video]
Oct 25, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
The American Chemistry Council highlights the work of Representative Peter Roskam of Illinois's 6th Congressional District. -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA New Substance Backlog Tops 550 Cases
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The backlog of new chemicals under review at the US EPA has grown to its largest size since TSCA was amended – with more than 550 cases awaiting approval – even while debate about the appropriate approach continues. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA's Science ‘Transparency’ Proposal Likely Delayed Until 2020
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The US EPA does not plan to finalise its controversial science ‘transparency’ proposal until early 2020, according to its recently released autumn regulatory agenda. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Asbestos Imports Surge in August, Report Finds
Oct 25, 2018 | Asbestos.com
By Matt Mauney
The amount of raw chrysotile asbestos imported into the United States increased significantly between July and August, according to a recent analysis from the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and the Environmental Working Group. -
(ACC Mentioned) Asbestos Imports Surge as Trump White House Moves to Keep Deadly Carcinogen Legal
Oct 25, 2018 | YubaNet
Asbestos imports to the U.S. soared by nearly 2,000 percent between July and August, according to federal import data analyzed by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) and Environmental Working Group. -
A Judge Has Slashed The Amount Monsanto Has To Pay In A Lawsuit Over A Common Weed-Killer Chemical's Cancer Risk
Oct 25, 2018 | Reuters (In Business Insider)
By Erin Brodwin
A jury in San Francisco this summer ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to a school groundskeeper who developed cancer after years of using Roundup, the company's popular herbicide. But on Wednesday, a California judge dealt a major blow to that decision, reducing the penalty to $49 million or about a fifth of the original amount. -
EU Parliament Backs Plastic Item Bans, Limits to Cut Ocean Trash
Oct 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., and Starbucks Corp. are among the companies already changing their packaging in preparation for a European Union law on plastic trash that was provisionally approved by the European Parliament Oct. 24. -
MEPs Back Plans To Revise Drinking Water Directive
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Parliament has backed tighter limits on levels of lead and chromium in tap water and caps on endocrine disrupting chemicals, as it gave the go ahead to a proposal to revise a 20-year-old Directive on drinking water. -
Council of Ministers Approves EU's CMR deal
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Council of Ministers has approved the agreement it reached with the European Parliament to allow the European Commission’s second revision of the carcinogens and mutagens Directive to progress. -
Industry Questions No-Deal Brexit CLP Arrangements
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
British trade associations have raised concerns over the UK’s ability to keep pace with future changes to the EU’s classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) Regulation in a no-deal Brexit scenario. -
Canada Confirms That Four Thiols Are Not Harmful
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The Canadian government has confirmed its conclusion that four thiols, three of which are used as food flavouring agents, are not harmful. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Insight Conference Emphasizes Tri-State Unity
Oct 25, 2018 | The Dominion Post-
By David Beard
Members of the oil and gas industry from West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio are gathering to celebrate the industry and its ever-growing potential at the 2018 Shale Insight Conference. -
Chemical Makers Feel Squeeze Of Processing Bottlenecks
Oct 25, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
Pipeline bottlenecks in West Texas have attracted much attention. A lack of capacity to move oil to market has forced producers to scale back operations, with some planning total shutdowns in the final weeks of the year. -
After US Midterm Elections, Energy Policy Could Be Buffeted By Presidential Politics
Oct 25, 2018 | S&P Global Platts
By Maya Weber
If Democrats retake the US House of Representatives in the midterm elections, legislation to revamp the nation's infrastructure could take the stage in Washington, while energy policy might take a less central role and be altered by 2020 presidential politics, natural gas industry executives were told Wednesday. -
ALL ABOUT: Energy Lobbyists
Oct 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The National Defense Authorization Act, a 700-plus-page funding bill signed into law in August, also contains some key energy and environment provisions that received lobbying attention in the last quarter. -
Trump EPA Official Expects Significant Rollback Of Obama-Era RMP Rule
Oct 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Gold mined from conflict areas in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo is reaching the supply chains of major US companies and finding its way into consumer products, according to an NGO report. -
DOE Networks Face 'Higher-Than-Necessary' Hacking Risk — Report
Oct 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Energy's internal watchdog warned the agency is at "higher-than-necessary" risk of a cybersecurity breach in a report posted yesterday. -
Chevron Settles Clean Air Act Claims with U.S., Mississippi
Oct 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Karn Dhingra
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. reached a settlement with the federal government and Mississippi over claims the oil giant violated provisions of the Clean Air Act when a series of fires broke out at company refineries starting in 2012, the Justice Department announced. -
Democrats Vow to Put Climate Back in House Science Committee
Oct 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Democrats hope to recapture the House science panel and ratchet up its oversight of key Trump administration agencies with a role in climate and environmental policy—areas that have been given little scrutiny by the GOP-controlled body. -
Exxon Sued by N.Y., Accused of Deceiving Investors on Climate (1)
Oct 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Erik Larson
Lawyers for Exxon Mobil Corp. stood before a New York judge in August and told the state’s attorney general to “put up or shut up” after spending three years investigating the company’s public disclosures about climate change, saying authorities should sue the energy giant or move on. -
New York AG Sues Exxon After Yearslong Investigation
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Gold mined from conflict areas in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo is reaching the supply chains of major US companies and finding its way into consumer products, according to an NGO report. -
Exxon Mobil Slams 'Baseless' New York Lawsuit
Oct 24, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Zack Colman
Exxon Mobil dismissed the lawsuit from New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood today as built on "baseless allegations" that it misled investors by downplaying the risks climate change posed to its business. -
A Look At The Climate Science Sent To Trump
Oct 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman,
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Support for Representative Peter Roskam [Video]
Oct 25, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
The American Chemistry Council highlights the work of Representative Peter Roskam of Illinois's 6th Congressional District.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/108506461-157.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA New Substance Backlog Tops 550 Cases
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The backlog of new chemicals under review at the US EPA has grown to its largest size since TSCA was amended – with more than 550 cases awaiting approval – even while debate about the appropriate approach continues.
Since the Lautenberg Act amended TSCA in 2016, the chemicals programme has faced industry criticism for the slow pace of reviews and the increased volume of substances being subjected to restrictions.
The agency has also faced intense scrutiny from consumer advocacy groups, who have complained that it is 'rubber stamping' new chemical approvals and not conducting reviews in accordance with the updated law.
Amid the ongoing discord, the agency worked to get the backlog down to its normal load of approximately 300 cases – a feat it accomplished in summer 2017.
But since last autumn, the number of cases under review has remained above 400. And according to the 9 October update to the EPA's TSCA programme statistics, there are 553 cases under agency review. Of these 72 required action from the submitter, while the remaining 481 were in the EPA's court.
The EPA told Chemical Watch that passage of the Lautenberg Act brought about changes to the programme, including the requirement to make affirmative determinations for all pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) and to evaluate all their conditions of use.
"As EPA implemented the new provisions, cases have taken more time to resolve and the number of cases under review has increased temporarily," it said.
Industry attorneys have also noted a likely rise in PMNs submitted before significantly higher fees took effect on 1 October, which may have contributed to an uptick in cases.
Nevertheless, industry concerns persist with the agency's approach, even while environmental advocates argue that the programme's problems are of industry's own making.Regulations on the rise, says specialty chemicals group
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma) made a presentation to the US Small Business Administration's environmental roundtable last month about the increase in regulations facing new chemicals.
In data pulled from the EPA's website at the end of August, Socma noted that the approval rate for substances to go to market without restriction has plummeted from more than 88% of substances before changes to the law, to less than 17% afterward.
Meanwhile, application withdrawals have increased from approximately 5% to 26%.
Highlighting how the agency is using consent orders, followed by significant new use rules, to address concerns arising from 'reasonably foreseen' uses, the group said that the agency's overall approach to new chemicals is "inefficient, highly precautionary and inhibiting the introduction of new chemistries into the marketplace".'Precautionary approach'
Speaking to Chemical Watch, Socma said the way the EPA approaches new substance reviews has fundamentally changed since the law was amended – but it believes the change should have been little more than the EPA 'showing its work' when making determinations.
Chief among the group's concerns is that the agency's consideration of hazard and exposure has become "highly precautionary," according to Jared Rothstein, senior manager of regulatory affairs at Socma.
For example, the EPA is using default assumptions in its reviews that "assume the worst", such as that exposure controls are inadequate or that submitters will not comply with Osha workplace safety requirements, he said.
Companies are effectively required to have a minimum data set available, Mr Rothstein added. With 90-day inhalation studies as part of this de facto requirement, it is contributing to a "dramatic" rise in animal testing, despite the agency's mandate to replace those, he added.
In response, the EPA told Chemical Watch it uses default assumptions when there is limited or absent hazard and exposure data provided by submitters. "The more data that is provided to EPA for a new chemical substance, the more EPA can assess risks based on that data instead of generic assumptions," it said.
It also denied that a de facto minimum data set exists: "While it may appear that some specific tests are required more frequently than others, the testing requirements on the PMN substance are based on EPA's review of the specific chemical substance and is not a minimum data set for all PMNs."Innovation impact
Among the data points stressed by Socma is the increased withdrawal rate – a "substantial portion" of which it says result from a lost commercial opportunity.
The specialty chemicals industry relies on sole-source contracts, with a certain customer looking to fill a specific need, said Mr Rothstein. If a company develops that substance but then must wait more than a year to get it to market, that opportunity is often lost. This, he added, "exacerbates reliance on existing chemicals".
The American Chemistry Council has echoed that concern. Speaking in Toronto at the Cepa-ICG conference earlier this month, the ACC's Mike Walls said delays and issues with the programme "are having an impact on innovation and competitiveness".
"I can't prove it yet," he told delegates. "I know it instinctively, I know it based on discussions with our member companies … and we need to fundamentally address that problem."
The EPA, however, said its approach balances protectiveness and timely reviews.
The "EPA is working to implement the new provisions in amended TSCA in a manner that will ensure that unreasonable risks to health and the environment are addressed, and that will meet the review times as required under amended TSCA," the agency told Chemical Watch.
And the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is among the groups that believe the increased volume of restrictions is an appropriate outcome of the updated law. The recurrence of the backlog is "directly traceable to non-stop industry demands for EPA to make unsound, illegal changes to the programme", the NGO wrote in a recent blog.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71270/tsca-new-substance-backlog-tops-550-cases
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA's Science ‘Transparency’ Proposal Likely Delayed Until 2020
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The US EPA does not plan to finalise its controversial science ‘transparency’ proposal until early 2020, according to its recently released autumn regulatory agenda.
The ‘Strengthening transparency in regulatory science’ proposal – announced in April – seeks to overhaul the EPA’s process for evaluating science.
If adopted, it would require that the regulatory science underlying EPA actions be publicly available, and independently replicable and verifiable.
The proposal says this is necessary to ensure transparency and so the agency can pursue "its mission of protecting public health and the environment in a manner that the public can trust and understand." But its detractors say that it will result in the EPA disqualifying certain studies, which may lead to inadequate regulatory responses.
An array of organisations and individuals – including academics, consumer and environmental groups, and physicians – has argued that the proposed rule might be at odds with the requirements of TSCA. As amended by the 2016 Lautenberg Act, TSCA requires the EPA to rely on "best available science" and "reasonably available information", taking into account the "weight of scientific evidence". In August, nearly 90 organisations backed comments arguing that the measure is incompatible with this mandate.
"EPA should not adopt the proposed rule because it cannot be reconciled with the agency’s duties under TSCA," added the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in a separate comment letter.
However, the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Chemistry Council have defended the proposal, saying that the agency should "show its work" when regulating, especially when it comes to health, environment, livelihoods and economy.
It has been a source of controversy for an agency already experiencing upheaval under the Trump administration. The comment period was extended from the original 30 days, finally closing on 16 August. During that time, the EPA received over half a million responses.
California attorney general Xavier Becerra – who was among the 16 state-level attorneys general to file a comment opposing the measure during its consultation – considers the delay a small victory for those who oppose it.
"EPA just shelved this misguided proposal," Mr Becerra said on Twitter. "Now they should get back to their core mission of protecting human health and the environment."
https://chemicalwatch.com/71259/us-epas-science-transparency-proposal-likely-delayed-until-2020
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Asbestos Imports Surge in August, Report Finds
Oct 25, 2018 | Asbestos.com
By Matt Mauney
The amount of raw chrysotile asbestos imported into the United States increased significantly between July and August, according to a recent analysis from the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and the Environmental Working Group.
The U.S. International Trade Commission and Department of Commerce provided the two advocacy organizations the data for their report.
According to the investigation, the U.S. imported 272 metric tons (approximately 600,000 pounds) of asbestos in August — an increase of nearly 2,000 percent from the 13 metric tons in July.
EWG and ADAO on Tuesday attributed the alarming spike to the government’s recent actions regarding the import and use of asbestos, a toxic mineral linked to deadly diseases such as lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Each year, asbestos exposure kills an estimated 40,000 Americans and more than 255,000 people worldwide, according to a recent study from the International Commission on Occupational Health.
“It is appalling that unlike more than 60 nations around the world, the U.S. not only fails to ban asbestos but allows imports to increase,” ADAO co-founder and President Linda Reinstein wrote in a press release about the findings.EPA’s SNUR Asbestos Proposal in Final Stage
The Environmental Protection Agency in July proposed its Significant New Use Rule (SNUR), which allows companies to manufacture, import and process more than a dozenasbestos-containing products no longer in use in the U.S. as long as the agency approves the uses first.
SNUR is in the Final Rule Stage, according to the Fall 2018 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs report released last week. The period for public commenting on the proposal ended Aug. 10, 2018, and the rule is set to be finalized as of Jan. 1, 2019.
Under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), SNUR requires companies to notify the EPA at least 90 days before starting the manufacture or processing of asbestos-containing materials. The agency would then evaluate the intended use of the product
Critics fear the rule will lead to an influx of asbestos products, such as pipeline wrap, roofing felt and vinyl asbestos floor tile, which haven’t been sold or used in the U.S. in decades.
Currently, the only user of raw asbestos in the U.S. is the chlor-alkali industry, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Chlorine and sodium chloride manufacturers use chrysotile asbestos to make semipermeable diaphragms.
Lobbyists with the American Chemistry Council, which works closely with the chlor-alkali industry, are asking the government for an exemption from the revamped TSCA.
Processed asbestos is still used in a variety of U.S. products including brake pads, automobile clutches and certain roofing materials.
“The science is irrefutable, there is no safe level of asbestos exposure or controlled use,” Reinstein said. “Clearly, the chlor-alkali industry is lobbying for another exemption.”U.S. Asbestos Imports Come from Brazil, Russia
Data from the International Trade Commission shows the U.S. imported 341 metric tons of raw asbestos in 2017. All of it came from Brazil, one of the world’s largest producers of the mineral.
The U.S. is on pace to double the amount of asbestos imports in 2018, already spending $1 million to import 555 metric tons from Brazil and Russia.
All of the 272 metric tons imported in August came from Brazil. But officials with ADAO and EWG believe the role of main asbestos exporter to the U.S. will soon shift to Russia, which produced 690,000 metric tons of asbestos in 2017.
In November 2017, Brazil pledged to join more than 60 other countries in banning asbestos. The comprehensive ban is set to take effect soon, leaving Russia, Kazakhstan and China as the world’s largest asbestos producers.
Russia leads worldwide mine production and is estimated to have more than 110 million tons of asbestos reserves. The last asbestos mine in the U.S. closed in 2002.
https://www.asbestos.com/news/2018/10/24/us-asbestos-imports-surge/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Asbestos Imports Surge as Trump White House Moves to Keep Deadly Carcinogen Legal
Oct 25, 2018 | YubaNet
WASHINGTON, DC, Oct. 24, 2018 – Asbestos imports to the U.S. soared by nearly 2,000 percent between July and August, according to federal import data analyzed by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) and Environmental Working Group.
According to the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce, in August alone, the U.S. imported 272 metric tons of asbestos, compared to 13 metric tons in July.
The striking increase is a major indicator that industry is not concerned about President Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) taking any steps to ban or even reduce the use and import of asbestos.
As the U.S. Geological Survey reported, the only remaining user of raw asbestos in the U.S. is the chlor-alkali industry, which uses it to make semipermeable asbestos diaphragms needed in the manufacturing of chlorine and sodium chloride.
The EPA was given new powers to ban and restrict dangerous substances like asbestos when Congress passed legislation in 2016 overhauling the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA.
Asbestos is one of the first 10 substances the EPA is assessing for safety following the updates made to the revamped chemicals law. Although the EPA has not yet made a decision about the safety of asbestos under the new TSCA, recent actions by the Trump administration lay the groundwork for the agency to find that asbestos is safe and should remain legal.
Last week, the White House released its Fall 2018 deregulatory agenda, further indicating that Trump’s EPA, under acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, has no plans to implement a ban of asbestos.
The last asbestos mine in the U.S. closed in 2002, forcing the chlor-alkali industry and other users to rely on imports.
In 2017, all of the asbestos imported into and used in the U.S. came from Brazil. Between January and August of this year, the industry spent nearly $1 million to import 555 metric tons of asbestos from Brazil and Russia. Last year, the U.S. imported more than 341 metric tons of asbestos, and 2018 imports are expected to double.
Lobbyists from the American Chemistry Council, working on behalf of the chlor-alkali industry, are now pushing the Trump administration for an exemption from the new chemical safety law that would allow it to continue to import and use asbestos just as it does today.
Analysis of federal data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that asbestos-triggered diseases kill an estimated 15,000 Americans a year. A recent study led by Jukka Takala, president of the International Commission on Occupational Health, found that the death toll from asbestos exposure may be much higher, at nearly 40,000 Americans a year and more than 255,000 a year worldwide.
“It is clear that under the Trump administration, U.S. asbestos imports and use are not decreasing. The science is irrefutable, there is no safe level of asbestos exposure or controlled use. Clearly, the chlor-alkali industry is lobbying for another exemption.” said Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.
“It is appalling that unlike more than 60 nations around the world, the U.S. not only fails to ban asbestos, but allows imports to increase,” Reinstein said. “Americans cannot identify or manage the risks of asbestos. The time is now for the EPA to say no to the asbestos industry and finally ban asbestos without exemptions.”
“If virtually anyone other than Donald Trump were president, EPA would be following the law and moving to ban asbestos to protect public health,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “When most people learn that asbestos remains legal even after it’s claimed the lives of countless Americans, they’re shocked. And when the public finds out the Trump administration is actively working to keep it legal, they are furious.”
Earlier this year, ADAO and EWG discovered that Russia’s largest asbestos producer, with close ties to Vladimir Putin, is wrapping its products in packaging adorned with President Trump’s image. The company posted on Facebook a photo of pallets of asbestos with this caption:
Donald is on our side! … He supported the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, who stated that his agency would no longer deal with negative effects potentially derived from products containing asbestos. Donald Trump supported a specialist and called asbestos “100% safe after application.”
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, in 2016, roughly 95 percent of the asbestos imported into the U.S. came from Brazil, with the rest coming from Russia.
But in November 2017, Brazil joined more than 60 other nations and banned asbestos.Brazil’s ban, which will be in full effect soon, leaves Russia, Kazakhstan and China as the world’s dominant asbestos producers. With Brazil poised to no longer provide the vast majority of asbestos to the U.S., Russia and Kazakhstan could fill the void.
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) was founded by asbestos victims and their families in 2004. ADAO is the largest non-profit in the U.S. dedicated to providing asbestos victims and concerned citizens with a united voice through our education, advocacy, and community initiatives. ADAO seeks to raise public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure, advocate for an asbestos ban, and protect asbestos victims’ civil rights. For more information, visit www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org.
https://yubanet.com/enviro/asbestos-imports-surge-as-trump-white-house-moves-to-keep-deadly-carcinogen-legal/
-
Oct 25, 2018 | Reuters (In Business Insider)
By Erin Brodwin
A woman uses a Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller spray without glyphosate in a garden in Ercuis near Paris, France.
· A jury recently ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to a plaintiff who alleged that his cancer was the result of using Roundup, the company's popular herbicide.
· On Wednesday, a California judge cut that amount to $49 million.
· Neither the original trial nor the latest finding mean thatglyphosate— the active ingredient in Roundup — causes cancer.
· Instead, the jury's ruling is based on their assertion that Monsanto intentionally kept information about Roundup's potential risks hidden from the public.
· The science linking glyphosate and cancer is limited at best, and experts say it's safe.
A jury in San Francisco this summer ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to a school groundskeeper who developed cancer after years of using Roundup, the company's popular herbicide. But on Wednesday, a California judge dealt a major blow to that decision, reducing the penalty to $49 million or about a fifth of the original amount.
Importantly, neither the trial's original outcome — nor the latest decision — reveal anything about the science behind Roundup and cancer.
Instead, the decisions simply shed light on how a judge and members of a jury felt about whether Monsanto (which recently merged with chemical giant Bayer and announced plans to dissolve its name) intentionally kept information about Roundup's potential harms from the public.
While the jury clearly felt Monsanto hid information, the judge in the latest ruling appeared to believe they were less at fault than originally decided. The lawsuit is just the first part of what could be a decades-long legal fight over Roundup's chief ingredient, a chemical called glyphosate.
When it comes to the science, the evidence tying glyphosate to cancer is limited at best. Most scientists say that it is safe to use.Could Roundup have caused someone's cancer? Probably not.
Monsanto Co's Roundup shown for sale in California Thomson Reuters
Before developing a type of cancer known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the plaintiff in the recent trial, Dewayne Johnson, had used Roundup regularly in his job as a groundskeeper at a California public school. For neglecting to alert Johnson (and the rest of the public) about the potential links between Roundup and cancer, the jury ordered Monsanto to pay Johnson $39 million to cover his medical bills, pain, and suffering, plus an additional $250 million for punitive damages (or punishment).
But as for whether Roundup could actually have been the sole or even primary cause of an individual's cancer, the research leans heavily toward "no."
The scare over a potential link between Roundup and cancer appears to have begun with a now widely-criticized statement put out by a World Health Organization group known as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015.
That year, the IARC put glyphosate — Roundup's active ingredient — in a cancer-risk category one level below widely-recognized harmful activities like smoking. But several researchers have said the IARC's determination was bogus because there is no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer. In fact, a lengthy review found that the IARC had edited out portions of the documents they used to review glyphosate to make the chemical look far more harmful than its own research had concluded.
During the latest court case, Monsanto attempted to counter plaintiff Johnson's claims that Roundup caused his cancer using extensive testimony from expert witnesses. They pointed out that the evidence definitively linking the glyphosate in Roundup to cancer is scant. More broadly, figuring out what caused one individual's cancer is a tricky business for any scientist — a point several experts have made since the most recent Monsanto verdict came out last week.
"This verdict is just the first in what could be a long legal battle over Roundup, and proving causality in such cases is not easy," Richard Stevens, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine who specializes in cancer and its causes, wrote in a recent post for The Conversation.New research could change the controversial classification of glyphosate
The IARC's 2015 statement is not final.
"The agency has often changed its classification of an agent based on new evidence after initial evaluation," Stevens wrote. "Sometimes it has become more certain that the agent poses a hazard, but in other cases it has downgraded the hazard."
Based on new studies (typically in mice), glyphosate could go from its current status — where some people see it as a potential cancer risk — to being recognized as having a very low risk for harm.
Several studies of glyphosate and cancer are ongoing, and more are coming out each year. Just last year, a review of studies looking at the ties between glyphosate and cancer concluded that in the low amounts of that people are actually exposed to, glyphosate "do[es] not represent a public concern."
Conversely, the new evidence could come out strongly against glyphosate and suggest that it's incredibly harmful. As Stevens points out, new evidence dramatically changed the public perception of another popular product which was initially labeled cancerous — a zero-calorie sweetener called saccharin, which is sold under the brand name Sweet' N Low.
In the 1980s, any product containing the sweetener was required to carry a warning label saying that it was "determined to cause cancer." But the science was flawed: the rats that had been used in the studies were especially prone to bladder cancer, and the findings did not apply to people. So in 2016, the sweetener was removed from a list of cancer-causing ingredients.
But glyphosate's status remains to be seen. For now, the court cases merely reflect the determinations of juries and judges — not the conclusions of the majority of scientific experts.
https://www.businessinsider.com/monsanto-cancer-roundup-lawsuit-chemical-reduced-latest-2018-10
-
EU Parliament Backs Plastic Item Bans, Limits to Cut Ocean Trash
Oct 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
EU Parliament votes to ban some single-use plastic items, cut down on others
Law aims to reduce plastic litter entering oceans
Companies broadly in favor, see law as complementing packaging sustainability effortsCoca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., and Starbucks Corp. are among the companies already changing their packaging in preparation for a European Union law on plastic trash that was provisionally approved by the European Parliament Oct. 24.
The provisional law would ban, starting in 2021, drinking straws, cutlery, drink stirrers, and other single-use items made from plastic in a bid to cut down on plastic litter entering the oceans.
The law also would establish a general requirement for EU countries to cut down on other plastic packaging that is hard to substitute, such as dessert and ice-cream containers.
Members of the European Parliament sitting in Strasbourg, France, approved the law in a 571-53 vote with 34 abstentions. The law is provisional until agreed to by EU governments represented by the Council of the EU, which has yet to formally discuss it.
The law would push food and drink companies in particular to boost their existing programs for more sustainable packaging.
On drinking straws, for example, Starbucks would be “plastic-straw free” globally by the end of 2020, having already ”removed all plastic straws and cutlery from our condiment bars in French and British Starbucks stores,“ Starbucks told Bloomberg Environment in an emailed statement Oct. 24.
Dutch processed food multinational Koninklijke FrieslandCampina NV has already developed and uses for its Chocomel brand container caps and wrapping made of plant-based material, spokesman Sjoerd van Sprang told Bloomberg Environment Oct. 24.
“We always keep a close eye on regulations and we always look at how and where we can improve in sustainability,” van Sprang said.
Other Bans, Design ChangesThe EU law, which was proposed by the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, in May, also would see prohibitions on plastic cotton bud sticks and sticks for balloons, while drinks containers would have to be redesigned so their plastic caps and lids can’t be detached.
The European Parliament approved a version of the law that would also ban expanded polystyrene fast-food packaging and packaging made from so-called oxo-degradable plastics, which are plastics that fragment into increasingly smaller pieces rather than biodegrading.
The European Parliament’s version of the law also would create an obligation for EU countries to recycle at least 15 percent of waste plastic fishing gear—such as nylon fishing nets—per year by 2025. Producers of fishing equipment would be required to contribute to collection and recycling costs.
The proposed measures were a “response to plastic pollution” that was “the scourge of our oceans” and would probably be popular with the public, which is generally in favor of tackling plastic waste, Frederique Ries, a Belgian liberal lawmaker who is responsible for the draft law in the European Parliament, said in an Oct. 24 statement.
Bottle Cap ConcernsAlthough the parliament’s vote was welcome, the provision on nonremovable plastic caps for drinks bottles and containers might not be “fit for purpose,” Soft Drinks Europe, which represents companies including Coca-Cola, Danone Group, and PepsiCo, said in an Oct. 24 statement.
Most plastic bottle caps are returned for recycling with their bottles, and the requirements on nondetachable caps were “in essence design requirements” that did not fit well with a law aimed at reducing marine litter, Soft Drinks Europe said.
Paul Skehan, PepsiCo EU public policy and government affairs senior director, referred a request for comment to Soft Drinks Europe.
Coca-Cola was “prepared to do our part” to eliminate trash from the oceans and would by 2030 “collect and recycle a bottle, including its cap, or can for every one we sell,” the company said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment Oct. 24.
Coca-Cola’s aim is that all its packaging will be recyclable by 2025, the statement said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/eu-parliament-backs-plastic-item-bans-limits-to-cut-ocean-trash
-
MEPs Back Plans To Revise Drinking Water Directive
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Parliament has backed tighter limits on levels of lead and chromium in tap water and caps on endocrine disrupting chemicals, as it gave the go ahead to a proposal to revise a 20-year-old Directive on drinking water.
The revised legislation halves maximum limits for lead and chromium, ten years after the Directive's enforcement. It adds limit values for three EDCs to the list of criteria for monitoring water quality. And it puts levels of microplastics under monitoring.
During a plenary session on 23 October, MEPs approved the proposal with 300 votes to 98 and 274 abstentions. Parliament will enter into negotiations with the Council once EU ministers have decided their own position, according to a statement.
The proposal, which the Commission adopted on 1 February, follows a REFIT evaluation of the drinking water Directive. This called for an examination of whether the safety parameters, set more than two decades ago, deal with "existing and emerging pressures".
MEPs accepted the addition of the following EDCs and limit values to the Directive's list of parameters:bisphenol A: 0.01μg/l;beta-estradiol: 0.001μg/l; andnonylphenol: 0.3μg/l.
According to the proposal these and several other chemicals were included on the basis of the precautionary principle, and recommendations from the WHO.
The three substances are known to be present in surface water sources, impacted by treated sewage effluent and other discharges.
BPA, which is mainly used in the manufacture of some plastics and epoxy resins, is on the REACH candidate list for its endocrine disrupting properties causing adverse effects to humans and the environment, and it has reprotoxic effects.
Nonylphenol is used as a surfactant, and is also on the candidate list as an EDC for the environment. Beta-estradiol is a natural oestrogen and is not on the candidate list.
The proposal includes the addition of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) to the list of parameters for regular monitoring by member states.
The revision aims to boost citizens’ confidence in the water supply and increase the use of tap water, which could contribute to reducing plastic usage and litter, the statement from the Parliament said.
It is also "an important legislative step" towards implementing the EU plastics strategy published in January, it added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71269/meps-back-plans-to-revise-drinking-water-directive
-
Council of Ministers Approves EU's CMR deal
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Council of Ministers has approved the agreement it reached with the European Parliament to allow the European Commission’s second revision of the carcinogens and mutagens Directive to progress.
The Council’s permanent representatives committee (Coreper) gave its assent on 24 October, a matter of weeks after the Parliament's negotiators gave approval to the changes.
The deal will see eight substances added to the Directive. These are:4,4'-methylenedianiline;epichlorohydrin;ethylene dibromide;ethylene dichloride;benzene;trichloroethylene;polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons mixtures, particularly those containing benzo[a]pyrene, which are carcinogens within the meaning of the Directive;mineral oils previously used in internal combustion engines to lubricate and cool moving parts; anddiesel.
Under the proposed rules new limits for worker exposure will be set, including:trichloroethylene – 54.7 mg/m3 for the long term and 164.1 mg/m3 in the short term;epichlorohydrin – 1.9 mg/m3; andethylene dichloride – 8.2 mg/m3.
Skin notations are also set out for the substances.
The main industries using them are: construction, metals, tool makers, automotive manufacturers and repair shops.
The provisional agreement will now go to the European Parliament for adoption in the plenary. The final adoption in the Council is planned for 6 December.
Last week Cefic, two trade union centres and an employers’ association made a joint proposal that the two EU Directives currently covering carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxicants in the workplace should be combined into one law.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71273/council-of-ministers-approves-eus-cmr-deal
-
Industry Questions No-Deal Brexit CLP Arrangements
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
British trade associations have raised concerns over the UK’s ability to keep pace with future changes to the EU’s classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) Regulation in a no-deal Brexit scenario.
Earlier this month the UK government issued guidance on regulations in the event that Britain leaves the EU on 29 March without a trade deal. It said it would effectively adopt the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for classification and labelling of chemicals and would base its regime on the existing EU one.
Therefore suppliers’ main duties and obligations would remain the same but companies operating in the UK would deal with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) instead of Echa.
This means that companies would be required to duplicate notifications – one for each agency – if they want to use or sell products in both the UK and the EU.
"While the UK has indicated that it would align with CLP on exit day, it is not clear how they would keep in step with future changes," Ellen Daniels, head of public affairs and policy at the British Coatings Federation, told Chemical Watch.
"The CLP Regulation changes regularly, introducing new harmonised classifications and adapting to changes at GHS level. Unless the UK follows the exact same timescale as the EU, there will be times when a product classified and labelled to EU standards are non-compliant in the UK and vice-versa."Potential divergence
Douglas Leech, technical director at the Chemical Business Association, has similar anxieties. One issue, he told Chemical Watch, is the possible divergence between a potential future UK annex specifying an approved supply list and the EU equivalent.
He asked what would happen if the HSE disagrees with the outcome of EU discussions. If the latter voted by qualified majority, it could leave the UK with a different classification of a chemical, he said.
There is evidence of this in the Japanese GHS and in the US, he added, where some chemicals are "slightly differently classified". This could have implications over the long term, Mr Leech added.
His comments and those of Ms Daniels came after the HSE’s second workshop on chemicals regulations in a no-deal scenario. The executive is planning to hold another workshop early next year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71282/industry-questions-no-deal-brexit-clp-arrangements
-
Canada Confirms That Four Thiols Are Not Harmful
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The Canadian government has confirmed its conclusion that four thiols, three of which are used as food flavouring agents, are not harmful.
The conclusion of the final screening assessment, dated 20 October, makes further regulatory action against the substances under the country's Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) extremely unlikely.
The four substances are:dimethyl sulfide;benzyl disulfide;tert-dodecyl mercaptan; andgrapefruit mercaptan.
Dimethyl sulfide, benzyl disulfide and grapefruit mercaptan are used as food flavouring agents. Dimethyl sulfide is also used as an odourant in natural gas.
The other substance, tert-dodecyl mercaptan, is used in the manufacture of food packaging materials. It may also be present as an impurity in a range of products available to consumers, including: paints and coatings; vinyl floor coverings; paper products; and various materials made of plastic, rubber or metal.
The assessment of the environmental hazard potential of the substances varied from low for dimethyl sulfide to high for grapefruit mercaptan, via moderate for the other two substances.
With the exception of dimethyl sulfide, all the substances had the potential to cause adverse effects in the aquatic environment and bioaccumulate.
However, the assessment found that the exposure for all four substances was low, resulting in low risk to the environment.
The risk to human health was also low. Thus, the assessment concludes that the substances meet none of the criteria in section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa).
https://chemicalwatch.com/71277/canada-confirms-that-four-thiols-are-not-harmful
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Insight Conference Emphasizes Tri-State Unity
Oct 25, 2018 | The Dominion Post-
By David Beard
PITTSBURGH – Members of the oil and gas industry from West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio are gathering to celebrate the industry and its ever-growing potential at the 2018 Shale Insight Conference.
The conference is put on by the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association.
Here are highlights of comments and by speakers from Day 1.
— Joe Bozada, CFO and COO of Appalachian Development Group, said the American Chemical Council has projected that natural gas liquids development in the tri-state Marcellus-Utica basin could produce 100,000 new jobs.
The development group’s core focus, he said, is pursuing the Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub, with its storage facilities and associated pipelines plus a trading company to create a sustainable marketplace.
— The whole conference is focused not on tri-state competition but unity, as reflected in the 2015 Tri-State Governor’s Regional Cooperation agreement that created the Tri-State Shale Coalition.
Denise Brinley, senior advisor for the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, said the coalition’s primary underpinning is: “Prosperity flows where value is added to a raw material.” The most prominent example is the Shell Pennsylvania Chemicals cracker plant in process outside Pittsburgh.
The region possesses “clear, compelling advantages in recruiting manufacturing,” she said. And production of natural gas liquids, essential to the petrochemical industry, is projected to grow sevenfold by middle of next decade.
With that in mind, she unveiled a new branding promotion, to link the three states as “one place, one name, one opportunity” to promote manufacturing, marketing and exports. The green and gold logo labels the area as The Power Region.
“We believe this is absolutely critical to draw focus on a region where the most significant opportunities on earth are unfolding,” Brinley said.
— Andree Griffin, vice president of geology and geophysics for XTO Energy, said that since start of 2012, Marcellus and Utica shale production has provided 85 percent growth in U.S. shale production.
“These rates are staggering, but they are also very exciting,” she said. And they’re just the beginning. Ever-improving technology, longer laterals and other advances will continually expand production. “The full potential of this resource is being rewritten year over year.”
— Coal and gas are carbon cousins that united in their opposition to Obama-era carbon fuel policies. But there’s also an inherent tension, reflected in comments throughout the day to expand the gas industry’s reach, and produce cleaner power, by displacing coal-fired plants with gas-fired.
Anne Blankenship, executive director of WVONGA, addressed that tension in an answer to a question from The Dominion Post.
“That’s an especially difficult question and topic right now in West Virginia,” she said, as West Virginia has been a coal-fired state. It lags behind Ohio and Pennsylvania in developing gas-fired power.
Three gas-fired plants are in the approval process and have faced challenges “directly related to the coal industry’s concerns about natural gas being used instead of coal. … As an industry, we’re really to trying to do what we can to get additional support to get through those hurdles. But it is what it is and we’re hoping to move forward.
She observed, “This is a regional grid; it’s a regional market. If these plants don’t get built in West Virginia, it’s not necessarily a win for coal. It’s a win for our surrounding states, because those plants are going to get built somewhere because we need them. “
WVONGA would like to see them built in West Virginia, she said, but added that the conference is focused on tri-state unity and the Utica shale play offers even greater opportunity than the Marcellus.
https://www.dominionpost.com/2018/10/24/shale-insight-conference-emphasizes-tri-state-unity/
-
Chemical Makers Feel Squeeze Of Processing Bottlenecks
Oct 25, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
Pipeline bottlenecks in West Texas have attracted much attention. A lack of capacity to move oil to market has forced producers to scale back operations, with some planning total shutdowns in the final weeks of the year.
Less notice has been paid to another sort of bottleneck creating headaches for the companies making use of the abundance of natural gas produced alongside that oil. A lack of capacity to process natural gas liquids — namely ethane — has created a “major pinch point” for petrochemicals producers, driving up prices amid rising demand, according to a recent analysis by research firm IHS Markit.
The problem centers on a lack of capacity to separate natural gas liquids — ethane, propane, butane and others — once they’ve been segregated from dry natural gas used for heating and power generation. Those liquids are used as feedstock in the production of plastics and other petrochemicals needed to manufacture consumer goods, building materials and other products.
Already, the firm said, the bottlenecks have caused a spike in the price of ethane as producers demand more of it to feed sprawling new plants, to some degree undercutting the promise of low-cost feedstock that has fueled a resurgence in petrochemicals manufacturing along the U.S. Gulf Coast. The global petrochemicals industry has increasingly turned its focus to the export-friendly shores of Texas and Louisiana, spending billions of dollars to expand operations to take advantage of cheap natural gas from West Texas and elsewhere.
The constraints correspond with a broader lag in investments in the transportation and processing capacity needed to support record oil and gas production after a two-year bust. IHS Markit noted that efficiency gains have enabled producers to bring wells online in a matter of months, while building new pipelines and natural gas processing plants takes years.
The firm’s analysis said that domestic ethane demand has outpaced supply since the end of last year. Since then, Dow Chemical, Chevron Phillips Chemical and ExxonMobil Chemical have each brought on towering crackers to turn millions of tons of ethane into ethylene, a base chemical for a range of plastics.
The gap in supply and demand is only expected to grow as other producers prepare to bring on several new crackers of their own in the next couple of years. That means more volatility for ethane prices until new processing facilities come online sometime in 2020 — a reminder that a production boom is only as robust as the pipes and plants that feed it.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/NOTEBOOK1028-13334163.php
-
After US Midterm Elections, Energy Policy Could Be Buffeted By Presidential Politics
Oct 25, 2018 | S&P Global Platts
By Maya Weber
Washington — If Democrats retake the US House of Representatives in the midterm elections, legislation to revamp the nation's infrastructure could take the stage in Washington, while energy policy might take a less central role and be altered by 2020 presidential politics, natural gas industry executives were told Wednesday.
Two weeks before the midterm elections, the Natural Gas Roundtable in Washington heard from a government relations consultant as well as manufacturing and utility executives.
One common assumption is that Democrats will step up oversight of the Trump administration should they take the House.
Greg Means, founder of government relations firm Alpine Group, suggested coal, rather than natural gas, was likely to be a target of investigations of Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Energy initiatives or regulatory rollbacks.
"I don't see us as being a focal point, certainly not in any bad way," he said, suggesting abundant natural gas had a positive story even under the Obama administration, with the resource's lower emissions footprint and success in competitive markets.
For now, with gasoline and natural gas prices in check, energy doesn't make the top of the list of things voters worry about, and thus isn't showing up in political ads this season, he said.ACTIVIST CONTINGENT
Still, Aric Newhouse, senior vice president of policy and government relations for the National Association of Manufacturers, raised the possibility that the activist environmental community in the Democratic voter base could push the conversation to the left.
"The interesting dynamic will be what is the response from the candidates. Are they willing to say no to that special interest [or] are they willing to say yes to that special interest," he said.
"Think back where we were three years ago," with celebrity activists involved in oil pipeline opposition. "I don't think that underlying political energy suddenly disappeared. ... I think it could be tapped again," he said.
With an increased focus on the presidential campaign after the midterms, the underlying content of the energy policy debate in Washington could shift by March 2020, he said.
Democrats, should they take the House, have discussed acting on infrastructure legislation, among other matters. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hasn't talked about specifics on energy policy, Newhouse said.
"She's been very, very blank on that," he said, adding there will be tremendous pressure on Democrats to "do something in this space."
Matthew Nugen, WEC Energy Group director of federal government affairs, said his company sees lots of opportunities in infrastructure legislation. Such legislation could address transmission upgrades and expansions.
But all three speakers agreed a major obstacle is how to pay for infrastructure packages, which could cost up to $1 trillion, even if both Democrats and President Donald Trump dub infrastructure a priority.CARBON TAX
"We've proven over the last couple of decades that we won't raise the gas tax," Means said. If the Democrats take over, "that is going to lead to a discussion on carbon tax as a way to fund infrastructure," he said.
According to Nugen, "in general, our analysis is that some small things could get moved in next year, but it would be really hard in this divided government to move anything major unless there are some really big negotiations that are done."
"We don't think that much is going to change in Washington, even if the Democrats take back the House," he said.
For natural gas pipelines, reforms to streamline permitting have been a priority, but it's uncertain whether those would be featured in a bill pushed by Democrats, who have been wary of weakening environmental restrictions. Recently, the industry has turned its sights to getting EPA guidance or clarifications to rein in actions by some states that have sidelined projects using the federal Clean Water Act.
House Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Democrat of New Jersey, who could take over as committee chairman, has said a priority would be investments in green energy and drinking water infrastructure. Oversight is also on his list. He has promised to scrutinize the Trump administration's "dangerous policies that only make [climate change] worse," as well as examine Trump's steps to relax environmental protections.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/102418-after-us-midterm-elections-energy-policy-could-be-buffeted-by-presidential-politics
-
Oct 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The National Defense Authorization Act, a 700-plus-page funding bill signed into law in August, also contains some key energy and environment provisions that received lobbying attention in the last quarter.
We’ve found in recent lobbying disclosure filings that numerous energy industry groups and environment advocacy organizations lobbied both for and against the energy provisions.
Large nuclear manufacturers, such as Westinghouse Electric Corp. and General Atomics, as well as utilities with nuclear plants including Duke Energy Corp., Southern Co., and NextEra Energy, lobbied in support of nuclear energy provisions in the defense bill.
The utilities in particular backed provisions requiring the Energy Department and Defense Department to develop and install small modular nuclear reactors on military sites. The law calls for at least one of these small reactors (typically 50 megawatts electric or less) to be operational at an Energy Department facility and/or a military facility before 2027.
Separately, advocacy groups lobbied against certain riders in the House version of the bill that they deemed anti-environmental, and ultimately were successful in getting them removed.
In particular, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the League of Conservation Voters opposed a rider that attempted to strip Endangered Species Act protections for the lesser prairie chicken, the greater sage grouse, and the American burying beetle. The groups also opposed a House bill rider that would speed up mine permitting and circumvent National Environmental Policy Act review. Both riders were dropped from the final bill.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
This All About appeared in today’s First Move, which is delivered at 7:45 a.m. on weekdays.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/all-about-energy-lobbyists
-
Trump EPA Official Expects Significant Rollback Of Obama-Era RMP Rule
Oct 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A senior Trump administration official says EPA is planning a significant rollback of an Obama-era facility safety rule, arguing against significant disclosure of facility data that the original rule requires and backing the Labor Department's lead in process safety.
But an industry official says EPA faces a difficult task in responding to environmentalists' lengthy concerns with a proposed version of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) rollback.
During an Oct. 23 Process Safety Summit sponsored by the Conn Maciel Carey law firm, Steven Cook, EPA's deputy waste chief, suggested the final rule would curtail provisions that require significant disclosure of facility data, which environmentalists are seeking to preserve.
He also suggested that the rollback would limit provisions addressing process safety as he backed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) lead in overseeing process safety, adding that EPA's primary job is mitigating impacts.
“There are some who believe that you cannot have too much information, that if you just put everything out there, something good will happen,” Cook said, describing advocates' comments that EPA received on its May 17 proposed rule rescinding most of a January 2017 update to the agency's RMP facility accident prevention program, including new requirements for process safety analysis and streamlining disclosure of facility data.
Cook added that too much information overwhelms first responders. “We're trying to ensure that we've got the right information in front of those emergency responders, and that we have done the right training so that everyone knows their roles and responsibilities.”
While acknowledging that EPA plays a role in process safety, Cook backed OSHA as the lead regulator for ensuring facilities' processes are safe, arguing that EPA's statutory authority and experience better suit the agency's role mitigating the consequences of an accident outside the fenceline of facilities and coordinating emergency response.
“Part of the philosophy is that we have more experience on the mitigation aspect, the impacts to the community and outside the fenceline,” he said, highlighting OSHA's role in process safety. “There's a lot of experience at OSHA and, looking at that, we have to be careful to not tread too far into that role” of process safety, “but we do have a role to play.”
Cook's remarks come as EPA is seeking to finalize in January a final rule scrapping most of the agency's January 2017 RMP rule. The rescission would scrap requirements for third-party auditing, hazard analysis and streamlined disclosure of facility data, while preserving, with modifications, new requirements for coordinating with first responders.
EPA is currently sifting through comments received in advance of an Aug. 23 deadline, including comments from environmentalists and Democratic-led states threatening to sue the agency if it does not drop the May 17 proposedrescission rule.
Environmentalist and Democratic-led state comments oppose rescission of new process safety and disclosure requirements and argue that a recent appellate ruling vacating the Trump administration's final rule delaying the Obama-era update backs a Clean Air Act mandate for EPA to protect against industrial disasters.
'Novel Legal Arguments'
While Cook's remarks suggest that EPA is unlikely to heed calls from environmentalists and some states to preserve the Obama-era rule's stricter requirements for process hazard analysis and streamlined disclosure of facility data, an industry attorney told the conference that EPA faces a significant workload in responding to environmentalists' comments and is unlikely to make its January target for finalizing the rescission rule.
The source noted that Earthjustice's lengthy comments against the rescission include “novel legal arguments,” and specifically noted advocates' claim that EPA must respond to U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) recommendations.
In Aug. 23 comments, Earthjustice cites the CSB's May report on a facility fire sparked by Hurricane Harvey floodwaters that called for EPA and OSHA to require facilities to account for greater risks posed by more-extreme storm events in their relevant rules and policies.
“The Act also creates an independent U.S. Chemical Safety Board ('CSB') and directs EPA to respond to its regulatory recommendations within 180 days,” Earthjustice says in comments to EPA.
“Legislative history makes clear that Congressional intent in setting these timelines was to assure a 'timely regulatory response' by EPA to 'high priority' problems, over time, and showed the objective to 'overcome . . . regulatory inertia' by ensuring EPA would have to listen to an independent expert agency,” the comments add.
The industry attorney also appeared to back, at least partially, environmentalists' claims that a recent ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacating EPA's nearly 20-month delay of the Obama-era RMP update rule could complicate the agency's revision process.
But the industry official downplayed any effect saying a ruling striking down the delay addressed “different issues,” though the precedent is out there.
EPA has apparently declined to seek re-hearing of a two-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit's Aug. 19 ruling that the Trump administration's delay of the Obama-era rule “made a mockery” of the Clean Air Act and emphasizing the air law's duty to prevent disasters.
Industry observers have said that EPA faced a deadline of early this month to file for re-hearing, and that quickly finalizing the proposed revision rule is the most efficient way to ensure companies have clear mandates for complying with the RMP program, as well as for reducing the burden of the Obama-era amendments that industry has said are unnecessary.
Shortly before the end of the Obama administration, EPA issued the rule requiring facilities to conduct third-party audits, analyze safer alternatives, and streamline data disclosure to first responders and the public, among other requirements.
But in response to petitions from GOP-led states and industry, the Trump administration began a two-step reconsideration process. The agency issued a final rule delaying the Obama-era RMP update for nearly two years, until February 2019, and then proposed the May 17 rule seeking to rescind most requirements of the 2017 Obama update rule.
'Wild Card'
The D.C. Circuit's ruling and subsequent decision to grant petitioners' request for an expedited mandate requires companies to immediately comply with certain provisions, including new emergency coordination and process analysis requirements, while the compliance deadlines for other provisions are still several years away.
During the industry conference, company officials wrestled with clarifying their compliance burden amid a changing regulatory landscape. In addition to the Obama-era rule's staggered compliance dates and the pending rescission rule, the industry attorney called the prospect that Democrats could win control of the House in the November election a “wild card” that could further delay the rule.
“If Democrats take the House I'd expect the rule to be pushed more to the third quarter,” the industry attorney said, adding that new House leaders would likely seek to question Cook on the revision process. “They're trying everything they can to slow this down.”
In discussing provisions that are already in effect, company officials said that they are struggling to determine the extent of review they must conduct to comply with the provisions of the Obama-era rule. Unclear aspects include whether they can review a representative sample of facility processes or whether they must literally inspect every covered process. Officials also raised concerns that sometimes local emergency planners to not comply with their requests for coordination.
While companies desire clarity on aspects of the rule, one industry official suggested that a request for formal guidance might pull EPA resources away from finalizing the rescission rule, which is companies' favored approach.
The industry attorney said that if companies seek to comply with the existing rule, they are unlikely to face a significant risk of enforcement of the Obama-era amendments that the Trump administration is seeking to scrap.
“Our strong impression is that as long as people take a reasonable, defensible, papered approach, where they explain their methodology, the risk this well be enforced before it's rescinded is fairly low,” the attorney said. The attorney added
that liability risk under the new rule is also low, “unless the rescission itself is thrown out in court.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-epa-official-expects-significant-rollback-obama-era-rmp-rule
-
DOE Networks Face 'Higher-Than-Necessary' Hacking Risk — Report
Oct 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Energy's internal watchdog warned the agency is at "higher-than-necessary" risk of a cybersecurity breach in a report posted yesterday.
DOE's Office of Inspector General found 10 unpatched computer networks, four access control oversights, and three "weaknesses" in security training and awareness at various sites, according to a fiscal 2018 oversight report dated Friday.
The IG left out specific information on the vulnerable sites and networks, citing security concerns.
"The systems used to support the Department's various missions face millions of cyber threats each year, ranging from unsophisticated hackers to advanced persistent threats using state-of-the-art intrusion tools and techniques," DOE acting Inspector General April Stephenson noted in an introduction to the report.
Stephenson credited DOE's recent efforts to shore up the cybersecurity of its systems in response to past IG findings. But she concluded that without further action, unclassified data at the agency would remain at "a higher-than-necessary risk of compromise, loss, and/or modification."
DOE employees routinely handle sensitive data even in the unclassified space, from nuclear research-and-development information to studies of U.S. grid vulnerabilities.
DOE management concurred with the inspector's findings and pledged to act on the recommendations. The agency's chief information officer, Max Everett, said in an Oct. 11 letter that many of the deficiencies mentioned in the latest IG assessment had cropped up in past years, such as handling of access controls. "These known areas of weakness will continue to be addressed at all organizational levels to ensure that our information assets and systems are adequately protected from harm," he said.
The inspector general audit uncovered nine DOE locations running software no longer supported by the vendor, including one site with an operating system that has not received security updates since July 2010 — likely a reference to Windows XP Service Pack 2. The DOE watchdog said, "Officials indicated that the risk related to this weakness was accepted and mitigating controls were in place" to prevent hackers from taking advantage of the unpatched networks.
The review also found 934 "critical and high-risk" vulnerabilities that had slipped under the radar at another site, despite regularly scheduled security scans there. In one case, a cybersecurity-related fix was six years past its due date.
The IG's report suggested organizational problems may be partly to blame for some of the slip-ups, and it issued more than two dozen recommendations.
"The weaknesses identified occurred, in part, because Department officials had not fully developed and/or implemented policies and procedures related to the issues identified in our report," the report concluded.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/10/25/stories/1060104351
-
Chevron Settles Clean Air Act Claims with U.S., Mississippi
Oct 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Karn Dhingra
Chevron settled for $160 million over 2012, 2013 incidents, government says
Largest settlement in history in EPA’s enforcement of Risk Management Rule under Clean Air Act
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. reached a settlement with the federal government and Mississippi over claims the oil giant violated provisions of the Clean Air Act when a series of fires broke out at company refineries starting in 2012, the Justice Department announced.
The fires and the subsequent release of chemicals resulted in the death of one employee and the endangerment of thousands of residents residing near the company’s refineries.
Chevron’s consent decree with the federal government and Mississippi exceeds $160 million, making it the largest settlement in the history of the EPA’s enforcement of the Risk Management Plan Rule under Clean Air Act Section 112(r), according to a Justice Department statement Oct. 24.
This is the first case in which the federal government—in this case the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency—and a state jointly brought suit to enforce these provisions, according to the Justice Department.
Safety ImprovementsChevron will spend $150 million to replace pipes, institute operating parameters and alarms for safer operation, improve corrosion inspections and training, centralize safety authority within the corporation, conduct a pilot study of safety controls for fired heaters, and make other safety improvements at all its domestic refineries, according to Justice Department.
Chevron also agreed to pay a $2.95 million civil penalty and will put in place $10 million worth of supplemental environmental projects in the communities surrounding the company’s refineries in California, Mississippi, Utah, and Hawaii.
The settlement stems from an EPA investigation of a fire Aug. 6, 2012, at the Crude Unit of Chevron’s Richmond, Calif., refinery, which endangered 19 employees, and caused 15,000 local residents to seek medical attention.During the EPA’s investigation, Chevron experienced accidental releases of regulated chemicals at two of its other refineries, including a 2013 explosion and fire in Pascagoula, Miss., that caused the death of employee Tonya Graddy, and a 2013 rupture in El Segundo, Calif., that caused a loss of power and flaring at the refinery.
Chevron did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chevron-settles-clean-air-act-claims-with-us-mississippi
-
Democrats Vow to Put Climate Back in House Science Committee
Oct 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Democrat Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson vows oversight on climate science, DOE, EPA research
Senior Republicans in line for top spot include panel vice chairman Frank Lucas and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
Democrats hope to recapture the House science panel and ratchet up its oversight of key Trump administration agencies with a role in climate and environmental policy—areas that have been given little scrutiny by the GOP-controlled body.
Standing in the wings for Democrats if they win control of the House Nov. 6 is Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), who in her 25 years in Congress has never chaired a committee. She argues Republicans since 2011 have steered the House Science, Space and Technology Committee away from bread and butter science issues such as climate change and used it to attack environmental and other regulations.
“I want the committee to look at issues that I think have been abused over this last seven years of their leadership: climate change and attempting to destroy EPA,” Johnson told Bloomberg Environment.
“It’s the responsibility of the committee to look at climate research and acknowledge it—not to deny it—and try to plot some ways in which we can address it,” Johnson said.
In what has now became a familiar refrain for House Democrats itching to hold gavels in the 116th Congress, Johnson is pledging more aggressive oversight of Trump administration agencies, including Energy Department and EPA research divisions. If Johnson takes the gavel, she’ll be the third consecutive Texan to head the science panel following Texans Lamar Smith (2013-2018) and Ralph Hall (2011-2013).
If the GOP holds onto the House Nov. 6, several senior Republicans could be in line for the job, among them panel vice chair Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.). But Lucas also has a good shot at chairing the House Financial Services Committee—a loftier perch that oversees banking, securities, and monetary policy.
“If life is about options,” Lucas told Bloomberg Environment, “I have some really good options.”
Lucas, who chaired the Agriculture Committee from 2011-2015, is expected to opt for the top financial services post if Republicans hold the House.
But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), first elected to the House in 1988 nearly six years before Lucas, argues the top science panel job would be his anyway. Rohrabacher first has to win what looks like a toss-up race for his 48th District seat.
“Actually, I have seniority over Frank on the Science Committee,” Rohrabacher said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment, noting he joined the panel soon after arriving to Congress nearly 30 years ago and, like Lucas, has been vice chairman. Rohrabacher said he had to give up the No. 2 spot as he rose in the ranks of the Foreign Affairs Committee—he chairs the Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats subcommittee—but remains the more senior committee member.
“I am looking forward to being the chairman of the committee next year, and believe Frank will make an excellent chairman of the Financial Services Committee,” Rohrabacher said.
Another Committee Beckons?Lucas said his rural district spanning nearly half of Oklahoma would probably prefer he chair Financial Services but isn’t tipping his hand.
“My constituents, many are in the oil and gas industry, small business and main street so [chairing Financial Services panel] makes a lot of sense,” Lucas said, adding “I think I understand what my constituents would prefer.”
But he notes the science panel oversees agencies important to his region including the National Weather Service. It also has jurisdiction over NASA; Energy Department research, including non-military labs; environmental research; and the National Science Foundation.
“Coming from my district, there’s nothing more important than what the weather is going to do,” Lucas said. “We don’t have hurricanes but almost everything else imaginable—droughts, thunderstorms, floods, tornadoes,” Lucas said, adding that he wants more cooperation between private companies and federal agencies on weather forecasting. Lucas authored the House version of the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, which provided a bigger private sector role in forecasting and was signed into law in 2017.
If neither Lucas nor Rohrabacher end up chairman, other senior Science Committee Republicans could see an opening, including Rep. Mo Brooks (Ala.), first elected to the House in 2010.
An About-Face on ClimateAs ranking Democrat on the House Science, Space, and Technology panel, Johnson has clashed with Chairman Lamar Smith (R), who is retiring. Smith aggressively pushed back on climate science and launched probes into federal research agencies and climate scientists.
“I don’t necessarily think we have a committee that wants to close its eyes and ears to the future,” Johnson said. But committee members “have been led in that direction” by Republican leadership.
On climate, Johnson said, both parties need to recognize the enormity of the problem. “It’s not going to stop overnight,” she said. “What we have to do is open the dialogue. We’ve not had that opportunity.”
“But I’m not one of these people who just thinks I can ramrod everything through,” she said.
Johnson also argues that committee Republicans largely gave the EPA and other agencies a pass over the last two years since Trump was elected. She wants more focus on basic science including finding ways to encourage science and technology education known as STEM.
She pledged more bipartisan cooperation on the panel and regular order on legislation—though previous pledges by Republican and Democratic chairmen alike have yet to produce a more collegial Congress.
Rep. Daniel Lipinsky (D-Ill.), a senior committee member, said a Democratic majority could help him move legislative proposals that stalled under the GOP-controlled House, including the Challenges and Prizes for Climate Act, which he co-authored to award prizes for next-generation climate technologies. He’d push other issues including the need for Congress to address ethics and other complexities of artificial intelligence technologies, as well as provide more of a regulatory structure for autonomous vehicle testing.
A Reset for the Scientific CommunityScience committee members have long clashed on climate change, with Democrats warning of its dire consequences and Republicans questioning whether the Earth is warming or railing against Obama climate regulations as job killers. One memorable exception was Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), a self-described “climate believer” and moderate Republican who lost the gavel when Democrats took the House in 2006 and held the majority for four years.
After Republicans re-took the House in 2010, the committee aggressively challenged the Obama administration on its climate agenda, from its efforts to regulate carbon pollution to President Obama’s claims that climate change was at least partly to blame for Hurricane Sandy and other increasingly severe weather events.
The committee passed multiple bills in recent years that Republicans argued would add transparency for science that is often used to support new regulations, with titles such as the Secret Science Reform Act and the EPA Science Board Reform Act. They eventually passed the Republican-controlled House but died in the Senate.
Johnson, the Democrat, said then that the measures amounted to “one of the most anti-science and anti-health campaigns I’ve witnessed” in her then-22 years in Congress.
As the ranking Democrat for the last eight years, Johnson said she has watched from the sidelines as Republicans attacked regulations and climate science.
“They have spent it basically to hammer away at agencies they disagree with and go after regulations they disagree with,” she said. “I cannot tell you how many things we have moved backward on under this leadership.”
The Republican-led panel angered many in the scientific community after it subpoenaed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2015 over climate communications, demanding emails between scientists and internal staff. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), a senior Democrat on the panel, said a Democratic-led committee would reassure scientists that they won’t be targeted by such investigations.
“Regaining the trust of the scientific community that has just been bashed and trashed by the majority, that’s something we can do,” Lofgren told Bloomberg Environment.
Rohrabacher, the Republican, defended the aggressive oversight, saying it was “appropriate then and remains so today.” The Obama administration often implemented regulations despite their costs, he said, likening the impact to “throwing sand into the gears of America’s economic machinery.”
Johnson says expect the committee to be aggressive on oversight but not overly zealous. “Oversight yes. But not for the purpose of destroying their efforts or the individuals” who work at agencies, she said.https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/democrats-vow-to-put-climate-back-in-house-science-committee
-
Exxon Sued by N.Y., Accused of Deceiving Investors on Climate (1)
Oct 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Erik Larson
Follows investigation into public disclosures about climate change
Exxon lawyer had demanded that state ‘put up or shut up’
Lawyers for Exxon Mobil Corp. stood before a New York judge in August and told the state’s attorney general to “put up or shut up” after spending three years investigating the company’s public disclosures about climate change, saying authorities should sue the energy giant or move on.
On Oct. 24, New York chose to strike.
Attorney General Barbara Underwood filed a fraud lawsuit against Exxon in state court in Manhattan, accusing the company of misleading investors about how future regulations could impact its business. The complaint capped a tumultuous investigation that reached the highest levels of Exxon’s leadership, including former Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson.
Central to the probe and the lawsuit are Exxon’s use of so-called proxy costs for carbon to calculate the financial impact of future regulations on the business. The costs are supposed to assure long-term investors including institutional shareholders and pension funds that they wouldn’t be taken by surprise. New York says it was a ruse.
“Exxon built a facade to deceive investors into believing that the company was managing the risks of climate-change regulation to its business when, in fact, it was intentionally and systematically underestimating or ignoring them, contrary to its public representations,” Underwood said in a statement.
The suit was brought under several anti-fraud statutes, including New York’s Martin Act, one of the toughest such laws in the country. New York seeks an order prohibiting Exxon from continuing to make misrepresentations and forcing the company to correct its past claims. The state also seeks unspecified money damages and a disgorgement of all profit derived from the alleged fraud.
Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri called the lawsuit “tainted” and meritless.
“These baseless allegations are a product of closed-door lobbying by special interests, political opportunism and the attorney general’s inability to admit that a three-year investigation has uncovered no wrongdoing,” Silvestri said in an email.
Behind The ScenesThe Irving, Texas-based company in March lost a lawsuit in which it sought to have the investigation halted because the case was politically motivated. Exxon claimed the probe had been corruptly coordinated behind the scenes with other Democratic-led states and hostile environmental groups.
And in April, Massachusetts’ top court affirmed a judge’s decision that Exxon must hand over documents dating back to 1976 to Attorney General Maura Healey, who is investigating alongside New York. At the time, Healey said the ruling should put an end to Exxon’s “scorched-earth campaign” to block investigations.
Exxon had sued Healey and former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in federal court in Texas to try to derail the investigations, but a judge there transferred the case to New York, depriving Exxon of a hometown advantage.
Underwood said Exxon’s fraud had a direct impact on New York investors. The state’s common retirement fund, with more than 1 million employees and retirees, and the New York State Teachers Retirement System, with nearly half a million members, hold Exxon shares valued at about $1.5 billion, Underwood said.
In the Oct. 24 lawsuit, New York said Exxon’s management, including Tillerson, knew for years that the company was deviating from its public claims by using a second set of proxy costs that were lower than the publicly disclosed figures.
“Exxon’s management also knew that using these lower figures made Exxon more susceptible to climate-change regulatory risk, but did not align these two sets of proxy costs for years,” Underwood said in the statement.
The suit claims Exxon discovered that if it actually applied the publicly represented proxy costs internally, it would result in “massive” costs, “large write-downs” and shorter asset lives, the state says.
For example, the state alleges, Exxon’s failure to apply its publicly represented proxy costs to 14 of its oil-sands projects in Alberta, Canada, resulted in undercounting of anticipated greenhouse-gas related expenses by more than $25 billion over the lifetime of the projects, according to the statement.
New York in June accused Exxon of failing to comply with subpoenas for cash-flow projections reflecting how it used proxy costs. The state has said it wants to know exactly how the cost for greenhouse-gas emissions was used in making investment decisions.
In August, at the hearing where Exxon lawyer Theodore Wells made the “put up or shut up” demand, a lawyer in Underwood’s office, Manisha Sheth, said New York had “smoking gun” evidence.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/exxon-sued-by-ny-accused-of-deceiving-investors-on-climate-1
-
New York AG Sues Exxon After Yearslong Investigation
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Gold mined from conflict areas in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo is reaching the supply chains of major US companies and finding its way into consumer products, according to an NGO report.
The report by The Sentry – an initiative of NGO Enough Project and human rights charity Not On Our Watch (NOOW) – says that the African Gold Refinery (AGR), located in Uganda, is sourcing illegally smuggled gold from eastern Congo and then exporting it to a Belgian affiliated refinery.
The gold, it says, may find its way into the supply chains of major western corporations, including "Amazon, Sony, General Electric, and 280 other US publicly traded companies".
All of these companies, it continues, listed the Belgian refinery as an entity that may be in their supply chains, according to 2018 SEC filings. This is despite it failing an international conflict minerals audit, the Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI) – formerly the Conflict-Free Smelter Programme. It was subsequently removed from RMI's active refiner/smelter list in November last year.
Amazon and Sony did not respond to Chemical Watch's request for comment on the report's claims by the time of publishing. General Electric responded by highlighting its 2017 conflict minerals report, which sets out the due diligence the company carried out last year. However, it did not directly respond to the NGO report.
AGR has denied that it sources from conflict areas and says it is "committed to refraining from any action which contributes to the financing of conflict".US requirements
In 2012, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule, which requires companies to determine if the gold, tin, tungsten and tantalum (3TG) they use came from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or an adjoining country.
If it is found to be the case, they are required to carry out a due diligence review of their supply chain to determine whether their 3TG transactions are funding armed groups in eastern DRC.
However, last year, then-Acting Chairman of the SEC Michael Piwowar suggested the agency would not seek enforcement for failure to submit 'enhanced disclosure' documents required by the law.
Many companies affected continued to file full reports for the 2016 reporting year, but others failed to as a "direct response" to Mr Piwowar's statements.
It led to a group of investors – under the Investor Alliance for Human Rights banner – pointing to more than a dozen company filings which explicitly mention the SEC's 2017 statements in indicating why they had chosen not to file the supplemental conflict minerals report.
The reporting rule has faced headwinds in the US since its enactment, including several efforts to defund it, amid concern from regulated parties over the burden it imposes.
Critics say the rule has resulted in an unintended boycott of 3TG minerals sourced from the DRC region. But research suggests these fears are overblown.https://chemicalwatch.com/71231/conflict-gold-reaching-us-company-supply-chains-says-ngo-report
-
Exxon Mobil Slams 'Baseless' New York Lawsuit
Oct 24, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Zack Colman
Exxon Mobil dismissed the lawsuit from New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood today as built on "baseless allegations" that it misled investors by downplaying the risks climate change posed to its business.
"The New York Attorney General’s office doubled down on its tainted, meritless investigation by filing a complaint against ExxonMobil," spokesman Scott Silvestri said in an email.
Silvestri said the charges made by Underwood's office "are a product of closed-door lobbying by special interests, political opportunism and the attorney general’s inability to admit that a three-year investigation has uncovered no wrongdoing."
Exxon had sought unsuccessfully to block investigations by attorneys general in Massachusetts, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands into whether the company had properly informed its investors about its research into climate change and whether potential government action to curb carbon emissions would hurt its business.
It was not yet clear whether other states would join New York in the lawsuit, but California's Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra told reporters he was considering it.
"We are going to take a close look at what New York has done," Becerra said in a press call.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
A Look At The Climate Science Sent To Trump
Oct 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman,
The White House requested a PowerPoint presentation for President Trump from a group devoted to attacking climate science.
During the transition period after Trump's electoral victory, senior White House aides reached out to the Heartland Institute, a think tank that works to cloud the findings of scientists, to request a presentation on climate change, said James Taylor, the organization's senior fellow for environment and energy policy.
Taylor said the request came after former Vice President Al Gore met with Trump to talk about rising temperatures in December 2016.
"He's an open-minded and intelligent man, so of course he wanted the best information arguments that both sides had to offer," Taylor said. "We were invited to send in the PowerPoint for the president's viewing, which we did. We were expecting to get a call to do so in person, but we received a call that it was unnecessary, that we won the day."
Taylor refused to provide the PowerPoint to E&E News unless the news outlet organized a public debate between Taylor and Gore. Taylor said he would "kick Gore's butt" in a science debate, "the way Mike Tyson beat Michael Spinks." He was referring to the 1988 bout between two undefeated boxing champions.
Taylor said the PowerPoint was similar to the group's publication, "Climate Change Reconsidered." The publication, which drew insights from 117 scientists, economists and others, including many funded by the energy industry, concluded that the world needs more fossil fuels and that climate change isn't a problem.
The Heartland publication states that climate scientists don't understand environmental economics, that the unprecedented spike in warming in recent decades may be natural, and that fossil fuels lift people out of poverty and help them live longer.
It highlights areas of uncertainty from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, while downplaying its overarching message that humans are warming the planet at an accelerating rate. The Heartland publication cites the work of many researchers funded by the energy industry, including some that have been nominated to the Trump administration's scientific advisory boards at EPA and whose work is used to fight climate regulations.
"Fossil fuels have benefited humanity by making possible the prosperity that occurred since the first Industrial Revolution, which made possible investments in goods and services that are essential to protecting human health and prolonging human life," the publication says. "Fossil fuels powered the technologies that reduced the environmental impact of a growing human population, saving space for wildlife."
Taylor could not say whether Trump had personally seen the PowerPoint, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment. It's not clear what, if any, climate research has been considered directly by the president.
The world's major science academies determined long ago that there is no legitimate academic debate about whether humans are driving climate change. Countless studies have traced how humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace through the burning of fossil fuels. Also, global warming is permanently changing parts of the planet, and it won't "go back," as Trump claimed last week.
Trump has recently been pressed about climate change by reporters because the IPCC report released earlier this month contained a series of dire warnings that time is running out to craft a global climate policy that could curb some of the worst effects of climate change.
Though Trump's comments on climate change are mostly dismissive, they reflect a slight shift in rhetoric, observers say. It might provide clues into the types of research that have reached the president's attention, whether through a presentation or, more likely, from friends, family or advisers, according to George David Banks, a former White House adviser under Trump.
In the past, Trump has dismissed climate science as a "hoax." On a cold day in April 2016, he said, "We need some global warming!"
His newest assertions suggest that the president has picked up some new talking points, said Pat Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the conservative Cato Institute. He said Trump appears to have been briefed on the contents of his 2016 book, "Lukewarming." He's glad that Trump no longer calls climate change a "hoax" and doesn't explicitly reject the role of humans on warming, even if the extent of people's contribution is unknown, as Michaels sees it.
Michaels thinks the president has absorbed the lukewarm argument, which is a line of thinking among skeptical conservatives that claims humans have some effect on climate but are not the primary cause of rising temperatures.
"Somewhere it's getting through or maybe it was just fortuitous," said Michaels. "He said it's not a hoax and he really gave what I think is the basis of the lukewarm argument, which is there is some effect, it doesn't appear to be as large as it is forecast to be, which isn't much difference than he said."
Researchers who question climate science recognized a kindred spirit when Trump said that "scientists also have a political agenda."
"I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture," Trump told the Associated Press when asked about the IPCC report last week.
Trump's rhetoric has shifted recently, and it could be because he was influenced by those within the administration who accept climate science, said Banks, the former White House energy and climate adviser.
"It appears the president's message around climate has moderated away from openly calling it a hoax to suggesting that humanity has a role but is unsure of the size of the role," he said. "I think that is likely due to his many conversations with Ivanka [Trump] and people within that circle, including foreign officials and climate activists."
The false notion that there is a debate in climate science has been pushed by conservative think tanks and politicians for years. Just 15 percent of the public understands that 97 percent of the scientists publishing in peer-reviewed literature agree on climate change, according to Yale University polling.
Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who resigned amid a series of ethics investigations, tried to create a "red team, blue team" climate debate that would have portrayed science as a partisan battle, rather than a field of science that trended in the same direction for years.
EPA officials brought in Will Happer, an emeritus physics professor at Princeton University, to discuss the debate. It was later canceled by White House officials. Happer, who does not have a degree in climate science, met with Trump during the transition and told him that climate science had "become sort of a cult movement in the last five or 10 years," he said in an interview with The Scientist magazine.
Happer told the magazine that Trump agreed with him. Last month, Trump appointed Happer to serve on the National Security Council as the senior director for emerging technologies. Happer also heads the CO2 Coalition, which advocates for a rejection of climate science, and he has said the world is in a "CO2 drought" and that rising levels of greenhouse gases are harmless.
The CO2 Coalition, Cato Institute and Heartland Institute have all received funding from the Mercer family. The family is one of Trump's top donors and spent about $4 million in 2016 on groups that fight against climate science, according to tax records.
One place where Trump won't be receiving a personalized climate briefing is at NASA, one of the world's top researcher agencies on global warming.
The federal government employs hundreds of climate scientists who could articulate climate science to the president, but there is no indication that he has ever sought a briefing. NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, who previously rejected mainstream climate science as an Oklahoma congressman but said his views "evolved" after he took over the space agency, recently said he had no plans to brief Republicans about climate science.
"Look, if I start engaging in what to do about the science that we receive, then it politicizes what NASA is all about, and we don't want to do that," Bridenstine told The Atlantic magazine in an interview last week. "All we're going to do is study the planet and make sure that all of that data and all of that science is made available to the public."
Scott Waldman,
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested