Preview Newsletter

AM ACC 8/2/2018

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Trump Takes Step Toward Raising Tariffs on China, Escalating Trade War
Aug 1, 2018 | Washington Post
By Damian Paletta

President Trump has instructed his top trade representative to consider imposing a 25 percent tariff on $200 billion in Chinese imports, a much stiffer penalty than previously proposed, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Considers 25 Percent Tariff on $200b of Chinese Goods
Aug 1, 2018 | Politico
By Doug Palmer

The Trump administration on Wednesday escalated fears of a damaging trade war with China by announcing it could hit $200 billion worth of Chinese industrial and consumer goods with a 25 percent tariff, up significantly from the 10 percent duty that it initially proposed.
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Wants to Increase Tariffs to 25 Percent on $200b in Chinese Imports
Aug 1, 2018 | The Hill - Finance
By Vicki Needham

The Trump administration said Wednesday that it is considering sharply increasing the level of tariffs that could hit Chinese imports coming into the United States a move that could further fuel a trade war.
(ACC Mentioned) US Considers Increasing Tariff Rate on Second Set of Chinese Goods to 25%
Aug 1, 2018 | ICIS
By David Haydon

US President Donald Trump’s administration is considering raising the proposed tariff rate on $200bn in Chinese goods to 25% from 10%, US Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer said on Wednesday.
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers, Business Groups Call for Talks with China After Proposed Tariff Hike
Aug 1, 2018 | Inside US Trade
By Anshu Siripurapu

As President Trump on Wednesday directed the U.S. Trade Representative to consider increased tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, lawmakers and business groups renewed their calls for the Trump to work with U.S. allies and bring Beijing to the negotiating table.
(ACC Mentioned) White House Ups Ante, Looks at 25% Tax on Chinese Goods
Aug 2, 2018 | Asia Times

Word late on Tuesday that the Trump administration was poised to escalate a trade war with China has been confirmed by the White House, with a spokeswoman saying that the president is “going to hold their feet to the fire.”
Wheeler Sidesteps Senate Democrats' Calls to Reverse Pruitt EPA Agenda
Aug 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Democrats at an Aug. 1 hearing with acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler urged him to halt many of the Obama-era rule rollbacks launched by former Trump agency chief Scott Pruitt...
'There's No Sense in Rushing' Wheeler — Inhofe
Aug 2, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Kellie Lunney

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and several people who say they lost family members as a result of exposure to a grease-removing solvent criticized EPA today for delaying bans on that chemical, trichloroethylene.
Former Dow Attorney Among Environmental Nominees Advancing in Senate (1)
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz and Sylvia Carignan

A Senate panel advanced three nominees to head environmental offices in the Trump administration, including a former Dow Chemical Co. attorney who soon could be heading the EPA’s Superfund office.

LCSA News

(ACC Blog) Nanoscale Material Reporting Deadline Approaching: ACC Panel Tool Can Help Understand Reporting Obligations
Aug 1, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Jay West

Nanoscale materials are extremely small pieces of matter with at least one dimension between 1-100 nanometers, or a billionth of a meter. To put the nanoscale in perspective, a human hair is approximately 80,000 nanometers wide, and a sheet of paper is about 100,000 nanometers thick.
(ACC Mentioned) Wheeler Hedges on Senate Democrats' Calls for TSCA Ban on TCE Uses
Aug 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is hedging on Senate Democrats' calls to strictly review and ban certain uses of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) that are blamed for harms to consumers and workers, saying only that the substance is one of 10 the agency has prioritized...
Udall Slams EPA for Delaying Ban on Industrial Solvent
Aug 2, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Courtney Columbus

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and several people who say they lost family members as a result of exposure to a grease-removing solvent criticized EPA today for delaying bans on that chemical, trichloroethylene.
EPA Rams Through Its Reckless Review Scheme for New Chemicals Under TSCA, Your Health Be Damned
Aug 1, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison

Overruling the recommendations of its own longtime professional staff, political appointees at EPA have begun green-lighting new chemicals to enter commerce using an approach that shows contempt for the letter and intent of the 2016 reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Polystyrene Bans Are Indefensible
Aug 2, 2018 | American Spectator
By Michael Shindler

While the conservative commenteriat has worked itself into a frenzy over the recent spate of proposed plastic straw bans, few pundits have taken notice of bans on something that’s far less cherished, yet far more useful: polystyrene.
(ACC Mentioned) Straw Bans Seen as Tackling a 'Gateway Plastic'
Aug 2, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken

You’ve heard about gateway drugs. In the debate over banning disposable straws, there are now “gateway plastics.”
(ACC Mentioned) The Last Straw
Aug 1, 2018 | The Argonaut
By Gary Walker

Santa Monica’s state representatives are drumming up public support for legislation that would restrict single-use plastics in order to curb ocean pollution.
Michigan Declares State of Emergency in Town with High PFOS, PFOA Levels in Drinking Water
Aug 1, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News

Michigan has declared a state of emergency in a community of 3,100 people whose drinking water is tainted with high levels of perfluorinated chemicals.
Nickel Industry “Surprised” by Scrutiny in California
Aug 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley

The Nickel Institute has said it is "somewhat surprised" by an announcement that regulators in California will meet in October to discuss the possible developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) of nickel and its compounds. Up for discussion is the possibility of a DART Proposition 65 listing...

Energy News

American Oil Production Growing More Slowly Than Expected
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Vasheela Tobben

U.S. oil production may not be growing quite as fast as everyone thinks.
Court Upholds Va. Permits for Mountain Valley Project
Aug 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer

Virginia regulators did not violate the law when they approved a water permit for the Mountain Valley pipeline, federal judges ruled yesterday.
Pipeline Regulator Considers Gutting Pipeline Replacement Rule
Aug 1, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Ben LeFebvre

The federal pipeline regulator is considering scrapping a safety rule requiring energy companies to replace old pipelines in newly populated areas, a change that critics and even the regulator says could raise the risks of ruptures.

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) Agencies Working at Site of Last Month’s Massive Explosion in Akron to Burn off Remaining Chemical
Aug 1, 2018 | Akron Beacon Journal
By Jim Mackinnon and Betty Lin-Fisher

Local and state agencies are working with an Akron company to slowly burn off a chemical at the site of last month’s massive explosion and fire on West Emerling Avenue.
'Raspite' Hackers Target U.S. Utilities — Cybersecurity Firm
Aug 2, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak

A new hacking threat has reared its head in the networks of at least one U.S. utility, according to cybersecurity firm Dragos Inc.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Are NJ Communities Prepared for the Worst When a Train Derails?
Aug 2, 2018 | NorthJersey.com
By Curtis Tate

Every week, millions of gallons of crude oil and ethanol traverse Bergen County, winding through residential neighborhoods as they head to northeastern refineries.

Environment News

EPA Retains Obama-Era Ozone NAAQS, Rejects Push for Reconsideration
Aug 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

EPA has decided against reconsidering the Obama-era decision to tighten the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) from the 2008 limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, opting instead to consider the issue as part of an expedited review of the 2015 standard...
Trump Keeps Ozone Rule Despite Campaign Promise
Aug 1, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen

President Donald Trump promised during the 2016 campaign to repeal the Obama administration’s 2015 ozone standard. echoing the complaints from the business sector that the rule would cost companies billions of dollars.
Ozone Rule Affecting Foxconn Site Prompts Environmental Challenge
Aug 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Democrats at an Aug. 1 hearing with acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler urged him to halt many of the Obama-era rule rollbacks launched by former Trump agency chief Scott Pruitt...
White House Science Director Nominee Not Shy on Climate
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan

A meteorologist and former airline consultant who is President Donald Trump’s pick to direct the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is unlikely to sweep climate science under the rug, colleagues said.
With Lawsuits, New Jersey Signals Tougher Stance on the Environment
Aug 1, 2018 | New York Times
By Mariana Alfaro and Rick Rojas

New Jersey officials announced on Wednesday that they were pursuing several lawsuits targeting former industrial sites around the state where communities are still grappling with the persisting effects of pollution that has seeped into soil, groundwater and nearby waterways.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Trump Takes Step Toward Raising Tariffs on China, Escalating Trade War

Aug 1, 2018 | Washington Post

By Damian Paletta

President Trump has instructed his top trade representative to consider imposing a 25 percent tariff on $200 billion in Chinese imports, a much stiffer penalty than previously proposed, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
The penalty would apply to a broad range of products, including refrigerators, bedsheets, clothing, furniture and toilet paper. Business groups have warned that such a steep tariff could drive up prices for millions of consumers and a number of them panned the White House announcement Wednesday.
Cal Dooley, chief executive of the American Chemistry Council, predicted that the 25 percent tariffs would be “devastating for U.S. chemicals manufacturers.”
But White House officials said the potentially steep tariff was necessary to counter what they allege is the Chinese government’s decision to forcefully retaliate against a range of trade restrictions Trump has already imposed.
“We have to keep thinking all the time about whether or not we have the right tools in place to encourage China to change its actions,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under the terms of a call with reporters.
The White House is soliciting public feedback on the proposal, and the new tariffs would not go into effect immediately. The senior administration officials said that the 10 percent and 25 percent tariff levels are under consideration and that a final decision has not yet been made, but they indicated that the White House felt drastic action was needed to force changes from China’s government.
The two senior administration officials on the conference call stopped short of accusing China of purposefully devaluing its currency to try to lessen the impact of Trump’s tariffs. But they said China had taken a range of steps that they had determined could merit a more punitive U.S. response. The value of China’s currency has depreciated in recent months, a sign that some White House officials have noted could be aimed at blunting the impact of the White House’s trade penalties.
If China’s currency is weaker, it makes it cheaper for U.S. companies to buy their products. So even with tariffs added onto the cost of the imports, the prices don’t seem as high. But that could hurt U.S. companies selling goods into China, because their products then become more expensive to Chinese buyers.
The new proposed tariffs are just the latest volley in a slew of economic actions taken by both countries this year, as negotiations have repeatedly faltered.
The White House has already imposed tariffs on a range of Chinese products this year, beginning with steel and aluminum imports and then expanding to $34 billion in items such as industrial equipment. China responded with tariffs on U.S. products, including agricultural items such as soybeans, triggering an angry response from the White House.
Trump then directed U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to identify $200 billion in Chinese goods that could face a 10 percent tariff, a move seen as a rapid escalation of the trade dispute with Beijing. On July 10, Lighthizer published a 205-page report that specified each item that could be slapped with the higher penalty.
The U.S. imports roughly $500 billion in goods from China each year, so Trump’s new proposal would cover 40 percent of all imports.
Even with this threat, China has so far refused to scale back its retaliation. That’s one reason Trump directed Lighthizer to consider the 25 percent tariff, more than double the 10 percent tariff initially proposed.
Trump is under growing pressure from business groups and Republicans in Congress to show he’s making progress in the multiple trade spats he has opened up with numerous countries. After months of threats, discussions with Mexico and the European Union appear to be bearing some fruit, White House officials believe, while talks with Canada and China have stalled.
White House officials say the strong U.S. economy gives Trump some negotiating room to try to force other countries to change their trade practices in a way the president says can open up foreign markets to U.S. products, helping American workers. But various U.S. businesses have warned that if the situation remains unresolved it could hurt the economy and lead to job losses.
“These punitive tariffs will be passed along to U.S. consumers and will undo all the positive gains the economy has made in recent months,” said Matthew Shay, chief executive of the National Retail Federation, a U.S. trade group. “Quite simply, there has been no better example of cutting off one’s nose in order to spite the face.”
Dooley, of the American Chemistry Council, said China had made clear it would further retaliate if the new tariffs go into effect, a prospect that frightens many U.S. companies worried about getting caught in the middle of a trade war.
“Our allies are ready to work with us to put multilateral pressure on China to curb its unfair and discriminatory practices,” Dooley said. "We implore the president to let this be the final provocation and negotiate with China to bring an end to this trade war.”
A number of GOP leaders have said they consider tariffs to be a form of taxation that should not be the primary trade enforcement tool used by the White House, but so far Congress has done little to intervene with Trump’s approach. Labor groups have remained mostly split on Trump’s approach with China, with some backing his push to create more U.S. jobs but others worried about whether the White House has mapped out an endgame and has a plan to resolve tensions.
Trump and his senior advisers have said they are cracking down on Beijing for what they believe are unfair trade practices, particularly the way Chinese companies steal intellectual property and technology from American companies.
Asked about the effect of higher tariffs, the senior administration officials didn’t offer an economic impact. Rather, they said the best long-term solution for U.S. workers and consumers would be changes in China’s practices.
“We are trying to get China to change behaviors,” one of the officials said. “And that’s going to be the best outcome for all of these people over the long run.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/01/trump-takes-step-toward-raising-tariffs-china-escalating-trade-war/?utm_term=.3c838b5cec71

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Considers 25 Percent Tariff on $200b of Chinese Goods

Aug 1, 2018 | Politico

By Doug Palmer

The Trump administration on Wednesday escalated fears of a damaging trade war with China by announcing it could hit $200 billion worth of Chinese industrial and consumer goods with a 25 percent tariff, up significantly from the 10 percent duty that it initially proposed.
"Ten percent was bad, 25 percent is even worse," Christin Fernandez, vice president at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, told POLITICO. "This new tranche hits so many consumer products, many of which have no sourcing alternative other than China. Increasing the size of these tariffs will only hurt American families and the millions of American retail jobs supported by trade."
Other business sectors — including technology, chemical and farm groups — also expressed alarm at the proposed move, which is the latest in a series of tit-for-tat actions with China that has already jeopardized U.S. farmer sales to one of their biggest markets and increased costs for many U.S. manufacturers.
Some analysts said they believed a roughly 8 percent drop in the value of the Chinese currency since April had prompted Trump's more hawkish trade advisers to argue in favor of raising the duty on the third tranche of goods to 25 percent, from 10 percent.
That’s because a lower-valued yuan offsets some of the price impact of imposing tariffs on Chinese goods. That in turn could thwart Trump’s goal of reducing imports and narrowing the U.S. trade deficit with China, which totaled $375 billion in 2017.
However, in a call with reporters, officials played down the significance of any one factor in prompting Trump to look into the higher duty. "China has engaged in a whole range of things that make clear that they're not interested in dealing with the issues that we've raised. And so I would hesitate to attribute it to any one specific action,” a senior administration official said.
If Trump carries through on its latest escalation threat, it could result in many unintended casualties across many sectors of both of the world‘s two largest economies.
"Approximately $16.4 billion of the imports targeted are chemicals and plastics products,“ Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, said. “Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular are at risk of being put out of businesses by a cost increase of that kind.“
"We implore the president to let this be the final provocation and negotiate with China to bring an end to this trade war," Dooley added.
On that point, a senior administration official said they were communicating with Beijing about the potential for a negotiated settlement, but don't have any dates for a meeting to announce.
Many trade experts believe a deal can only be reached in direct talks between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping — similar to a meeting between Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker last week that has eased trans-Atlantic trade frictions. But Trump and Xi have no scheduled meetings until November, when both will attend regional summits.
The proposal to hit $200 billion worth of Chinese goods with an additional 25 percent duty, instead of the 10 percent level announced earlier, "is intended to provide the administration with additional options to encourage China to change its harmful policies and behavior and adopt policies that will lead to fairer markets and prosperity for all of our citizens," U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement.
Trade experts say a 25 percent duty on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods would probably pack a much bigger punch than a 10 percent — on China, U.S. companies and consumers.
It’s much more likely to be a “prohibitive duty” that effectively shuts down trade and forces American companies to shift their supply chains out of China, Dan Ikenson, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, said.
Earlier on Tuesday, China reacted harshly to news reports that the administration was considering the move.
"U.S. pressure and blackmail won't have an effect. If the United States takes further escalatory steps, China will inevitably take countermeasures and we will resolutely protect our legitimate rights," Geng Shuang, a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, told reporters at a briefing.
To date, President Donald Trump has slapped a 25 percent duty on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods and laid the groundwork to do so in the coming weeks on another $16 billion worth of Chinese goods. The list of targeted goods includes mostly industrial products from sectors that Beijing has targeted for world dominance under its “Made in China 2025” plan.
However, the longer — and pricier — the U.S. tariff list gets, the further it gets away from that initial target. It also could raise the prices that consumers pay on a host of goods, as tariffs are essentially a tax on end users collected by the U.S. government. As a result, the administration’s new move prompted a furious reaction from the National Retail Federation.
“We said before that this round of tariffs amounted to doubling down on the recklessness of imposing trade policy that will hurt U.S. families and workers more than they will hurt China,” Matthew Shay, the group’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Increasing the size of the tariffs is merely increasing the harm that will be done.”
China has responded to Trump’s initial tariffs by imposing a 25 percent duty on $34 billion worth of American goods, including soybeans and a multitude of other farm goods. It has also threatened to continue matching Trump’s actions, through one means or another.
China imported just $130 billion worth of U.S. goods last year, compared with the $505 billion worth of Chinese products that the United States imported. But Beijing has a variety of other ways it can make life difficult for American companies, even if it can’t match Trump’s duties on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
"When the U.S. first imposed tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese products, China quickly followed suit and American farmers continue to bear the brunt of their retaliation," Casey Guernsey, a spokesman for Americans for Farmers & Families, a pro-trade association, said. “With 25 percent tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese products, there is no doubt China would again do the same to America’s exporters."
The Trump administration argues its duties are a justified response to decades of predatory Chinese trade practices, including the theft of U.S. intellectual property and forced technology transfers. However, many sectors of the economy have hoped that the administration would be more strategic in combating those issues.
"By doubling down on tariffs, we're forcing American businesses and entrepreneurs to incur costs that make them uncompetitive," added Sage Chandler, vice president of international trade at the Consumer Technology Association. “We urge the Trump administration to roll back its proposal and continue negotiations with China."
When China retaliated to the initial U.S. duties of $34 billion, Trump upped the ante by beginning proceedings to impose a 10 percent duty on another $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has already begun taking public comments on that proposal and will hold four days of public hearings scheduled Aug 20-23.
Because the administration is now considering a 25 percent duty on the $200 billion, USTR will extend the public comment period until Sept. 5 instead of Aug. 30, the administration officials said Wednesday.
Trump has also threatened to slap duties on all $505 billion worth of China’s exports to the United States if Beijing continues to retaliate against his actions.
A 25 percent tariff increase is much harder for U.S. manufacturers to pass onto their customers so they might end up eating the cost to maintain market share, said Bill Reinsch, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
But for any company that can’t afford to each the cost, they’ll be “forced to alter their supply chains to find parts and component manufacturers in other countries,” Reinsch added. “That’s probably what Trump wants, so he would say that’s not a bad thing, but U.S. companies wouldn’t agree with him.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/01/trump-tariffs-china-1715000

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Wants to Increase Tariffs to 25 Percent on $200b in Chinese Imports

Aug 1, 2018 | The Hill - Finance

By Vicki Needham

The Trump administration said Wednesday that it is considering sharply increasing the level of tariffs that could hit Chinese imports coming into the United States a move that could further fuel a trade war.
President Trump has asked his top trade official U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to more than double planned tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports to 25 percent from the initially proposed 10 percent.
Senior administration officials said the decision by Trump to consider a higher level of tariffs comes after China's continued refusals to change its trade behavior and treat U.S. companies in a more market-based manner.
“We have been very clear about the specific changes China should undertake," Lighthizer said in a statement.
"Regrettably, instead of changing its harmful behavior, China has illegally retaliated against U.S. workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses," he said.
Instead, the officials said, China has retaliated against U.S. tariffs that Trump says are necessary to counter Beijing's unfair trade practices.
"China will have to come to the table to address legitimate concerns that have been raised," one senior official said in a call with reporters.
Hearings are scheduled for later this month on what $200 billion in Chinese products the U.S. could target, where there will be a chance to comment on the proposed 25 percent tariffs, the officials said.
"The increase in the possible rate of the additional duty is intended to provide the administration with additional options to encourage China to change its harmful policies and behavior and adopt policies that will lead to fairer markets and prosperity for all of our citizens," Lighthizer said.
The president also has warned about a third round of $200 billion in tariffs.
Trump has already hit China with tariffs of $34 billion — a move that China matched — with another round of tariffs $16 billion in the pipeline.
"We have to keep thinking all the time whether we have the right tools in place to encourage China to change its actions," one official said.
"All they've done is threaten us with even more tariffs."
Business groups from retailers to technology said the tariffs will increase the harm to the economy, consumers and workers.
“We said before that this round of tariffs amounted to doubling down on the recklessness of imposing trade policy that will hurt U.S. families and workers more than they will hurt China," said National Retail Federation President and CEO Matthew Shay.
The NRF said China's trade abuses need to be addressed, but tariffs aren't the answer.
"A broader, long-term strategy is needed that will bring about fair trade without punishing the wrong people," he said.
Jose Castaneda, spokesman at the Information Technology Industry Council, said that the $200 billion in tariffs along with the threat to more than double the tariff level are misguided policies that will hurt consumers and reduce business investment.
"Instead of escalating this trade war, the president should have serious negotiations with the Chinese to create lasting change," Castaneda said.
Trump administration officials said Trump hasn't spoken recently to Chinese President Xi Jinping.
They also said that while U.S. officials are talking to their counterparts in China, there are no plans for the world's two largest economies to come to the table and discuss trade issues at this point.
“We continue to urge the administration to find a path forward that resolves longstanding business concerns without creating damage to U.S. economic interests," said Myron Brilliant, U.S. Chamber of Commerce executive vice president and head of international affairs.
"The time is now to hold serious discussions with China in order to identify solutions and forestall further unintended impacts that are jeopardizing the livelihood of all Americans," Brilliant said.
American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO, Cal Dooley, said raising the tariff rate would "be devastating for U.S. chemicals manufacturers."
"Our allies are ready to work with us to put multilateral pressure on China to curb its unfair and discriminatory practices," Dooley said.
"We implore the President to let this be the final provocation and negotiate with China to bring an end to this trade war."
Sage Chandler, vice president of international trade, Consumer Technology Association (CTA) said that "by doubling down on tariffs, we're forcing American businesses and entrepreneurs to incur costs that make them uncompetitive with their foreign competitors."
"We urge the Trump administration to roll back its proposal and continue negotiations with China."
Casey Guernsey, a farmer and spokesman for Americans for Farmers & Families (AFF), said that “China is a critical market for the agricultural industry and I urge the administration to look for opportunities to hold China accountable while breaking down barriers to trade, not building them up."
This post was updated at 7 p.m.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/399967-trump-wants-to-increase-tariffs-to-25-percent-on-200b-in-chinese-imports

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) US Considers Increasing Tariff Rate on Second Set of Chinese Goods to 25%

Aug 1, 2018 | ICIS

By David Haydon

US President Donald Trump’s administration is considering raising the proposed tariff rate on $200bn in Chinese goods to 25% from 10%, US Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer said on Wednesday.
The 25% duty would apply to the list of products the USTR announced on 10 July, which includes a large portion of petrochemicals and other oil products.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which has repeatedly urged the Trump administration not to engage in a trade war, said the proposed increase would be devastating for US chemical manufacturers.
"Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular are at risk of being put out of businesses by a cost-increase of that kind," ACC president Cal Dooley said. "We implore the President to let this be the final provocation and negotiate with China to bring an end to this trade war."
The first round of US tariffs on $34bn on Chinese goods began on 6 July. China responded with proportional tariffs on US goods.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/08/01/10247213/us-considers-increasing-tariff-rate-on-second-set-of-chinese-goods-to-25-/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers, Business Groups Call for Talks with China After Proposed Tariff Hike

Aug 1, 2018 | Inside US Trade

By Anshu Siripurapu

As President Trump on Wednesday directed the U.S. Trade Representative to consider increased tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, lawmakers and business groups renewed their calls for the Trump to work with U.S. allies and bring Beijing to the negotiating table.
Trump told USTR to consider 25 percent tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, up from the previously threatened 10 percent levies. Beijing said it would not be swayed by U.S. pressure tactics and vowed to retaliate.
“I’ve continued to express concerns with this overreliance on tariffs – we cannot keep substituting additional tariffs for a targeted strategy that will actually bring China to the negotiating table,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said on Twitter.
Lawmakers of both parties urged Trump to change tack.
“What I would say is the same thing that I’ve said for several months now, which is: We need a conclusion to the tariff war and we ought to be pursuing a strategy with our allies around the globe in trying to change the behavior of China through other means than just tariffs,” said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS).
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) told Inside U.S. Trade, “The time is to de-escalate not escalate this trade war and that clearly is an escalation of the trade war and will be very injurious if we want to sell soybeans this fall.”
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS), meanwhile, told Inside U.S. Trade he had just spoken to soybean growers who wanted to meet with USTR Robert Lighthizer.
“Every time you have a tariff you have retaliation; every time that happens it’s on agriculture – they’ve already done that,” he said. “I mean they did it on sorghum first, soybeans, every crop, cherries from the Northwest – you know crops spoil and you lose the crop. [It’s] just a difficult situation to say the least, and it’s like shattered glass: You don’t know where it’s going to go.”
“It isn’t as if the dog hasn’t barked,” he added, noting that members of the Finance and Agriculture committees had met with Trump to discuss the issue. “But the president has insisted that he believes that this is the best way in the long term to get a better trade arrangement with everybody.”
Some lawmakers said they hoped it could lead to a negotiated settlement. Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Rob Portman (R-OH) told Inside U.S. Trade there were negotiations taking place between the two sides.
“The hope would be is that we actually get down to much lower tariffs on both sides,” Lankford said. “So the goal is not to have higher tariffs; the goal is to have lower tariffs, but it needs to be able to be balanced and to be able to deal with intellectual property issues.”
Asked if he thought the tariffs would be successful in accomplishing that goal, Lankford said, “That’s the hope and we’ll see [when] everybody gets to the table and actually talks seriously about it.”
Portman said he was encouraged that Chinese and American negotiators were sitting down again.
“Let’s stop raising tariffs until we talk,” Portman said. “And let’s be clear on our objectives. As I said on the floor, is it structural changes or is it increased exports? I think it needs to be both.”
Senior administration officials, however, told reporters on Wednesday that while low-level talks with China were continuing, no formal negotiating rounds were scheduled.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he planned to meet with Chinese ambassador Cui Tiankai on Thursday to discuss trade. Graham said his message would be that the World Trade Organization “doesn’t work when it comes to Chinese business practices. That your subsidies, government-owned enterprises, having to turn over intellectual property to do business in China, theft of intellectual property by China is outside the acceptable norms, and the best way for this to end is for the WTO to be modernized and China commit to a rules-based trading system.”
Asked if he was concerned about escalation, Graham said, “I’m concerned about China’s business practices; [they] basically have never changed and finally Trump is doing something about it.”
Pressed on whether tariffs could move China to change its policies, he said, “Nothing else worked.”
“So the end game is for the Europeans, Japanese, United States to get in a room with China and say, ‘Your intellectual property theft, your heavy-handed government subsidies, state-owned enterprises, requiring foreign businesses to give their technology to do business in China, all that’s got to change,’” he said. “The best way for that change is for the WTO, which is [a] rules-based trading organization, change its rules to deal with Chinese behavior. China’s too big an economy to [be allowed] to get away with all this.”
The U.S. has imposed Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the EU and Japan, among others, and threatened countries with tariffs on autos. Asked how the U.S. could expect cooperation from allies given its antagonism, Graham said, “You do two things at once.”
“We have a common problem with China but we also have problems among ourselves,” he said, noting the EU’s higher tariffs on automobiles and what he called agricultural protectionism by the bloc.
“I’m confident we’re going to get some agreements with Mexico and Canada fairly soon, then we’ll deal with our problems with Europe, then we’ll all focus our attention on China and the way you end this is have a rules-based, worldwide trading system where the WTO is a better forum when it comes to abuses by China,” he said. “Just tell China, as a world community: 'You’re a valuable partner in trade, you just got to change your business practices.'”
“If not, we’ll continue to do tariffs and that’d be bad for everybody,” he added.
Lighthizer is slated to meet with Japanese Economy Minister Toshimitsu Motegi next week. Asked about the meeting, Moran said, “We need those bilateral agreements. If the administration’s preference is for bilateral agreements, then negotiate them. We need them now.”
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), who engaged in a heated exchange with Lighthizer at a hearing last week, blasted the administration’s approach to China.
“I just don’t see any evidence that there’s a strategic vision behind any of this and in the hearing, you saw this in three dimensions because when Mr. Lighthizer was asked about the [Agriculture Department's tariff retaliation aid plan] he said, ‘That’s not my side of the shop.’ And when I asked him about the national security tariffs he said, ‘Well, that was Commerce.’ So no one’s in charge,” Schatz told Inside U.S. Trade.
“We shouldn’t capitulate to an authoritarian regime, but the idea that the only way you deal with this is by shooting yourself in both feet. I mean, what a weird way to approach this – that either we do nothing or we shoot ourselves in the kneecaps,” Schatz said, responding to Lighthizer’s contention at the hearing that Schatz was advocating surrender to Beijing.
Asked what a better approach might be, Schatz said, “We should be negotiating harder. I think tariffs are appropriate, but you need a whole-of-government approach.”
“When you’re dealing with China they have the luxury of being able to execute a whole-of-government approach once they make a decision,” he added. “But we’re a more complicated system of government, which means that USTR, Commerce, Justice, Labor, [Defense] and the White House with the legislative branch and the commercial sector – remember none of those things really exist as they do in China, they just decide and that’s how they execute – we all have to work together here, and you know, punching our own soy farmers in the mouth is not the start of a sound trade strategy.”
“They have a plan and we just have a notion,” he said when asked if the U.S. was giving Beijing the upper hand. “We have a notion that we’re getting ripped off, but that’s like you know you have a notion you got ripped off at the bar so what you do is you walk into the bar and start punching people. So this is as reckless and dangerous of an economic approach as I’ve ever seen [in] any president.”
Business groups also called for the U.S. and China to end the tariffs and negotiate, warning of further retaliation. “Sir Isaac Newton may have been talking about physics when he said, ‘for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction,’ but his law has taken on a whole new economic meaning as trade tensions between the U.S. and China continue to escalate,” Americans for Families & Farmers spokesman Casey Guernsey said in a statement.
“With 25 percent tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese products, there is no doubt China would again do the same to America’s exporters – increasing trade barriers to markets that are essential to our success as agricultural producers, providers and economic drivers,” he added.
Jose Castaneda, spokesman for the Information Technology Industry Council, said Trump’s decision was “irresponsible, counterproductive, and will only do more harm to Americans across the country.”
“Instead of escalating this trade war, the president should have serious negotiations with the Chinese to create lasting change,” he said.
Myron Brilliant, U.S. Chamber executive vice president and head of International Affairs, said in a statement that “The time is now to hold serious discussions with China in order to identify solutions and forestall further unintended impacts that are jeopardizing the livelihood of all Americans.”
American Chemistry Council CEO Cal Dooley said the tariff hike would be “devastating” for the chemical industry.
“China has made it clear that it will retaliate in kind. Our allies are ready to work with us to put multilateral pressure on China to curb its unfair and discriminatory practices. We implore the President to let this be the final provocation and negotiate with China to bring an end to this trade war,” he said in a statement.
https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/lawmakers-business-groups-call-talks-china-after-proposed-tariff-hike

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) White House Ups Ante, Looks at 25% Tax on Chinese Goods

Aug 2, 2018 | Asia Times

Word late on Tuesday that the Trump administration was poised to escalate a trade war with China has been confirmed by the White House, with a spokeswoman saying that the president is “going to hold their feet to the fire.”
“Certainly, we would like to see the playing field leveled,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a briefing on Wednesday. “But until that happens, the president is going to hold their feet to the fire. He’s going to continue to put the pressure on China.”
Administration officials told reporters in a phone briefing later that President Donald Trump had directed trade officials to consider raising proposed tariff rates on US$200 billion worth of Chinese imports from 10% to 25%, multiple news outlets reported. The president is said to have dismissed the initial proposal as “weak.”
In response to the earlier reports of the move, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang decried the tactics as “extortion.”
“America’s pressure and extortion will not be effective,” Geng stressed, according to a transcript from the ministry. “If the US takes further actions to escalate, China will retaliate, resolutely protecting our fair and legitimate rights,” he added.
The goods that would be subject to the steep import duties include fish, petroleum, chemicals and handbags. The Trump administration has already imposed tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods and duties on an additional $16 billion worth are expected soon.
During a hearing last week on the $16 billion tranche of tariffs, representatives from US industries decried the indiscriminate selection process for identifying which products would be subjected to the trade sanctions, with some warning of dire consequences should tariffs be imposed on an additional $200 billion worth.
Ed Bryztwa, director of international trade at the American Chemistry Council, was especially concerned about the additional tariffs, even before the threat of more than doubling the tariff rate.
“These [10%] duties, if applied, would cause disproportionate economic harm to US interests,” he stressed in testimony to US trade officials, adding that any escalation would be catastrophic for US companies.
http://www.atimes.com/article/white-house-ups-ante-looks-at-25-tax-on-chinese-goods/

Return to headline | Return to top
Wheeler Sidesteps Senate Democrats' Calls to Reverse Pruitt EPA Agenda

Aug 1, 2018 | Inside EPA

By David LaRoss

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Democrats at an Aug. 1 hearing with acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler urged him to halt many of the Obama-era rule rollbacks launched by former Trump agency chief Scott Pruitt, but Wheeler largely sidestepped the calls and made no firm commitments.
Wheeler defended EPA policies on an array of other subjects, generally standing behind Pruitt's broad agenda but with a more moderate tone and offers to work with legislators on key issues or state consultation.
For instance, in response to questions from EPW ranking member Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) on the agency's proposal to reject Delaware and Maryland's petitions seeking new controls on upwind power plant emissions, he said he “would be happy to review” the states' objections to that proposal.
But Wheeler added that the agency still believes current policies will allow downwind states to attain air quality standards. “We anticipate that most areas of the country will be in attainment by the early 2020s,” he said.
On the impending rollback of vehicle emissions standards, he agreed with Carper that a “deal” with California and other states that favor more stringent limits would be preferable, but backed the rollback proposal -- noting that it is “just a proposal” and seeks comment on a wide range of options rather than committing the administration to a harsh posture in the final rule.
Answering a question from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) on a House appropriations rider that would limit EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA) cleanup plan for the Chesapeake Bay, Wheeler did not outright oppose the measure -- which is not in the just-passed Senate funding “minibus” bill. But he said, “We would certainly like to keep all the enforcement authority that we can.”
On Clean Air Act permit reforms, Wheeler said the agency is still mulling which of Pruitt's guidance letters reworking the new source review air permit program to codify in rulemaking. “We're looking at those now to see which ones need to move forward as regulatory actions.”
He backed the Pruitt push to reach a final decision on CWA and other permit applications within six months, but unlike his predecessor he explicitly cautioned that the goal is an “up-or-down” answer and not approval.
“Our goal is to make all permit decisions, up or down, within six months. I am not suggesting we approve all permits within a certain amount of time,” he said.
Wheeler also drew praise from Democrats for reversing Pruitt policies that were seen as making the agency less transparent, such as a reluctance to respond to oversight or public-records requests. “Although we don't see eye to eye on most environmental issues, I believe you are making a good-faith effort to reverse the course at EPA and be more transparent,” Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/wheeler-sidesteps-senate-democrats-calls-reverse-pruitt-epa-agenda

Return to headline | Return to top
'There's No Sense in Rushing' Wheeler — Inhofe

Aug 2, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Geof Koss and Kellie Lunney

Andrew Wheeler yesterday earned a key endorsement to become permanent head of EPA, but members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee signaled they're in no hurry to see the panel's former top staffer receive a promotion.
EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) opened yesterday's hearing — Wheeler's first appearance as acting EPA chief — by calling for President Trump to nominate the committee's former GOP staff director to fill the slot vacated by Scott Pruitt last month.
"He's doing a wonderful job," Barrasso told reporters after leaving the hearing to go vote.
The gathering was less contentious than Pruitt's appearances before the panel, with Wheeler joking with senators from both parties and offering assurances to members over parochial policy concerns and addressing questions about his own past lobbying (Greenwire, Aug. 1).
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the EPW Committee's ranking member, said he was pleased with changes Wheeler has implemented in his brief tenure but sidestepped a question about whether he could support the acting chief's elevation to the top job.
"I'm encouraged by the first 25 days," Carper told E&E News. "It's not a bad start."
While several Republican members of the panel signaled they too could support Wheeler should Trump nominate him to be administrator, they indicated they'd prefer he continue in an acting capacity for at least several months.
"I would be very comfortable with him being the administrator," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said in an interview. "I just think we need to let the dust settle here. I think he's done a really nice job in terms of being open and willing to listen."
Waiting would show Democrats that Wheeler's efforts at "governance and transparency are sincere," she said, possibly earning bipartisan support should Trump eventually tap him for administrator. "That would be good."
Even Wheeler's former boss, Sen. Jim Inhofe, said it would be best for the president to wait to nominate Wheeler to be administrator, a move that the Oklahoma Republican said he supports.
Inhofe noted Wheeler is "still in this 200-day period," a reference to the 210 days federal officials are allowed to serve in an acting capacity under a 1998 law.
"I would think the determining factor there would be when it's going to be easier to do it, when there's going to be the least hostility," Inhofe told reporters after the hearing. "There's no sense in rushing into something you don't have to rush in."
Inhofe said he was confident that Wheeler would eventually assuage Democrats' concerns about the direction of the agency.
"Time is on his side," he said. "Because the more time that Andrew Wheeler is performing, the more faith people are going to have in him. His sense of fairness is going to be contagious to a lot of people."
Barrasso later declined to comment on whether he would like to see the White House quickly nominate Wheeler to fill Pruitt's position
"The president decides that," he said as he walked into the Senate chamber to vote.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that funds EPA, signaled she could live with Wheeler leading EPA in an acting capacity for now.
"I think we all want to have someone permanently," she said before adding, "I'm OK with where we are."
However, Inhofe also said he thought Wheeler could win confirmation with the support of moderate Democrats up for re-election if he was nominated and received a vote in the near future.
"There's an awful lot of Democrats out there ... who would have a very difficult time opposing him," he said.
Biofuel brouhaha
But farm-state Republicans who have been up in arms over Pruitt's waivers for small refiners from the renewable fuel standard suggested that Wheeler would have a tough time even clearing the EPW Committee at this point.
"We've got a lot of work to do" on the RFS, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told E&E News after peppering Wheeler with questions on the matter.
She declined to endorse Barrasso's call for Wheeler to be promoted. "I am reserving judgment right now," she said. "We'll see if we can sit down and have some more discussions."
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said he was unsatisfied with Wheeler's response to his questions on ethanol.
"He's indicated a desire to work with us," he said in an interview after his turn questioning Wheeler. "We're going to do it, but we're going to keep the heat on him because they have taken care of the small refiner. They have not taken care of the small farmer, and he needs to do both."
Another RFS backer, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), declined to address Barrasso's suggested promotion, saying she planned to submit a number of detailed questions for the record for Wheeler to answer on the subject.
"I just want to see his answers," she said.
But Inhofe downplayed the possibility of his fellow Republicans torpedoing a possible Wheeler nomination over the RFS, which he said is not a partisan issue.
"I would be shocked," he said. "In fact, it's just not going to happen."
Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth also said she was keeping an eye on Wheeler's actions related to the RFS. "We need to make sure he remembers our commitment to our farmers," she said.
'One day at a time'
A key question for committee Democrats is how much autonomy Wheeler will flex when it comes to running the agency and implementing environmental policy.
"I ask the same question of most of the nominees," Duckworth said yesterday. "Are you willing to serve the country before all else?
"You know at some point with this administration, you may end up in a place where you have to choose between being fired or doing your job," she said. "Are you willing to be fired from the job to do what's right?"
Still, committee Democrats were less confrontational in their handling of Wheeler than with Pruitt, praising some of the steps he's taken since taking the reins of EPA.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) lauded Wheeler for "direct, clear and unambiguous" answers to his questions. Those include whether the acting administrator would be an "advocate" within the administration to ensure EPA receives sufficient funding to carry out its mission and whether he would include career staff in science and policy discussions.
"I liked his answers," the Maryland Democrat said on his way to vote before the hearing ended. "We'll see whether he's strong enough to stand up to the pressures he will see within the Trump administration on these issues." But Cardin said he would "wait to see" whether Wheeler's approach really signals a new era at EPA.
Wheeler encountered a grilling from one Democrat on the panel, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who raised his voice as he pressed him on the effects of rolling back the Obama-era fuel economy standards (E&E News PM, Aug. 1).
EPW Committee member Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) touted Wheeler's work on the committee as a selling point that could win over some Democrats.
Wheeler "does have experience working with Democrats, working with Republicans both in his previous positions at EPA, but really importantly on the EPW Committee," he told reporters. "That committee is actually quite bipartisan ... if you look at some of the big bills we passed: [chemicals], the highway bill, [water projects], it's all been very bipartisan."
Sullivan pointed to Wheeler's "pretty respectful" confirmation hearing to be deputy administrator and said he had talked to panel Democrats who were "tempted" to support him, although none ultimately did.
But Democrats also signaled that yesterday's cautious praise doesn't mean they'll line up behind Wheeler if he's nominated to be administrator.
Cardin said he wouldn't "prejudge" the nomination process if Wheeler is tapped.
"Clearly he doesn't have a lot of the challenges that Mr. Pruitt had, but we are interested in the substance," Cardin said. "What does he stand for as far as the regulatory environment? Will he carry out the law? Will he just be strong enough against an administration that's been very challenging to the environment?"
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) echoed the point, saying that although he was pleased with Wheeler's pledges to continue EPA's efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay, "there's obviously lots of issues to cover."
"I'm just taking this one day at a time," Van Hollen told E&E News after questioning Wheeler.
Reporter George Cahlink contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/08/02/stories/1060091927

Return to headline | Return to top
Former Dow Attorney Among Environmental Nominees Advancing in Senate (1)

Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By David Schultz and Sylvia Carignan

A Senate panel advanced three nominees to head environmental offices in the Trump administration, including a former Dow Chemical Co. attorney who soon could be heading the EPA’s Superfund office.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Aug. 1 approved the nominations of Peter Wright, W. Charles “Chad” McIntosh, and Mary Neumayr on a series of party-line 11-10 votes. President Donald Trump nominated them to lead, respectively, the EPA Office of Land and Emergency Management, its Office of International and Tribal Affairs, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Both EPA nominees have met with the committee’s senators and their staff to “discuss their visions for EPA,” according to acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler. The agency is looking forward to a full Senate vote for both nominees, Wheeler said in an Aug. 1 statement after the committee votes.
Peter Wright
If confirmed by the full Senate, Wright will head the office that handles the Environmental Protection Agency’s contaminated land and waste programs, including Superfund, brownfields, emergency cleanup, and underground storage tanks.
Wright retired from Dow June 30 after working for the company for nearly two decades, most recently as managing counsel, and began his work as special counsel to acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the agency told Bloomberg Environment July 24.
At his June 20 confirmation hearing, Wright told the Senate committee that he would abstain from making decisions on Superfund site matters related to Dow Chemical Co. or E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., which merged to form DowDuPont Inc.
Climate change should be incorporated into Superfund site cleanup plans, he said at the hearing. The EPA under the Trump administration has cut climate change preparedness efforts, despite a 2014 report that acknowledged the threats climate change and severe weather pose to Superfund sites.
Chad McIntosh
McIntosh was nominated to the EPA international post after a career at Ford Motor Co., where he led the firm’s global and environmental policy.
Prior to his two decades at Ford, McIntosh was deputy director at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
The office that McIntosh would lead if he is confirmed is responsible not only for environmental issues that affect tribal lands but also for issues that cross international borders, such as water pollution issues in the Great Lakes and global environmental treaties on lead paint, mercury, and other contaminants.
Mary Neumayr
Neumayr is Trump’s second nominee to lead the Council on Environmental Quality, created under the National Environmental Policy Act to coordinate agency reviews of the impacts that federal projects have on the environment and to work with the White House and agencies on environmental and energy policies and initiatives. She previously served as deputy chief counsel of energy and environment, senior energy counsel, and counsel for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Trump’s first pick to lead the council, former Texas environment official Kathleen Hartnett White, withdrew amid widespread criticism from Democrats and others over her views on climate change, including comparing it to paganism.
At her July 19 confirmation hearing before the Senate committee, Neumayer took a much different stance.
“I agree that the climate is changing and human activity has a role,” she told senators.
Neumayer is at the council now, serving as its chief-of-staff and de facto leader with the top spot remaining vacant.
(Updates with EPA statement in third paragraph.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/former-dow-attorney-among-environmental-nominees-advancing-in-senate-1

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Blog) Nanoscale Material Reporting Deadline Approaching: ACC Panel Tool Can Help Understand Reporting Obligations

Aug 1, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters

By Jay West

Nanoscale materials are extremely small pieces of matter with at least one dimension between 1-100 nanometers, or a billionth of a meter. To put the nanoscale in perspective, a human hair is approximately 80,000 nanometers wide, and a sheet of paper is about 100,000 nanometers thick.
What Makes These Tiny Particles Interesting?
At the nanoscale, some substances may exhibit new and novel properties one wouldn’t predict from larger forms. For example, some substances may be better at conducting electricity or heat at the nanoscale than they are at larger sizes. Other properties that might change in unexpected ways could include things like magnetism and light absorbance. These are just some examples of the properties that have scientists in government, academia, and industry exploring ways to use nanomaterials to tackle critical technology challenges in energy storage, water purification, and health care, among others.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is Also Interested in Nanoscale Substances
In 2017 EPA finalized a one-time reporting rule for nanoscale materials (40 CFR 704.20). EPA is interested in understanding the extent of nanoscale materials in commerce, particularly those that may exhibit new and novel properties. The agency says the information generated through the reporting process will help it determine whether any further action is needed under the Toxic Substances Control Act, including, but not limited to, additional information requests on specific substances or uses.
Part of the rule requires companies to conduct a 3-year lookback encompassing the period August 14, 2014-August 14, 2017 and report certain information on nanoscale materials manufactured, imported, or processed during that period by August 14, 2018. Examples of the types of information EPA wants include production volumes, manufacturing and processing methods, information about exposure potential, health and safety data, and physical and chemical properties. The rule does not require companies to generate new data.
The rule contains many terms and concepts that have not been used in previous TSCA rules, such as “discrete forms” and “new and novel properties.” Understanding those elements of the rule and how they relate to one another can be critical for determining whether a company has an obligation to report.
Understanding EPA’s Rule
To help companies better understand their potential reporting requirements, the ACC Nanotechnology Panel has developed a flowchart that presents a set of ordered questions to help companies understand the numerous definitions and exceptions in the rule. In addition to familiar “Yes” and “No” options typically seen in flowcharts, this flowchart also includes pathways to follow when information is neither known nor reasonably ascertainable, an important factor in determining whether a reporting obligation may exist. The flowchart is provided as guidance only, and nothing in it is intended to constitute legal advice. You can find the flowchart at this link on the panel’s public website. EPA guidance, forms, and instructions for reporting are available from EPA.
Guiding the Responsible Development of Nanotechnology
Using nanotechnology, scientists and engineers can create new materials and devices with enhanced properties. From creating products for a more energy-efficient world, to developing highly sophisticated tools in the medical field, to making the next generation of materials that are stronger, lighter, and more durable, as well as providing solutions that help create more drinkable water, nanotechnology enhances many products people use every day. That is why the ACC Nanotechnology Panel is at the forefront of guiding the responsible development of nanotechnologies domestically and internationally and providing a scientifically sound approach to nanotechnology policy.
To learn more about the Nanotechnology Panel or to inquire about joining the panel, contact Jay West at jay_west@americanchemistry.com.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/08/nanoscale-material-reporting-deadline-approaching-acc-panel-tool-can-help-understand-reporting-obligations/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Wheeler Hedges on Senate Democrats' Calls for TSCA Ban on TCE Uses

Aug 1, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is hedging on Senate Democrats' calls to strictly review and ban certain uses of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) that are blamed for harms to consumers and workers, saying only that the substance is one of 10 the agency has prioritized for review under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
“Absolutely we need to be moving forward to do something on TCE and the other chemicals, which is why we included TCE on the list of the first 10 chemicals to review” under the revised TSCA, Wheeler told an Aug. 1 hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee.
Wheeler was responding to questioning from Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who called for stricter oversight of TCE, including for EPA to consider exposure to the common contaminant in air, land and water in its planned review of the substance that Booker blames for causing cancers in New Jersey and other states.
“It is my understanding that we are looking at those pathways,” Wheeler said. “I will need to double check with my chemicals office” to confirm the scope of the planned review.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), in a news conference on Capitol Hill the same day, urged the Trump administration to quickly finalize a pair of Obama-era rules banning certain uses of TCE and to consider all exposures to the substance in its review.
“TSCA reform was supposed to represent a great step forward in protecting people from dangerous chemicals,” Udall said, flanked by families who blame exposure to TCE, a known carcinogen, for the deaths of family members from various forms of cancer. “We did not reform TSCA to protect chemical companies that produce TCE."
The senators' calls for EPA to target TCE, as well as the paint stripper methylene chloride, comes as environmentalists and Senate Democrats, who backed the 2016 TSCA reform law, are faulting the Trump administration's rules and policies implementing the revised law as allowing for inadequate chemical reviews.
Among their concerns is EPA's failure to finalize several novel Obama-era rules proposed under section 6 of TSCA that would ban certain uses of TCE in dry cleaning, and in vapor degreasing, as well as ban use of methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone in paint strippers.
Both lawmakers also backed environmentalists' opposition to the Trump administration's plan to narrow reviews of the first 10 existing chemicals slated for review under TSCA by not considering exposures from legacy uses or those other agency programs are already addressing. The first 10 chemicals include TCE and methylene chloride.
The Trump administration initially shelved plans for the Obama-era proposed bans by moving the rulemaking to its long-term agenda. But former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, in May, reversed course saying that the agency would finalize a rule targeting methylene chloride in paint strippers after meeting with families whose relatives died from exposure.
During the hearing, Booker pressed Wheeler on the status of the proposed methylene chloride ban. Wheeler said that EPA continues to work on the rule, but he would not commit to a timeframe for finalizing the measure.
At the news conference, held by the Environmental Working Group, Udall and families who blamed TCE exposure for their children's cancers urged EPA to finalize the proposed bans on certain uses of TCE to prevent future exposures.
They also faulted the Trump administration for appointing former industry lobbyists like Wheeler, who worked for the coal company Murray Energy, and Nancy Beck, a former American Chemistry Council lobbyist who is now in a senior post in the agency's toxics office.
“It's ridiculous that our families are inconsequential, and cruel that we are not brought to the table” to discuss agency oversight of TCE and other chemcials, Loreen Hackett, of Hoosick Falls, NY, said. Hackett lives across the street from a Superfund site contaminated with TCE. “We deserve to be a stakeholder. We have earned it.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/wheeler-hedges-senate-democrats-calls-tsca-ban-tce-uses

Return to headline | Return to top
Udall Slams EPA for Delaying Ban on Industrial Solvent

Aug 2, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Courtney Columbus

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and several people who say they lost family members as a result of exposure to a grease-removing solvent criticized EPA today for delaying bans on that chemical, trichloroethylene.
Udall, the ranking member on the Senate Appropriations panel that oversees the EPA funding, said a Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill signed into law two years ago was "supposed to be a great step forward." A few months after President Obama signed the bill, EPA proposed banning TCE.
"Yet here we are today, two years later, with victims exposed to TCE and their families, and EPA still hasn't finalized its ban. Today we're demanding that EPA follow through on its promise," Udall said. "Unfortunately, it looks like the Trump EPA has never met a toxic chemical it doesn't like."
A ban proposed in December 2016 would prohibit TCE from being used for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities and from use as an aerosol degreaser (Greenwire, Dec. 7, 2016). A January 2017 proposal would ban it from being used in commercial vapor degreasing.
EPA is now doing another evaluation of TCE, which Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney for the Environmental Working Group, says is not necessary for the federal agency to move forward with its ban.
"What it effectively does is it delays any ban for at least several years, and it opens the door for EPA to potentially say that maybe they don't need a ban," Benesh said. "So we're very concerned about actions that EPA has taken to delay those proposed bans. They could finalize them tomorrow, if they wanted to."
Jerry Ensminger of White Lake, N.C., and Kari Rhinehart of Johnson County, Ind., told reporters about their children who had been exposed to TCE and died of cancer.
Rhinehart, co-founder of the organization If It Was Your Child, said her teenage daughter died in 2014 of a glioblastoma, a form of brain cancer that is rare in children.
"It was a shock to learn a year after Emma died that the home we lived in had been within half a mile of a site that had a 30-year history of TCE contamination that had likely also migrated to the well field next to it," she said, adding that EPA designated the well field as a Superfund site and other local children had also been diagnosed with rare cancers. "We just discovered last month that it's in the air outside the homes."
A report published last week by the Environmental Working Group found 14 million Americans are exposed to TCE in drinking water.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) today sent out a statement against TCE and in favor of a ban. "I'm tired of Trump's cabinet of corruption insisting on putting the profits of chemical corporations ahead of the health and well-being of the American people," he said.
EPA did not immediately comment.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/08/01/stories/1060091881

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Rams Through Its Reckless Review Scheme for New Chemicals Under TSCA, Your Health Be Damned

Aug 1, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Richard Denison

Overruling the recommendations of its own longtime professional staff, political appointees at EPA have begun green-lighting new chemicals to enter commerce using an approach that shows contempt for the letter and intent of the 2016 reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
EDF blogged recently about the new approach and how it drastically deviates from what the law requires.
Today EPA posted the first decision made under the new scheme: It issued a “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determination for a chemical that, according to its manufacturer International Flavors and Fragrances Inc., is to be imported for use “to reduce malodors. It will be sold to industrial and commercial customers for their incorporation into industrial, commercial, and household consumer products such as floor cleaners, cat litters, fabric refresher sprays, Etc.”
The “not likely” finding means that International Flavors and Fragrances Inc. can commence manufacture and sale of the chemical, and will not be subject to any conditions or limits. Once manufacture starts, the chemical will be placed on the TSCA Inventory, and that company or any other will be free to produce, import and use the chemical in any manner it chooses and without any obligation to inform EPA of its activities.
The company submitted a premanufacture notice (PMN) for the chemical in August 2016 and EPA assigned it the number P-16-0510. Based on its original review of the PMN, EPA’s staff made this initial recommendation:
EPA’s decision today is a dramatic departure from that initial recommendation. Based on the new approach EPA is taking, not only will no consent order be developed, but EPA will also not pursue promulgation of a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for the chemical. Consent orders and SNURs are the two means by which EPA can place limits or require testing or more information on a new chemical. EPA is forgoing those options.
Unlike the great majority of new chemicals submitted under TSCA, however, in this case the identity of the chemical was disclosed. The chemical and its Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number are as follows:
Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, bis[2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]propyl] ether
CAS 1792208-65-1
EPA has established a set of “chemical categories” it uses to flag new chemicals that could pose serious health or environmental concerns without conditions placed on their production or use. EPA’s determination document notes that this chemical falls into its “acrylamides” category. This likely reveals why EPA staff raised concerns from the start. Here is EPA’s description of the hazard concerns for this category:
Based on analogy to acrylamide per se, members of the class are considered potential carcinogens, heritable mutagens, reproductive and developmental toxicants, and toxic to aquatic organisms. Acrylamides are also potential neurotoxins based on data for a number of low molecular weight acrylamides.
In its own determination document, EPA identifies these toxicities and more, noting “the potential for the following human health hazards: irritation, mutagenicity, developmental/reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, and carcinogenicity.”
So, using its new scheme, it appears that the first chemical EPA has cleared to enter commerce without any restrictions or testing to address the health concerns whatsoever is one that:
·       has clear exposure potential as evidenced by its intended dispersive use in various consumer products;
·       may pose serious hazards; and
·       was flagged by EPA staff as having serious information gaps and raising enough concern to recommend some degree of restriction and, likely, testing.
That certainly doesn’t sound like a chemical that EPA should allow to be produced and used in any amount and for any use that any company desires, but that’s what EPA has done.
And this is only the beginning: We fear many more such decisions will follow shortly.

But this much is clear: The new trajectory EPA is on will not only further erode the public’s confidence in our chemical safety system. It may well put the public’s health at greater risk than even under the old TSCA.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/08/01/epa-rams-through-its-reckless-review-scheme-for-new-chemicals-under-tsca-your-health-be-damned/

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Polystyrene Bans Are Indefensible

Aug 2, 2018 | American Spectator

By Michael Shindler

While the conservative commenteriat has worked itself into a frenzy over the recent spate of proposed plastic straw bans, few pundits have taken notice of bans on something that’s far less cherished, yet far more useful: polystyrene. Notably, beginning on January 1, New York City will begin its ban on the material and many other liberal cities are following suit.
The history of polystyrene, which is usually encountered in the form of Styrofoam, began in 1839, when a German apothecary, Eduard Simon, found that an oily substance he had distilled from the resin of the American sweetgum tree became jelly-like after sitting for a few days. It took another century, however, for anyone to realize that the stuff might be industrially useful, when I.G. Farben started experimenting with it in the hope that it could become a cheaper alternative to die-cast zinc. Later, Dow Chemical developed the Styrofoam process and in 1960, the Dart Container Company started shipping out cheap and disposable foam cups to the American public.
For nearly three decades, there passed a period of fruitful growth for polystyrene products. Manufacturers molded the material to fit the varied needs of American industry; polystyrene-packing peanuts, coolers, cutlery, and takeout containers became the ubiquitous trappings of the American way of life. But, as it says in Ecclesiastes, “To every thing there is a season,” and toward the end of the 20thcentury, the frost began to settle.
By the late 1980s, municipal governments with spirited populations of environmental activists like Berkeley, Portland, Freeport, and San Francisco were lobbied zealously, and often successfully, to ban the material on the grounds that it was not biodegradable, virtually impossible to recycle, and a blight to various ecological niches.
While these grim claims might have been somewhat defensible in the late ’80s, they don’t hold much weight in light of recent scientific advances and findings. According to a recent study published in Environmental Science and Technology, mealworms have little trouble digesting polystyrene. Likewise, researchers have found that when polystyrene is incinerated at suitably high temperatures, not only are the two main chemicals generated only water and carbon dioxide, but because of the amount of heat released, polystyrene can be used to generate electricity. Sadly, though these bans were based upon airy rhetoric, their economic effects are very substantial.
Many of the businesses that rely on polystyrene products, such as street food vendors and small fast and casual restaurants, operate on relatively thin profit margins. So, whenever a municipality imposes a ban on polystyrene products, these businesses are forced to switch to the cheapest alternative available. According to a recent study funded by the American Chemistry Council, NYC business would have to spend nearly double to purchase non-polystyrene equivalent products. Effectively, these bans raise the cost of doing business, make market entry harder, and encourage a less competitive economic environment for businesses that rely on products often made from polystyrene. Worse, such bans don’t even reduce pollution.
According to a recent report published by the Independent Institute, paper alternatives to polystyrene products typically create more pollution than their polystyrene equivalents and empirical research indicates that polystyrene bans don’t reduce pollution levels. For example, a study examining an ongoing ban on polystyrene cups in San Francisco found that the ban “does not decrease overall litter but causes a shift in litter to other materials.” And according to a report published by the California State Water Resources Control Board, “mere substitution would not result in reduced trash generation if such product substitution would be discarded in the same manner as the banned item.” Clearly, these bans, rather than reducing waste, merely raise costs. But even if these bans successfully reduced waste without inflating costs, they might still be indefensible.
The justifications for polystyrene bans are largely centered on the extent to which polystyrene waste causes harms. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill writes, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” This notion lies at the heart of societies that conceive of their legitimacy as stemming from a self-interested social contract and the U.S. is definitely one such society. Using this standard, while it would make sense to enact commercial bans on materials like asbestos and lead-paints — which consumers can’t easily recognize as communally dangerous — it would be unjust to ban something like polystyrene, which only harms the stability of ecological niches. Essentially, while it may be worthwhile for individuals to cut down on polystyrene waste, it isn’t justifiable to enact a ban on the stuff.
These bans are the products of well-intentioned rhetoric and vigorous activism; it’s easy to see why municipal legislators often support them. However, these bans don’t reduce pollution, are harmful for small business owners, and are arguably unjustifiable. Legislators should resist the urge to carelessly hop on the anti-polystyrene bandwagon and carefully consider the substantial costs and injustices that such bans impose.
https://spectator.org/polystyrene-bans-are-indefensible/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Straw Bans Seen as Tackling a 'Gateway Plastic'

Aug 2, 2018 | Plastics News

By Steve Toloken

You’ve heard about gateway drugs. In the debate over banning disposable straws, there are now “gateway plastics.”
That’s how some environmentalists and government leaders pushing bans on plastic straws describe them, as a way to prompt bigger questions about use, or misuse, of disposable plastics.
They see straws as a problem on their own — they’re consistently among Ocean Conservancy’s top 10 items of beach litter — but their constant presence sticking out of your drink gives them a bigger symbolic value.
“We’ve always known that the plastic straw is a gateway plastic for a broader conversation on single-use plastics,” said Dune Ives, executive director of the Lonely Whale Foundation, which spearheaded a “Strawless in Seattle” campaign and is working in other cities. “It’s not about the straw entirely. It’s about how we  see single-use plastics in our lives.”
Whatever its role, gateway or not, the humble polymer straw has been getting a lot of attention.
On July 1, Seattle became the first major U.S. city to ban plastic straws and cutlery, and recent weeks have seen announcements from major restaurants and hotel chains.
Starbucks, for example, announced July 9 it was eliminating plastic straws in its 28,000 locations by 2020, Marriott said July 18 it was phasing out disposable plastic straws by July 2019, and McDonald’s is getting rid of them in the United Kingdom and Ireland and testing alternatives in the United States.
Governments, too, are active. The European Union and Taiwan in recent months have proposed bans on plastic straws and cutlery as part of restrictions on the most common single-use plastic items found in ocean litter.
Closer to home, New York City and San Francisco are considering bans. Hawaii’s Legislature rejected a ban this year, while California’s state Assembly passed a relatively mild plastic straw law May 30 that requires full-service restaurants — but not fast food cafes — to give out straws only upon request.
“It’s critical that we reduce the negative effects of plastic pollution,” said Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon, who noted plastic straws are the sixth most common item collected in California beach cleanups and that studies are finding microscopic bits of plastic marine litter inside fish sold in the state’s markets.
“By removing the default behavior of providing straws with every drink, consumers have an opportunity to make a deliberate, small change,” said Calderon, a Democrat who added that he wants to pursue stricter straw legislation. “It’s a small but significant step forward.
”Industry: Ban  'won't solve' problem
The plastics industry is taking a nuanced position — arguing against wasteful use of straws but also arguing against bans, saying they focus on the wrong problem.
“Across the spectrum there is a lot of interest in reducing waste right now, and in that context we understand why people are looking at straws,” said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council in Washington.
“At the same time, if our objective is to keep plastics out of the ocean, we need to focus our efforts where most plastics are getting into the ocean,” said Russell. “And straw bans won’t solve that problem.”
Instead, ACC advocates a focus on improving waste management and collection systems in developing countries that contribute the lion’s share of marine plastic waste.
Groups like Ocean Conservancy say that half of the 8 million tons of plastic released into the oceans each year come from five rapidly developing nations in Asia.
“Experts have determined the vast majority of ocean plastics come from areas where rapid population growth and an expanding consumer economy are outpacing systems to manage waste,” Russell said. “That’s why plastics makers are investing in solutions to capture and create value from waste, together with governments, nonprofits and other stakeholders.”
The Plastics Industry Association said in a statement that it favors letting businesses decide if they want a straw-upon-request policy.
“We think bans can cause apathy,” the Washington-based association said. “They license people to believe ‘it’s not my problem,’ when caring for the environment is everyone’s problem.”
Both plastics associations said ban advocates should consider the environmental impact of alternatives, like paper straws with a plastic lining.
While they said they’re not aware of any studies specifically looking at straws, they note other research has found that packaging alternatives to plastic can sometimes have a greater environmental impact.
“We encourage those considering or advocating for plastics replacements to conduct a thorough evaluation,” Russell said. “Plastics often help to reduce energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and waste. Of course, reducing litter is important, too. Studies have shown people are actually more likely to litter items they think are biodegradable.”
Size of the problem
The size of the straw problem is also subject to debate.
The Plastics Industry Association disputes the widely cited figure that the U.S. uses 500 million straws a day, arguing that its own analysis of Nielson data from May 2017 to May 2018 estimates that only 16 million straws a day are sold in the United States, or just 3 percent of the 500 million figure.
Other research from consulting groups puts the figure between 170 million and 390 million.
“Using the number of straws sold is the strongest, most reliable proxy for straws that are used,” the plastics association said. “Therefore, the Nielsen data provides a more accurate, concrete depiction of the number of plastic straws used every day in the U.S.”
The association said it’s not clear how much of U.S. plastics production goes to straws alone.
It said about 40 percent of U.S. plastic production goes into packaging broadly, with 3.9 percent going into food service and drink packaging, and 9.1 percent into food, spirits and tobacco products, which the association said could also include some straws.
Whatever the figures, both industry and environmental groups expect more public attention on straws.
Ives, from the Lonely Whale Foundation, said her group sees businesses driving the debate in the United States.
Lonely Whale is part of an initiative led by computer maker Dell Inc. to collect ocean-bound plastics and put it back into products and packaging. And she noted McDonald’s is doing research on finding a better solution to straw waste.
“We’re seeing those conversations happening more and more, and businesses are really leading the way,” she said.
Strawless in Seattle
eattle officials, for their part, say their straw ban builds on a decade of work to reduce the “disposable, petroleum-based plastics going into the waste stream.”
The city in 2009 banned expanded polystyrene food containers, and later plastic bags, as part of efforts targeting to-go containers. Like Lonely Whale, city officials see the straw as good way to jump-start a conversation around waste.
“It is kind of the gateway plastic,” said Becca Fong, a communications and outreach specialist with Seattle Public Utilities. “It’s something that’s not completely necessary. There are some instances where you need a straw, but it really makes people pause and think … do I really need to have this [straw] to consume the item I want to consume?”
Ives said her group recognizes the value of plastics as a material but believes waste has gotten out of hand.
“There’s a lot of plastic that’s out there, a lot of plastic that’s good, for medical devices, for automobiles, for airplanes, so plastic is in our life,” Ives said. “It’s the single-use plastic items that are really doing harm to the marine environment.”
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180801/NEWS/180809988/straw-bans-seen-as-tackling-a-gateway-plastic

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) The Last Straw

Aug 1, 2018 | The Argonaut

By Gary Walker

Santa Monica’s state representatives are drumming up public support for legislation that would restrict single-use plastics in order to curb ocean pollution.
Assembly Bill 1884, cosponsored by Assemblyman Richard Bloom, would make California the first state in the nation to require that restaurants offer plastic straws only upon request.
State Sen. Ben Allen’s Senate Bill 1335 would mandate that all take-out packaging for food served at state parks and beaches is recyclable or compostable.
“Plastic pollution is an epidemic. It’s a global crisis,” Allen said before a joint press conference with an ocean view on Monday at Palisades Park. “We can have beach cleanup after beach cleanup, but the plastic keeps showing up on our shores. We’re here because often people don’t think about the implications that plastic can have on our waters, on our environment and on our economy.”
Bloom cited academic research that the world has created 6.3 billion tons of plastic refuse since the 1950s, and that as much as eight million metric tons of plastic ends up in the oceans each year.
“By 2050 there will be literally more plastic than fish if we don’t do something about this issue,” Bloom said. “If you think of breath as the essence of life, our ocean is not breathing well.”
The American Chemistry Council, a trade association that fought California’s plastic bag ban, has surprised some observers by coming out in favor of AB 1884.
“It’s the right thing to do,” said Steve Russell, vice president of council’s plastics division. “As a member of the Trash Free Seas Alliance, we support many initiatives that help prevent marine litter, and we believe providing straws through an ‘on-demand’ system gives customers choice and helps prevent waste by ensuring that straws are distributed only to those who need them.”
The Plastics Industry Association is opposing Allen’s bill, saying government should focus on getting people to recycle plastics rather than imposing bans.
“There are serious misunderstandings about the relative recyclability of plastic products,” reads part of an email statement by Scott DeFife, the association’s VP of government affairs. “Instead of functionally banning them from state facilities, we should invest in and expand our recycling and waste management systems to make sure that every plastic product can be collected and put to its highest and best use.”
Activists with Environment California, a nonprofit political action group that lobbies for eco-friendly legislation, stood with Allen and Bloom during the press conference.
“We simply can’t continue to produce and throw away plastic at this rate,” said Dan Jacobson, the group’s state director. “It’s time to put our wildlife over waste and ban single-use polystyrene plastic and reduce single-use straws.”
https://argonautnews.com/the-last-straw/

Return to headline | Return to top
Michigan Declares State of Emergency in Town with High PFOS, PFOA Levels in Drinking Water

Aug 1, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News

Michigan has declared a state of emergency in a community of 3,100 people whose drinking water is tainted with high levels of perfluorinated chemicals.
The state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) discovered the contamination July 26 in the city of Parchment in southwestern Michigan. DEQ test results showed water with 1,410 parts per trillion of a combination of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), commercial chemicals that were once widely used but are no longer manufactured in the U.S. PFOS levels in the water were 740 ppt and PFOA concentrations were 670 ppt, DEQ says. The agency found the pollution as part of a state effort launched in May to test all public drinking water supplies in Michigan for 14 perfluorochemicals.
Evidence shows that PFOS and PFOA, which essentially don’t break down in the environment, are linked to a swath of health problems, including cancer, thyroid hormone disruption, and increased cholesterol levels, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Michigan in January adopted 70 ppt as a legally enforceable cleanup level for cleanup of PFOS or PFOA in drinking water. The limit is based on EPA’s 2016 health advisory level for PFOS and PFOA of 70 ppt individually or together. But a draft report the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry released in June says that limits of the substances should be significantly lower to protect health. The report’s numbers translate into drinking water levels of 7 ppt for PFOS and 11 parts per trillion for PFOA.
DEQ found high levels of the two chemicals and detected other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in the groundwater that supplies Parchment, a town named for a paper mill that operated there for nearly a century. DEQ has not determined the source of the chemicals in Parchment’s drinking water.
Michigan is supplying bottled drinking water for the affected residents. Parchment is draining its water supply pipes and flushing them with drinking water from the nearby city of Kalamazoo. Parchment will soon connect to Kalamazoo’s water supply, officials say.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) on July 13 asked Attorney General Bill Schuette to sue 3M, a former manufacturer of PFOS and PFOA, for compensation to pay for cleanup of PFASs from drinking water in the state. In February, Minnesota settled a similar case against St. Paul-based 3M.
Michigan is also suing shoe manufacturer Wolverine World Wide, which formerly disposed of tannery wastes containing PFOS and PFOA in the state.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/Michigan-declares-state-emergency-town/96/i32

Return to headline | Return to top
Nickel Industry “Surprised” by Scrutiny in California

Aug 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Andrew Turley

The Nickel Institute has said it is "somewhat surprised" by an announcement that regulators in California will meet in October to discuss the possible developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) of nickel and its compounds. Up for discussion is the possibility of a DART Proposition 65 listing, which would have regulatory implications for companies using the substances.
The hazards of nickel use have been evaluated many times by authoritative bodies around of the world. Nickel is produced in high volumes, is widely used and has known adverse effects on human health and the environment. But historically regulators have tended to focus on other endpoints, particularly skin sensitisation and carcinogenicity.
For example, nickel and several nickel compounds are already listed under Proposition 65 for carcinogenicity; just one compound, nickel carbonyl, is also listed for DART.
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) raised the possibility of a DART listing for nickel in 2015. But the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (Dartic) subsequently set a prioritisation level of "medium/low" for the metal and its compounds.
"We are somewhat surprised that this has been brought forward now," a Nickel Institute spokesperson told Chemical Watch.
Oehha has published a hazard identification document and Dartic will consider whether to list the substances for DART at a public meeting on 11 October.Studies
The 342-page document describes a range of relevant human studies, including:
·       five cohort studies of humans exposed to nickel particles in ambient air, all of which reported "small but statistically significant" associations adverse effects on fetal growth parameters;
·       an epidemiological study of female human reproductive effects of nickel exposure that reported an association with levels of sex-hormone binding globulin (SHBG); and
·       an epidemiological study of male reproductive effects that reported an association between inhaled nickel and levels of nickel in urine, with urinary nick was in turn associated with lower plasma testosterone.
It also describes a range of animal studies, mainly involving rats and mice, that reported associations between exposure to nickel or nickel compounds and various DART endpoints.
Nickel and its compounds are used in: stainless steel and other nickel alloys; catalysts; batteries; pigments; and ceramics. Nickel is particularly valued in applications for its resistance to corrosion, extreme temperature and mechanical stress. Nickel salts meanwhile, are widely used in electroplating baths, batteries, textile dyes, and catalysts.
Water soluble nickel compounds have mandatory reprotoxicity 1B classifications under EU CLP, but there is no equivalent classification for nickel metal and insoluble nickel compounds.
The Nickel Institute spokesperson said this is because, based on toxicokinetic studies, they are expected to have much lower bioavailability. "IE, it is more difficult for these forms of nickel to be absorbed into the body either by inhalation, oral ingestion or through the skin."
They added that "relevant exposure to nickel and nickel compounds is limited to the workplace. Any potential risks to workers are controlled by workplace safety and health regulations. Importantly, epidemiology studies do not support a causal association between exposure to nickel, soluble and insoluble forms, and adverse reproductive outcomes."
The organisation is planning to review the document and contribute to the Dartic process.

Oehha has launched a 45-day public consultation on the hazard identification document and interested parties have until 11 September to submit comments.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69201/nickel-industry-surprised-by-scrutiny-in-california

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

American Oil Production Growing More Slowly Than Expected

Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Vasheela Tobben

U.S. oil production may not be growing quite as fast as everyone thinks.
American drillers pumped 10.442 million barrels a day in May—about 300,000 fewer barrels a day than the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected. In a report released Juy 31, the agency revised its weekly production estimates for the month, lowering average May output by 3 percent. The slide comes as the nation churns out records volume of crude, with explorers expanding the U.S. rig fleet by more than 110 since January.
The decline, reported in the EIA’s monthly Crude Oil & Natural Gas Production report, suggests that figures for June also could clock in lower than estimated. For now, the agency’s preliminary June production estimate is a record 11 million barrels a day.
The May data released July 31 is still subject to change, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration spokesman Paul Hesse. In the same report, the agency revised upward its April production figures by 5,000 barrels a day.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/american-oil-production-growing-more-slowly-than-expected

Return to headline | Return to top
Court Upholds Va. Permits for Mountain Valley Project

Aug 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire

By Ellen M. Gilmer

Virginia regulators did not violate the law when they approved a water permit for the Mountain Valley pipeline, federal judges ruled yesterday.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges from environmental groups and other pipeline opponents who said the state's Water Control Board and Department of Environmental Quality lacked sufficient evidence to support their 2017 decision to certify the project under the Clean Water Act.
The ruling is a welcome victory for supporters of the 303-mile EQT Corp. pipeline, designed to ship natural gas from West Virginia to Virginia. The project has faced many setbacks in the courtroom, including recent 4th Circuit decisions tossing or suspending various federal permits.
But the three-judge panel ruled yesterday that the state regulators' approval was in the clear.
"In making this judgment, we cannot ignore the fact that the State Agencies vigorously participated at every stage of the decision-making process and did not issue their final [Clean Water Act Section] 401 certificate until they had added all of the protections that they concluded were needed to give them reasonable assurance that state water quality would be protected," Judge William Traxler Jr., a Clinton appointee, wrote for the court.
"This is exactly how the system was designed to work," he added.
EQT spokeswoman Natalie Cox praised the court's decision and touted the "months of dedicated work" state regulators spent on the permit review. She added that the project is on track for an early 2019 in-service date.
Traxler was joined in the decision by Chief Judge Roger Gregory, a Clinton and George W. Bush appointee, and Judge Stephanie Thacker, an Obama appointee.
The panel had been somewhat skeptical of the environmental groups' position during oral arguments in May, asking what good a remand would do (Energywire, May 10).
"We are disappointed in the Court's ruling, especially given the widespread failures of the MVP's erosion and sediment controls that have been witnessed on the ground," Appalachian Mountain Advocates attorney Ben Luckett said in a statement. "We will continue to closely monitor construction and press DEQ to uphold the promises it made to the Court to protect Virginia's water quality.
"We will also continue to pursue all other available legal avenues to oppose this harmful and unnecessary project," he added.
The decision is one of many significant recent rulings affecting Mountain Valley, the natural gas pipeline set to stretch 300 miles from West Virginia to Virginia (Energywire, July 31).
Just last week, for example, the 4th Circuit tossed Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management permits for the project's crossing of a national forest in southern Virginia.
In a Tuesday letter, a coalition of environmental groups called on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to halt construction on the full length of the pipeline until the permitting issues are resolved.
"Because these mandatory federal authorizations are now lacking, FERC must not allow pipeline construction to continue, not only within the Jefferson National Forest but anywhere along the pipeline route," environmental lawyers told FERC.
They noted that FERC's own approval of Mountain Valley requires other federal permits to be in place.
"More broadly, on remand, the Forest Service and BLM may determine that it is inappropriate to allow the pipeline to cross the Jefferson National Forest at all," they added.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/08/02/stories/1060091895

Return to headline | Return to top
Pipeline Regulator Considers Gutting Pipeline Replacement Rule

Aug 1, 2018 | PoliticoPro

By Ben LeFebvre

The federal pipeline regulator is considering scrapping a safety rule requiring energy companies to replace old pipelines in newly populated areas, a change that critics and even the regulator says could raise the risks of ruptures.
The potential rollback of the rule by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration — which the agency said this week was in line with President Donald Trump's executive order to cut regulatory costs and eliminate two rules for every new one created — is backed by pipeline operators. It would eliminate a decades-old regulation known as the “class location system” that requires companies to replace stretches of natural gas pipelines running below areas that experienced population density growth after the line was installed.
The moves comes amid concerns about natural gas pipeline accidents, including the 2010 blast that killed eight people in San Bruno, Calif. Last month, a natural gas pipeline explosion killed a firefighter and injured a dozen other people in Wisconsin, and another pipeline ruptured and exploded in rural West Virginia.
The current PHMSA rule divides population areas into four classes, ranging from sparsely populated “Class 1” rural areas to high-density “Class 4” urban regions, and companies are required to install new pipelines when population growth bumps an area up by two classes. Pipeline operators have argued that advances in technology enable them to monitor pipeline safety better than when the original rule came out, and getting rid of the rule would eliminate the cost of swapping out old line for new, thicker steel.
PHMSA regulators themselves expressed reservations about the possible change in the Federal Register notice announcing it was seeking comment for a rule change. The public comment period will end in late September.
“Over the past decade, PHMSA observed problems with pipe and fitting manufacturing quality, including low-strength material; construction practices; welding; field coating practices; [integrity management] assessments and reassessment practices; and record documentation practices,” the agency says in the Federal Register notice. “These issues give PHMSA pause in considering approaches allowing a two-class bump (Class 1 to 3 or Class 2 to 4) without requiring pipe replacement, especially for higher-pressure transmission pipelines.”
Rebecca Craven, program director at watchdog group Pipeline Safety Trust, said the group was pleased that PHMSA expressed some skepticism about the rule change proposal, and that there have been too many cases of failed pipeline early warning systems to warrant relying solely on technology.
"The Pipeline Safety Trust remains concerned that the system-wide protections provided by the class location system be maintained at least until the industry can show a track record of substantially lower incident rates in areas under their integrity management plans,” Craven said. “It’s critical that operators do a better job of preventing corrosion if they intend to leave thinner walled pipe in the ground in areas where the population is growing.“
A representative of trade association Interstate Natural Gas Association of America was not immediately available to comment. But the association cheered the proposed rule change earlier this week as a cost-saving measures that could allow them to invest more in new inspection technology.
“INGAA urges PHMSA to work expeditiously on this important update to the class location change regulations so that homes and businesses near natural gas pipelines can benefit from modern pipeline safety technologies and the natural gas these pipelines deliver,” INGAA Chief Executive Don Santa said in a press release earlier this week.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/08/pipeline-regulator-considers-gutting-pipeline-replacement-rule-717956

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) Agencies Working at Site of Last Month’s Massive Explosion in Akron to Burn off Remaining Chemical

Aug 1, 2018 | Akron Beacon Journal

By Jim Mackinnon and Betty Lin-Fisher

Local and state agencies are working with an Akron company to slowly burn off a chemical at the site of last month’s massive explosion and fire on West Emerling Avenue.
The Akron Fire Department supervised the controlled burning that began Wednesday afternoon at the Emerald Performance Materials plant.
The chemical, butadiene, which is used at the South Akron plant, is being removed and then burned in a process that will take 24 to 48 hours, the fire department said. Under a best-case scenario, the burn could last 12 hours.
The controlled burn involves disposing of three tanks of the chemical. A fire department spokeswoman on Wednesday said she was unsure how much butadiene will be burned.
No evacuations are necessary, according to the Akron Fire Department.
“No one is confined to their home,” fire department spokeswoman Sierjie Lash said.
An explosion is possible during the burn, “but we have fire personnel on scene and so many safety personnel on scene if there is any kind of fire incident,” Lash said
At least one nearby resident wasn’t convinced she was safe.
Christine Meloy, who lives in one of only two houses on Emerling Avenue down the street from the plant, said she was upset that neighbors were not notified of the controlled burn by the city, fire department or company officials.
“We’re two minutes up from this company and they can’t come and say anything? They can’t give us a sense of everything is going to be OK?” asked Meloy, who said she first heard about the controlled burn from a text from a relative. Meloy did not know the details until informed by a reporter.
Lash, however, said she left notes including her phone number several times at Meloy’s house, as well as at several nearby properties.
“I completely understand her frustrations,” Lash said. “I left my phone number to call with questions or concerns.”
Meloy was at home during the July 18 explosion watching her brother’s grandchildren, ages 8 and 15, when they heard the boom and saw the billows of smoke and fire.
The explosion and fire last month severely damaged the plant, with the surrounding industrial neighborhood evacuated. There were no injuries.
City officials this week said an ongoing investigation has not determined what caused the fire. There have been multiple public safety and health violations documented at the plant going back years by local and state inspectors.
Meloy said the kids were not at her house on Wednesday and called it a “blessing in disguise.” She is arranging for the kids to not come on Thursday, either, but said that will hurt her income. She also had to call an Uber the day of the explosion to evacuate the area.
Meloy decided to leave her house Wednesday afternoon before the burn was scheduled to begin.
“I am not here as I believe it necessary to inconveniently have to evacuate my home one again!” Meloy wrote in a letter posted on her door Wednesday afternoon.
While no evacuations are needed, the public is being prevented from getting close to the burn site, Lash said.
A private security company was blocking the road near Emerald Performance on Wednesday afternoon to keep anyone from entering the property.
Butadiene is a colorless gas that is a known human carcinogen, according to the industry group American Chemistry Council. Along with being used in manufacturing, the gas also is produced by cigarettes and combustible engines.
The plan to dispose of butadiene using a controlled burn was reviewed by Akron Air Quality, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Akron Fire Department and the U.S. EPA, according to the fire department.
People might see smoke coming from the Emerald Performance location. People also may see a glow from the burn in the evening.
Emergency personnel were at the site. Air quality is being monitored throughout the entire operation, the fire department said.
“They have several sites monitoring the air — upwind and downwind — making sure the air quality is still safe for our residents,” Lash said.
Officials also are monitoring to make sure “nothing gets in the water system,” she said.
Emerald Performance Materials traces its history to BFGoodrich. The company is privately held and based in Washington state. It supplies chemicals to the aerospace, cosmetic, paint, food and other industries
Residents with questions about the controlled burn can call the Akron Fire Department at 330-375-2101.
https://www.ohio.com/akron/news/breaking-news-news/akron-firefighters-to-burn-off-chemical-starting-today-at-site-of-emerald-performance-fire

Return to headline | Return to top
'Raspite' Hackers Target U.S. Utilities — Cybersecurity Firm

Aug 2, 2018 | E&E Energywire

By Blake Sobczak

A new hacking threat has reared its head in the networks of at least one U.S. utility, according to cybersecurity firm Dragos Inc.
The "Raspite" group has not yet managed to seize control over part of the U.S. power grid but appears aimed at gaining that capability, Dragos concluded in a blog post published this morning.
The hackers appear to have mimicked the techniques of a suspected Russian campaign that compromised at least one wind power generation firm last year, in addition to targeting dozens of other utilities, experts say. The latest attackers have recycled tactics from that cyber espionage effort, though the two threats appear to be unrelated, according to Sergio Caltagirone, director of threat intelligence at Dragos.
"We're very aware that the bad guys are watching each other and learning from each other," he said in an interview. "We don't expect them to stop. This is probably a threat that's going to continue to grow."
Caltagirone pointed out that the "Raspite" hackers, while likely backed by a nation-state based on their willingness to target the closely guarded U.S. power sector, have not yet demonstrated any highly sophisticated attack methods.
Instead, the group has relied on tried-and-true break-in methods like "spearphishing" emails with malicious links.
Once clicked, the links attempt to siphon off employees' login data — information that can later be used to stage a deeper intrusion.
Russia-linked hackers used the same technique to worm into the corporate networks of several U.S. utilities last year, based on an alert from the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI (Energywire, March 16).
Caltagirone estimated that the "Raspite" hackers would take months, if not years, to develop the capabilities needed to breach the operational networks that underpin the delivery of electricity in the U.S. He said the group has been active since early last year but had mainly been interested in Middle Eastern targets until 2018.
"We would call them a 'low-tier' threat in capability — meaning they're able to get into networks, but right now we don't see any capability for disruption," he said. "These guys aren't ready to turn off the power."
Caltagirone declined to speculate on where the hackers might be based but suggested their persistence, organization and appetite for U.S. targets pointed to nation-state activity.
"For most hackers in the world, you don't go after the U.S. — especially critical infrastructure — unless you're ready and willing to take on that level of risk," he said.
The Justice Department underscored those risks yesterday, announcing the arrests of three Ukrainian nationals accused of leading a "highly sophisticated malware campaign" targeting more than 100 U.S. restaurants, casinos and hotels.
Dragos tied "Raspite" to the "Leafminer" group tracked by cybersecurity firm Symantec Corp.
In their own blog post on the threat late last month, Symantec researchers said they had uncovered an internal list of 809 targets written in Persian. Additional references to the Iranian hacking forum "Ashiyan" suggested the group may carry links to Tehran.
Symantec discovered hacked systems in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel, and more than a fifth of the organizations listed in the group's target list were in the petrochemical or energy utility industries.
"The group appears to be based in Iran and seems to be eager to learn from and capitalize on tools and techniques used by more advanced threat actors," Symantec concluded.
Iranian hackers have shown a willingness and capability to hit U.S. critical infrastructure targets in the past, though such cases have remained exceedingly rare.
Earlier this year, the Justice Department alleged that a group of nine Iranian nationals broke into the networks of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is responsible for overseeing the security and reliability of the bulk power grid (Energywire, March 26).
In a separate indictment from 2016, U.S. law enforcement officials accused Iranian citizen Hamid Firoozi of hacking into the control system of a small dam in rural New York. The alleged hacker did not disrupt the system, which was down for repairs at the time of the September 2013 intrusion.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/08/02/stories/1060091929

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Are NJ Communities Prepared for the Worst When a Train Derails?

Aug 2, 2018 | NorthJersey.com

By Curtis Tate

Every week, millions of gallons of crude oil and ethanol traverse Bergen County, winding through residential neighborhoods as they head to northeastern refineries.
Along the way, they cross some of the oldest rail bridges in the nation — a fact underscored just last week when a span in Ridgefield Park partially collapsed under a moving train.
And while the possibility of a derailment is statistically unlikely, there is a heightened awareness among local residents and officials about the danger and increased the demand for new training opportunities to respond to a disaster.
"If it happens, it’s not going to be an easy event," said Jordan Zaretsky, Teaneck's fire chief. "We train for it, and we do our best."
Though railroads have faced increased scrutiny in recent years over the safety of transporting flammable liquids such as crude oil and ethanol, less attention has been focused on other hazardous materials.
In November 2012, a train derailed on a moveable bridge in Paulsboro, releasing 23,000 gallons of toxic and flammable vinyl chloride into a creek, exposing emergency responders and residents to potentially grave health consequences.
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2018/08/02/nj-communities-prepared-train-derailment/871630002/

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

EPA Retains Obama-Era Ozone NAAQS, Rejects Push for Reconsideration

Aug 1, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

EPA has decided against reconsidering the Obama-era decision to tighten the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) from the 2008 limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, opting instead to consider the issue as part of an expedited review of the 2015 standard that the agency is slated to conclude in October 2020.
The decision was not unexpected, as Inside EPA had reported that EPA air chief William Wehrum was said to favor focusing instead on the Clean Air Act-mandated review due in 2020. Reconsideration would be a lengthy and complicated process that would require the agency to provide data showing why the Obama EPA was wrong to tighten the standard, and observers said EPA likely wanted to avoid such a fight.
As part of the accelerated review due in 2020, EPA says it will emphasize the role of “background” ozone that includes naturally-occurring ozone and ozone from overseas sources. Critics of the 2015 decision said these uncontrollable levels made the standard effectively impossible for some areas to attain.
The “appropriate EPA officials have reviewed the 2015 Rule and have determined that at this time, EPA does not intend to revisit the 2015 Rule,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) says in an Aug. 1 filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on EPA's behalf, in Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, which consolidates currently delayed lawsuits over the 2015 standard.
DOJ says that “the need to focus resources in order to move swiftly and complete the new review by 2020, the status of implementation for the 2015 Rule, recent D.C. Circuit decisions on the ability of EPA to revoke previously promulgated NAAQS, and the importance of certainty for States and the regulated community” all played into EPA's decision to abandon reconsideration of the rule.
Reconsideration would also have to rely on the same scientific record used to justify the 2015 NAAQS, possibly a difficult task for EPA. Under a fresh review, EPA may ultimately apply its proposed new science policy that precludes the agency from relying on studies that do not make their underlying data publicly available. This would rule out at least some highly influential studies that find adverse health effects from low concentrations of ozone, environmentalists say.
NAAQS Review
nstead, EPA will now push ahead with its previously announced plans to expedite the mandatory review of the 2015 standard, and it could propose to soften the limit, retain it, or tighten it.
Before former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt resigned last month, observers said he was leaning toward retaining the 70 ppb standard, given that almost all of the country outside of California will likely come into compliance with the 70 ppb limit by 2023. As a result, few areas would have to take any additional actions to attain the limit.
The Murray Energy litigation -- in which environmentalists sued the Obama EPA claiming the 2015 limit was too weak and industry groups sued claiming it was too strict -- has now resumed. The D.C. Circuit has given those involved in the case until Aug. 22 to file motions on how to proceed in the case.
In the suit, some states such as Arizona and Texas, and industry groups, are challenging the 2015 NAAQS as needlessly stringent, while environmentalists and other states are both defending the agency and pushing for the limit to be tougher still. Proceedings were placed in abeyance in 2017, postponing oral argument indefinitely, after the Trump EPA then announced it might reconsider and revise the standard.
States opposed to the tougher limit warned in earlier filings that if the case were not revived, they would lose their opportunity to challenge the 2015 standard on its merits because EPA might simply fold the reconsideration into its pending review of the ozone standard. States said this is “precisely what happened with the 2008 Ozone NAAQS” and that keeping the case on hold would risk the “same errors, particularly with respect to uncontrollable background ozone."
Accordingly, the court returned the fully briefed case to active status Aug. 1, and those involved in the case will use their upcoming motions to say how the court should proceed.
Background Ozone
One of the primary arguments raised by opponents of the 2015 limit is that EPA disregarded background ozone, which cannot be controlled by local regulators, when setting the limit.
The agency under Obama took the position that EPA cannot consider background pollution or other non-health factors such as cost when setting a NAAQS. This is consistent with Supreme Court precedent from the 2001 case Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, where the high court held unanimously that the agency cannot consider cost or implementation problems when setting the standards. Instead, EPA has typically said it will rely on separate implementation measures to address such concerns.
President Donald Trump in an April 12 memo called for EPA and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) to determine whether they have been giving full consideration to factors CASAC is supposed to advise EPA on in addition to the level of NAAQS, including background pollution.
Pruitt followed this with his own memo May 9, outlining a series of reforms to both streamline NAAQS reviews and also include consideration of background in the context of specific NAAQS reviews.
DOJ in its new filing says, “EPA intends to carefully consider, and solicit comment from CASAC and the public, on topics related to background ozone, including assessments of the relative contribution of natural and anthropogenic ozone to design values, which are used to determine whether areas are attaining the NAAQS.”
Further, “EPA notes that it may re-evaluate the extent to which the Administrator can or should consider levels of background ozone when choosing a standard."
Noting that EPA in the 2015 NAAQS rulemaking did not address the issue of whether “raising the NAAQS to accommodate background ozone could be a permissible reading of the Clean Air Act,” DOJ says, “EPA anticipates revisiting both the question of when background concentrations interfere with attainment of the NAAQS and the question of how to consider potential interference with attainment in deciding whether or how to revise the NAAQS.”
But the filing presents the possibility that should EPA determine that it has the authority to do so, the agency could in fact weaken the standard to account for background ozone. Background is typically highest in the mountain West, where background concentrations can approach the level of the NAAQS in some places.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-retains-obama-era-ozone-naaqs-rejects-push-reconsideration

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump Keeps Ozone Rule Despite Campaign Promise

Aug 1, 2018 | PoliticoPro

By Alex Guillen

President Donald Trump promised during the 2016 campaign to repeal the Obama administration’s 2015 ozone standard. echoing the complaints from the business sector that the rule would cost companies billions of dollars.
But after reviewing it for a year and a half, EPA on Wednesday decided instead to keep the standard intact.

The decision puts EPA in the awkward position of defending the Obama rule in a lawsuit that had been originally brought by former chief Scott Pruitt in his prior role as Oklahoma's attorney general and Murray Energy, the coal company that acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler lobbied for before joining EPA. (Wheeler and his former firm were not involved with Murray’s lawsuit, and Wheeler did not report lobbying EPA on the issue for Murray.)
“The Agency at this time does not intend to revisit the 2015 Rule,” EPA wrote in a court filing on Wednesday.
Though that court filing questions what role natural background levels of ozone play in setting the national standard, the agency said the laborious process of revoking the Obama rule was too onerous and the uncertainty to businesses would be too great. Instead, it would focus on the upcoming 2020 review, when it must decide whether to tighten, maintain, or potentially even loosen the standard.
The decision is a victory for environmental and public health advocates, who will now proceed with their legal challenge that contends the 2015 standard was too lax.
“We’re glad to have our chance to argue that the standard is not as protective as it’s legally required to be,” said Seth Johnson, an Earthjustice attorney involved in the case. “We had wanted the chance to do that in April 2017 and we’re glad to get the chance to do it now.”
The resumption of the lawsuits will put EPA in a crossfire between the greens and the challengers from industry groups and red states who argue the standard was too strict. Both sides will seek to undercut each other, aligning with EPA against their opponents even as they seek to sway the courts to their arguments.
Paul Billings, senior vice president of advocacy for the American Lung Association, saw EPA’s decision as not much of a win because the agency has otherwise dragged its feet on implementation.
“Here we are almost three years in, and we’re still behind on implementation,” he said. “So I don’t think it’s a victory, I think it’s just the next step.”
Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said companies will make their case to EPA in other ways.
“Manufacturers in nonattainment areas for the 2015 standard still need flexibility to comply with the rule,” he said in an email. “There are different ways to provide this flexibility. However EPA decides to provide it, we will welcome it.”
The ozone rule is not the only Obama-era rule the Trump EPA has defended, but it is by far the most controversial and highest profile.
Ground-level ozone, also known as smog, is formed by the mixing of pollutants emitted by power plants, cars, refineries, factories and other sources. At high levels, it causes or worsens respiratory illnesses, including asthma, bronchitis and emphysema. The 2015 rule lowered the ozone limit from 75 parts per billion, a level set in 2008, to 70 ppb, the upper limit of a range suggested by EPA’s advisory panel.
Former administrator Pruitt, who departed the agency last month, arrived at EPA last year ready to roll it back, along with a litany of other Obama-era rules, but he struggled to with his initial efforts to delay key implementation deadlines.
Pruitt last summer announced he would wait an extra year to designate which parts of the U.S. had failed to meet the pollution standard. Environmentalists and Democratic attorneys general sued, arguing that while he had authority to delay some decisions if there were data deficiencies, Pruitt could not issue a blanket delay for the entire U.S.
Pruitt quickly reversed his decision, but when the Oct. 1, 2017, deadline came around, EPA remained silent about the designations, triggering a new round of lawsuits. A federal judge ruled that Pruitt had whiffed, and ordered him to issue the designations, which EPA just wrapped up in July.
In addition, Pruitt in May issued a memo that committed EPA to finishing the next ozone review within the Clean Air Act’s five-year timeframe, by October 2020.
The five-year deadlines have posed a challenge for EPA under every administration, and Pruitt’s emphasis on finishing the next round on time — and before the next election — had triggered speculation in recent months that the Trump administration was preparing to stick with the 2015 rule.
EPA also has significant legal considerations. Because of capacious language in the Clean Air Act, NAAQS standards like the ozone rule can be difficult to challenge in court.
The Supreme Court in 2001 ruled that EPA is barred from considering compliance costs when setting the standards, allowing EPA to focus on health effects alone.
And in 2014 Brett Kavanaugh, the District of Columbia Circuit judge nominated by Trump to the Supreme Court and a frequent critic of EPA overreach, upheld a tightened Obama-era soot standard because the Clean Air Act "gives EPA substantial discretion" in setting such standards.
Now that EPA has decided to defend the Obama-era rule, the legal challenges to the ozone rule could recommence relatively quickly.
The matter had been fully briefed last spring when the oral arguments were delayed, and the parties have suggested in recent filings that the arguments could simply be rescheduled for this fall, potentially as early as September or October. EPA said it will consult with the other parties and propose a new schedule by Aug. 22.
The case likely would end up before the same panel of judges slated to hear it last year: Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee, and Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins, both Obama appointees.

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/08/trump-keeps-ozone-rule-despite-campaign-promise-719353

Return to headline | Return to top
Ozone Rule Affecting Foxconn Site Prompts Environmental Challenge

Aug 1, 2018 | Inside EPA

By David LaRoss

The future of Foxconn’s proposed flat-screen manufacturing site in Wisconsin is hazy.
Environmental group Clean Wisconsin on Aug. 1 challenged a final rule for ozone standards in Racine County, where Foxconn Technology Group intends to construct a $10 billion flat-screen manufacturing facility.
The Environmental Protection Agency rule, published in June, said Racine County attained the ozone standards. This reversed an EPA proposed determination from December that the county would violate the EPA’s 2015 ozone standard of 70 parts per billion.
Clean Wisconsin petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the EPA attainment finding.
The EPA final rule means Foxconn Technology Group and other businesses in Racine County won’t have to take additional steps to reduce their smog-creating air pollution, because the county meets federal air quality standards. But if Clean Wisconsin successfully challenges the attainment finding, Foxconn and other businesses could be required to install costly pollution controls to reduce their emissions.
“The June designations differ significantly from what EPA proposed less than six months earlier, which was its intention to designate all of Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Waukesha and Washington Counties as ozone nonattainment areas,” Clean Wisconsin said in an Aug. 1 news release.
“EPA is reviewing the recently filed lawsuit,” an EPA spokeswoman said in a statement sent to Bloomberg Environment.
Permits Already Issued
The EPA’s final rule established initial air quality designations regarding primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards for ozone.
Wisconsin state agencies issued permits allowing Foxconn to construct its facility and begin initial operations days before the EPA announced that rule.
The Foxconn site wouldn’t be subject to the EPA final rule because the permits were issued before it was announced, James Dick, a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources spokesman, told Bloomberg Environment.
The permits expire in 2021. Any new permits would have to meet EPA air pollution requirements at the time of future permit applications. The EPA is scheduled to update its ozone data for Racine County in 2018.
Ground-level ozone forms when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight. Even at low levels, ozone can cause respiratory ailments.
The case is Clean Wis. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 18-1203, 8/1/18.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/ozone-rule-affecting-foxconn-site-prompts-environmental-challenge

Return to headline | Return to top
White House Science Director Nominee Not Shy on Climate

Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sylvia Carignan

A meteorologist and former airline consultant who is President Donald Trump’s pick to direct the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is unlikely to sweep climate science under the rug, colleagues said.
Kelvin Droegemeier is the secretary of science and technology in the Cabinet of Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R). Although his research focuses on severe weather, and not climate change specifically, his colleagues told Bloomberg Environment he is a proponent of science.
“On potentially incendiary issues such as climate science, I think he will not try to hide the science, as some politicians have done,” Rush Holt, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and former member of Congress, told Bloomberg Environment Aug.1.
Trump announced his intent to nominate Droegemeier as director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on July 31. The office advises the president on scientific matters, including the environment.
Droegemeier “believes in climate change science, but realizes that associated policy is complicated, and needs to be bi-partisan in order to accomplish anything,” Fred Carr, former president of the American Meteorological Society and professor emeritus at the University of Oklahoma School of Meteorology, told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
‘Deeply Honored’
Once Trump formally nominates Droegemeier, he would need to be confirmed by the Senate. The highest ranking employee in the Office of Science and Technology Policy is currently Michael Kratsios, who serves as deputy assistant to the president and is the deputy U.S. chief technology officer.
Drogemeier declined to respond to media inquiries Aug. 1, but his office provided a statement that said he was “deeply honored” to be nominated for the position.
In addition to his duties as part of the governor’s Cabinet, Droegemeier is vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma. His research focuses on predicting severe weather, especially storms and tornadoes, Ming Xue, director of the university’s Center for Analysis & Prediction of Storms, told Bloomberg Environment.
From the late 1990s through the early 2010s, Droegemeier served as a consultant to Air France (now Air France-KLM), American Airlines, and Continental Airlines (which merged with United Airlines Inc.). The companies sought his expertise on incidents such as turbulence resulting in a passenger injury.
Droegemeier served on the National Science Foundation’s National Science Board under President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush. Both appointments required Senate confirmation.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/white-house-science-director-nominee-not-shy-on-climate

Return to headline | Return to top
With Lawsuits, New Jersey Signals Tougher Stance on the Environment

Aug 1, 2018 | New York Times

By Mariana Alfaro and Rick Rojas

New Jersey officials announced on Wednesday that they were pursuing several lawsuits targeting former industrial sites around the state where communities are still grappling with the persisting effects of pollution that has seeped into soil, groundwater and nearby waterways.
Officials described the lawsuits, which are centered on a half-dozen sites scattered around New Jersey, as a reflection of a push by the administration of Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a Democrat, for stricter enforcement of the state’s environmental regulations. The move also signals New Jersey positioning itself as a counterbalance to federal environmental officials under the Trump administration who have taken a more lenient approach toward polluters.
“They show that today is a new day for environmental enforcement in New Jersey,” Gurbir S. Grewal, the state’s attorney general, said of the lawsuits at a news conference at one of the sites, which had housed a cigarette lighter factory that had closed more than 30 years ago in the Ironbound neighborhood of Newark.
“They involve different polluters, and they involve different pollutants,” Mr. Grewal added, referring to the various allegations raised in the lawsuits. “They involve damage to different natural resources. But what they all have in common is that environmental pollution affects all of New Jersey, North and South, rural and urban, rich and poor.”
nvironmental advocates said that New Jersey, long known for its industrial history, has adopted some of the strongest laws to combat pollution, but they said they welcomed the lawsuits on Wednesday because they signaled a changing tide after years of the state, in their view, growing too lax in enforcing those laws.
“Regulations matter, and so do the enforcement of those laws,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “I think the biggest thing is that polluters out there can violate the law because you’ll either not get caught, or if you do get caught, you’ll get off the hook.”
Some of the lawsuits seek financial damages for the toll wrought by pollution on the state’s natural resources, including surface and groundwater, sediments and wetlands. Officials said they were the first such lawsuits the state had pursued in a decade. The other suits were filed in an attempt to recover money that the state had already spent on environmental cleanups.
The lawsuits are targeting a Superfund site in Warren County, in the northwest part of the state, where a stretch of groundwater nearly nine miles long was polluted; a manufacturing facility in Newark where a school was recently built after a costly cleanup; a former petroleum refinery and an old gas station in Woodbridge, on the central coast; and a former manufactured gas plant in Atlantic City. In Newark, at the cigarette lighter factory, homes had been built on ground that had been seriously contaminated.
“We need to clean up the contamination to protect the health of our people and to restore the land to productive use,” Catherine R. McCabe, the state commissioner for the Department of Environmental Protection, said at the news conference.
Some members of New Jersey’s business and industrial community said they understood the need for enforcement, but urged officials to consider a tempered approach.
“Overzealous enforcement or looking for ‘gotchas’ in a morass of sometimes complex regulations can cause unnecessary burdens on well-intended companies that are already challenged to keep up with the high cost of doing business in the state,” Michele Siekerka, president and chief executive of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, said in a statement. “In those cases, it’s important that environmental regulators provide the option of compliance assistance to help allow for practical and timely resolutions to issues, rather than inhibiting the growth of New Jersey’s job creators.”
Efforts on Wednesday to reach representatives of the property owners or companies that were once on those sites were largely unsuccessful. But John Deull, the owner of Deull Fuel Company in Atlantic City, said he was surprised to be named in the Atlantic City lawsuit. In a Facebook post, he added that he and his wife had spent nearly $2 million over 27 years on lawyers, environmental consultants, testing and other remediation efforts.
“There is nothing left to extract from me,” Mr. Deull wrote, “except my property on the site and the life from my body.”
New Jersey’s reputation has been molded by industry, with a horizon that has long been dotted with factories and smokestacks. The state was once derided for its vast acreage of garbage dumps and for the fires that would ignite on a heavily polluted stretch of the Passaic River.
Now, long after much of that industry has faded and extensive work to recover from the pollution has been done, the state continues to contend with the scars left behind. On the Passaic River in Newark, for instance, it has required a massive undertaking to remove a century’s worth of pollution, costing over $1 billion to dredge sediment laden with chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals and other contaminants.
Environmental advocates said that progress had slowed during the administration of Chris Christie, a Republican, which had been far less aggressive. Critics were especially incensed by the state settling a lengthy legal battle with Exxon Mobil Corporation over the contamination and the loss of use of more than 1,500 acres that included wetlands, marshes and meadows. The state, which had sought $8.9 billion in damages, settled for around $225 million, which is still the biggest settlement for the state in an environmental case.
Mr. Tittel said he saw the lawsuits as a sign that New Jersey was poised to become more aggressive in enforcement.
“This is a good first step,” he said, “but there’s a lot more to be done.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/nyregion/new-jersey-environment-lawsuit-pollution.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested