Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 18/09/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) US to Impose Tariffs on $200bn Worth of Chinese Imports, May Add More
Sep 18, 2018 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
The US will impose tariffs on $200bn worth of imports from China, many of which include plastics and petrochemicals, President Donald Trump said on Monday. -
Trump Hits China With Tariffs on $200 Billion in Goods, Escalating Trade War
Sep 18, 2018 | The New York Times
By Jim Tankersley and Keith Bradsher
President Trump, emboldened by America’s economic strength and China’s economic slowdown, escalated his trade war with Beijing on Monday, saying the United States would impose tariffs on $200 billion worth of goods and was prepared to tax all imports. -
China Says It Will Immediately Retaliate When Trump Tariffs Take Effect
Sep 18, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Danielle Paquette
Beijing will immediately retaliate against President Trump’s new tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports, setting the stage for a protracted dispute that could raise prices of household goods in both countries. -
CFP Survey Highlights Increasing Management Programmes
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
In its latest survey of company progress towards managing chemicals in an environmentally sound way, Chemical Footprint Project has reported a leap in scores being achieved by businesses. -
Lawyer Thrown Off Toxic Chemical Cases Had Client Pay His Six-Figure Punishment
Sep 18, 2018 | Forbes
By John O'Brien
More than 30 lawsuits blame Pennsylvania-based Armstrong World Industries, once Lancaster's largest employer, for exposing workers to chemicals that led to sickness, suffering and death. -
Exclusive: Bayer Puts Stake in Chemical Park Operator Up for Sale-Sources
Sep 17, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
Bayer is inviting financial investors to bid for its 60 percent stake in chemical park operator Currenta after initially failing to agree a sale to its former chemicals subsidiary Covestro, three people familiar with the matter told Reuters. -
IG Criticizes EPA's Lax Scrutiny of Asbestos in Schools
Sep 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is criticizing the agency's oversight of schools' management and monitoring of asbestos in their buildings, adding to concerns that the agency is not adequately regulating the carcinogen under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Higher TSCA Fees Loom for New Chemical Submissions
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Companies may want to get their new substance notifications in before 1 October when significantly higher TSCA fees are slated to take effect, a US law firm has advised. -
(ACC Mentioned) How Safe Are the Foods Your Children Are Eating?
Sep 17, 2018 | Consumer Reports (In The Washington Post)
Certain chemicals added to food and used in food packaging have been linked to negative health effects, and children may be most at risk. -
(ACC Mentioned) Asbestos in Schools: EPA Failing to Protect Students, Report Says (2)
Sep 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA must better protect students, teachers, and workers from asbestos in schools as Congress required, according to the agency’s inspector general. -
Watchdog: EPA Asbestos Protection for Schoolchildren Lagging
Sep 18, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
The Environmental Protection Agency is shifting money away from a congressionally mandated program meant to get harmful asbestos out of schools, even though the threat of contamination remains, the agency's internal watchdog said on Monday. -
Over 100 Lawmakers Consistently Voted Against Chemical Safeguards: Study
Sep 18, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
More than 100 lawmakers consistently voted for legislation to weaken safeguards against toxic chemicals, a recent study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released Tuesday found. -
Group Releases First-Ever Congressional Scorecard
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
An environmental lobby group today released the first-ever scorecard grading House lawmakers on their support for toxic chemicals legislation. -
EPA Agrees To Industry Request To Review Chloroprene IRIS Analysis
Sep 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Months after rejecting an industry data quality request to revise a controversial risk analysis for chloroprene, a chemical used to make synthetic rubber, EPA appears to have opened the door to reviewing the science underlying its original analysis, a move that could set a precedent for any future requests for correction (RFC). -
Legislation Would Mandate Action Plan for PFAS Contamination
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
A group of bipartisan lawmakers has introduced a bill that would set standards for federal agencies' responsibilities in places where per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are detected. -
US NGOs Caution Against Foam Insulation Materials
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A group of US NGOs has called on building owners and specifiers to avoid foam insulation and several air-sealing materials they say contain chemicals of concern whose emissions may pose a threat to human health. -
California Professional Cosmetics Ingredients Bill Signed Into Law
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a bill law requiring cosmetics used in professional settings to bear a label listing the product ingredients, the first US state to do so. -
J&J Talc Supplier Takes No Chances on Another Big Jury Loss (1)
Sep 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jef Feeley
Imerys SA, which supplies talc to Johnson & Johnson, isn’t taking chances as another jury weighs whether to sock the health-care giant with a punishing verdict. -
Big Oil Acts to Police Itself as U.S. Relaxes Climate Regulation
Sep 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kelly Gilblom
The U.S. has relaxed environmental rules on oil companies, yet they aren’t fully embracing the change. -
Cheniere Strikes LNG Deal with Oil Trader Vitol
Sep 17, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
Cheniere Energy of Houston said Monday that it has agreed to sell liquefied natural gas to the Swiss energy trader Vitol, giving Cheniere another foothold in Europe at a time when the Trump administration is working to reduce the continent's reliance on gas from Russia. -
Without Much-Needed Investment, the US Gas Industry is Facing a 'Waste of Capital,' IEA Says
Sep 18, 2018 | CNBC
By Natasha Turak
On the production side, U.S. shale gas is performing strongly — but a current lack of investment projects in the sector could be "economically disruptive," according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). -
Atlantic Coast Gas Pipeline Can Resume Construction, FERC Says
Sep 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ryan Collins
Construction activities for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline along project areas that previously received a stop work order can now continue, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said Sept. 17. -
Chemours Plant Inaccessible to N.C. Inspectors Due to Flooding
Sep 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Hurricane Florence has rendered a Chemours Co. plant that produces toxic, long-lasting chemicals that have contaminated water supplies in North Carolina inaccessible to state inspectors. -
Rivers, Death Toll and Environmental Hazards Still Rising in Carolinas as Flooding Sets Records
Sep 17, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Patricia Sullivan, Rachel Siegel, Mark Berman and Joel Achenbach
The death toll from Hurricane Florence rose Monday to 32, and the misery in the Carolinas might be many days from cresting. -
House PTC Hearing: Progress and Problems on Display
Sep 18, 2018 | Railway Age
By Mischa Wanek-Libman
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials held its second hearing of the year on Sept. 13 on implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC). -
Metra Passes Major Milestone in Implementation of Positive Train Control
Sep 17, 2018 | NBC Chicago
By Phil Rogers
Metra says it has passed a major milestone with the completion of installation of a critical and expensive safety system designed to prevent deadly collisions and derailments. -
Omitted Health Costs Could Tip Scales on EPA Methane Rollback
Sep 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA knows its plans to relax Obama-era oil and gas methane limits could harm public health due to related air pollution increases, but it hasn’t calculated the exact toll on health. -
EPA Rejects Interstate Ozone Petitions, Spurring Criticism From Carper, EDF
Sep 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has finalized its rejection of petitions filed by Delaware and Maryland asking the agency to curb interstate ozone air pollution by finding such action is unnecessary to help the states attain federal air standards, spurring criticism from Senate environment panel ranking member Tom Carper (D-DE) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). -
Jerry Brown Made Climate Change His Issue. The Result: Attacks From All Sides.
Sep 18, 2018 | The New York Times
By Somini Sengupta
It was a big act, one of the last in the final days of a long political career, and it was about one of his life’s passions: safeguarding the environment.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US to Impose Tariffs on $200bn Worth of Chinese Imports, May Add More
Sep 18, 2018 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
The US will impose tariffs on $200bn worth of imports from China, many of which include plastics and petrochemicals, President Donald Trump said on Monday.
The tariffs will go into effect on 24 September, and they will start at 10%, Trump said. On 1 January, the tariffs will rise to 25%.
If China takes what the administration considers to be retaliatory actions, then Trump threatened another round of tariffs on $267bn worth of additional imports, he said.
China has threatened to retaliate with its own list of 5-25% tariffs on $60bn worth of imports from the US, many of which also include chemicals.
In addition, China has submitted a request to World Trade Organization (WTO) for authorisation to impose over $7bn of sanctions annually on the US.
During the past year, the US and China have placed an increasing number of tariffs on goods they import from each other, placing the chemical industry on the front line of an escalating trade war.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) persistently opposed the tariffs, alleging they will put billions of US dollars and thousands of workers at risk.
The National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) recently published the results of study that it said quantified the costs of additional tariffs to distributors.
Many of the new polyethylene (PE) plants that are now starting up in the US were built with the intent of exporting much of their output. Demand in the US will unlikely grow fast enough to absorb all of this new capacity, and companies always intended to export much of the PE to fast-growing emerging economies, particularly China.
The tariffs complicate this strategy at a time when integrated margins for PE producers have been falling as new capacity starts up.
On the other hand, many executives said the tariffs will cause trade patterns to shift, but they should not cause widespread disruption. Demand for PE will continue to grow and markets will need new capacity. This is illustrated by utilisation rates, which remain high despite new plants starting up in the US.
A recent act will provide chemical companies with some relief from existing tariffs.
Trump said his administration is imposing the tariffs because of what he alleged to be unfair policies and practices involving how it treats US technology and intellectual property. He accused China of forcing US companies to transfer technology to their counterparts in the country.
The table below shows some of the chemical and plastic products covered by the $200bn list of tariffs.
HTSProduct Description2707.10.00Benzene, from distillation of hi-temp coal tar or in which wt. of aromatic components o2707.20.00Toluene, from distillation of hi-temp coal tar or in which wt. of aromatic components o2707.30.00Xylenes, from distillation of hi-temp coal tar or in which wt. of aromatic components o2707.99.51Phenols > 50% by wt hydroxybenzene2707.99.59Phenols, nesoi2710.12.25Naphthas (exc. motor fuel2710.12.45Light oil mixt. of hydrocarbons fr petro oils & bitum min(o2710.12.90Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils & oils from bituminous min. or preps 70%+ by wt. from petro. oils or bitum. min., nesoi2710.19.06Distillate and residual fuel oil (including blends) derived from petroleum or oils from bituminous minerals, testing < 25 degrees A.P.I.2710.19.11Distillate and residual fuel oil (including blends) derived from petroleum oils or oil of bituminous minerals, testing 25 degree A.P.I. or >2710.19.16Kerosene-type jet fuel from petroleum oils and oils of bitumin minerals (o2710.19.24Kerosene motor fuel (not jet) from petro oils and bitumin minerals (o2710.19.25Kerosene motor fuel blending stock (not jet), from petro oils and bitumin. minerals (o2710.19.26Kerosene (ex. motor fuel2710.19.45Mixture of hydrocarbons from petro oils & bitum. min. or preps.70%+ by wt. fr. petro. oils, nesoi, n2710.19.90Petroleum oils & oils from bituminous minerals or preps nesoi 70%+ by wt. from petroleum oils or bitum. min., not waste, nesoi2710.20.05Dist and resid fuel oil (including blends) derived from petro or oils fr bitum min, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I., contng biodiesel2710.20.10Dist and resid fuel oil (including blends) derived from petro or oils fr bitum min testing 25 degree A.P.I. or >, contng biodiesel2710.20.15Kerosene-type jet fuel2710.20.25Kerosene (ex jet fuel,mtr ful2711.11.00Natural gas, liquefied2711.12.00Propane, liquefied2711.13.00Butanes, liquefied2711.14.00Ethylene, propylene, butylene and butadiene, liquefied2711.19.00Liquefied petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, nesoi2711.21.00Natural gas, in gaseous state2711.29.00Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, except natural gas2712.20.00Paraffin wax (whether or not colored), obtained by synthesis or other process and less than 0.75% oil by wt.2712.90.10Montan wax (whether or not colored), obtained by synthesis or other process2814.10.00Anhydrous ammonia2814.20.00Ammonia in aqueous solution2815.11.00Sodium hydroxide (Caustic soda), solid2815.12.00Sodium hydroxide (Caustic soda), in aqueous solution (Soda lye or liquid soda)2901.10.10Ethane and butane2901.10.30n-Pentane and isopentane2901.21.00Ethylene2901.22.00Propene (Propylene)2901.23.00Butene (Butylene) and isomers thereof2901.24.10Buta-l,3-diene2901.24.20Isoprene, having a purity of 95 percent or more by weight2901.24.50Isoprene less than 95 percent pure2902.11.00Cyclohexane2902.20.00Benzene2902.30.00Toluene2902.41.00o-Xylene2902.42.00m-Xylene2902.43.00p-Xylene2902.44.00Mixed xylene isomers2902.50.00Styrene2902.60.00Ethylbenzene2902.70.00Cumene2902.90.30Alkylbenzenes and polyalkylbenzenes2903.15.001,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride)2903.19.051,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene dichloride) and dichlorobutanes2903.21.00Vinyl chloride (Chloroethylene)2905.11.10Methanol (Methyl alcohol) imported only for use in producing synthetic natural gas (SNG) or for direct use as a fuel2905.11.20Methanol (Methyl alcohol), other than imported only for use in producing synthetic natural gas (SNG) or for direct use as fuel2905.12.00Propan-1-ol (Propyl alcohol) and Propan-2-ol (isopropyl alcohol)2905.13.00Butan-1-ol (n-Butyl alcohol)2905.14.10tert-Butyl alcohol, having a purity of less than 99 percent by weight2905.14.50Butanols other than butan-1-ol and tert-butyl alcohol having a purity of less than 99 percent by weight2905.31.00Ethylene glycol (Ethanediol)2905.32.00Propylene glycol (Propane-1,2-diol)2905.39.10Butylene glycol2909.19.14Methyl tertiay-butyl ether. (MTBE)2909.19.18Ethers of acyc monohydric alcohols & deriv, nesoi2909.43.00Monobutyl ethers of ethylene glycol or of diethylene glycol2909.44.01Monoalkyl ethers of ethylene glycol or of diethylene glycol2909.49.20Nonaromatic glycerol ethers2910.10.00Oxirane (Ethylene oxide)2910.20.00Methyloxirane (Propylene oxide)2910.30.001-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane (Epichlorohydrin)2910.90.10Butylene oxide2910.90.20Aromatic epoxides, epoxyalcohols, epoxyphenols and epoxyethers, with a three-membered ring, and their derivatives, nesoi2910.90.91Other nonaromatic epoxides, epoxyalcohols and epoxyethers, with a three-membered ring and their halogenated, sulfonated, nitrated or nitrosated deriv2911.00.101,1-Bis-(1-methylethoxy)cyclohexane2911.00.50Acetals and hemiacetals, whether or not with other oxygen function, and their halogenated, sulfonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives2912.11.00Methanal (Formaldehyde)2912.12.00Ethanal (Acetaldehyde)2912.19.25Butanal (Butyraldehyde, normal isomer)2912.19.40Isobutanal2912.19.50Acyclic aldehydes without other oxygen function, nesoi2914.11.10Acetone, derived in whole or in part from cumene2914.11.50Acetone, not derived in whole or in part from cumene2914.12.00Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)2914.13.004-Methylpentan-2-one (Methyl isobutyl ketone)2914.22.10Cyclohexanone2914.22.20Methylcyclohexanone2914.23.00Ionones and methylionones2915.11.00Formic acid2915.12.00Salts of formic acid2915.13.10Aromatic esters of formic acid2915.13.50Nonaromatic esters of formic acid2915.21.00Acetic acid2915.24.00Acetic anhydride2915.31.00Ethyl acetate2915.32.00Vinyl acetate2915.33.00n-Butyl acetate2915.60.50Butyric acids, valeric acids, their nonaromatic salts and esters2915.70.01Palmitic acid, stearic acid, their salts and esters2915.90.10Fatty acids of animal or vegetable origin, nesoi2915.90.14Valproic acid2915.90.18Saturated acyclic monocarboxylic acids, nesoi2915.90.20Aromatic anhydrides, halides, peroxides and peroxyacids, of saturated acyclic monocarboxylic acids, and their derivatives, nesoi2915.90.50Nonaromatic anhydrides, halides, peroxides and peroxyacids, of saturated acyclic monocarboxylic acids, and their derivatives, nesoi2916.11.00Acrylic acid and its salts2916.12.10Aromatic esters of acrylic acid2916.12.50Nonaromatic esters of acrylic acid2916.13.00Methacrylic acid and its salts2916.15.10Oleic, linoleic or linolenic acids2916.15.51Salts and esters of oleic, linoleic or linolenic acids2917.12.10Adipic acid2917.12.20Plasticizers of adipic acid salts and esters2917.12.50Adipic acid salts and esters, nesoi2917.14.10Maleic anhydride derived in whole or in part from benzene or other aromatic hydrocarbons2917.14.50Maleic anhydride, except derived in whole or in part from benzene or other aromatic hydrocarbons2917.19.23Maleic acid2917.19.27Succinic acid, glutaric acid, and their derivatives, and derivatives of adipic, fumeric and maleic acids, nesoi2917.32.00Dioctyl orthophthalates2917.33.00Dinonyl or didecyl orthophthalates2917.34.01Esters of orthophthalic acid, nesoi2917.35.00Phthalic anhydride2917.36.00Terephthalic acid and its salts2917.37.00Dimethyl terephthalate2917.39.15Isophthalic acid2917.39.20Plasticizers of aromatic polycarboxylic acids, their anhydrides, halides, peroxides, peroxyacids and their derivatives2917.39.30Aromatic polycarboxylic acids, their anhydrides, halides, peroxides, peroxyacids and their derivatives nesoi, in add. U.S. note 3 to sec. VI2917.39.70Other aromatic polycarboxylic acids and their derivatives (excluding those described in additional US note 3 to section VI2918.11.10Lactic acid2918.11.51Salts and esters of lactic acid2921.19.11Mono- and triethylamines; mono-, di-, and tri(propyl- and butyl-) monoamines; salts of any of the foregoing2921.22.05Hexamethylenediamine adipate (Nylon salt)2921.22.10Hexamethylenediamine and its salts (except Nylon salt), derived in whole or in part from adipic acid2921.22.50Hexamethylenediamine and its salts (except Nylon salt), not derived in whole or in part from adipic acid2921.29.00Acyclic polyamines, their derivatives and salts, other than ethylenediamine or hexamethylenediamine and their salts2921.59.40Aromatic polyamines and their derivatives and salts thereof, described in additional U.S. note 3 to section VI2921.59.80Aromatic polyamines and their derivatives; salts thereof nesoi2922.11.00Monoethanolamine and its salts2922.12.00Diethanolamine and its salts2922.15.00Triethanolamine2926.10.00Acrylonitrile2929.10.10Toluenediisocyanates (unmixed)2929.10.15Mixtures of 2,4- and 2,6-toluenediisocyanates2929.10.351,6-Hexamethylene diisocyanate2929.10.55Isocyanates of products described in additioonal U.S. note 3 to sect VI2929.10.80Other isocyanates, nesoi2933.61.00Melamine3101.00.00Animal or vegetable fertilizers; fertilizers produced by the mixing or chemical treatment of animal or vegetable products3102.10.00Urea, whether or not in aqueous solution3102.21.00Ammonium sulfate3102.29.00Double salts and mixtures of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate3102.30.00Ammonium nitrate, whether or not in aqueous solution3102.40.00Mixtures of ammonium nitrate with calcium carbonate or other inorganic nonfertilizing substances3102.50.00Sodium nitrate3102.60.00Double salts and mixtures of calcium nitrate and ammonium nitrate3102.80.00Mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution3102.90.01Mineral or chemical fertilizers, nitrogenous, nesoi, including mixtures not specified elsewhere in heading 31023103.11.00Superphosphates containing by weight 35% or more of diphosphorous pentaoxide (P2O5)3103.19.00Superphosphates nesoi3103.90.01Mineral or chemical fertilizers, phosphatic3104.20.00Potassium chloride3104.30.00Potassium sulfate3104.90.01Mineral or chemical fertilizers, potassic, nesoi3105.10.00Fertilizers of chapter 31 in tablets or similar forms or in packages of a gross weight not exceeding 10 kg3105.20.00Mineral or chemical fertilizers nesoi, containing the three fertilizing elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium3105.30.00Diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (Diammonium phosphate)3105.40.00Ammonium dihydrogenorthophosphate (Monoammonium phosphate), mixtures thereof with diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (Diammonium phosphate)3105.51.00Mineral or chemical fertilizers nesoi, containing nitrates and phosphates3105.59.00Mineral or chemical fertilizers nesoi, containing the two fertilizing elements nitrogen and phosphorus3105.60.00Mineral or chemical fertilizers nesoi, containing the two fertilizing elements phosphorous and potassium3105.90.00Mineral or chemical fertilizers cont. two or three of the fertilizing elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers, nesoi3206.11.00Pigments & preparations based on titanium dioxide containing 80 percent or more by weight off titanium dioxide calculated on the dry weight3206.19.00Pigments and preparations based on titanium dioxide, nesoi3208.10.00Paints and varnishes (including enamels and lacquers) based on polyesters in a nonaqueous medium3208.20.00Paints and varnishes (including enamels and lacquers) based on acrylic or vinyl polymers in a nonaqueous medium3208.90.00Paints and varnishes based on synthetic polymers or chemically modified natural polymers nesoi, in a nonaqueous medium3209.10.00Paints and varnishes (including enamels and lacquers) based on acrylic or vinyl polymers in an aqueous medium3209.90.00Paints and varnishes based on synthetic polymers or chemically modified natural polymers nesoi, in an aqueous medium3210.00.00Other paints and varnishes (including enamels, lacquers and distempers) nesoi; prepared water pigments of a kind used for finishing leather3211.00.00Prepared driers for paints and varnishes3401.11.10Castile soap in the form of bars, cakes or molded pieces or shapes3401.11.50Soap, nesoi; organic surface-active products used as soap, in bars, cakes, pieces, soap-impregnated paper, wadding, felt, for toilet use3401.19.00Soap; organic surface-active products used as soap, in bars, cakes, pieces; soap-impregnated paper, wadding, felt, not for toilet use3401.20.00Soap, not in the form of bars, cakes, molded pieces or shapes3401.30.10Organic surface-active products for wash skin, in liquid or cream, contain any aromatic3401.30.50Organic surface-active products and preparations for washing the skin, in liquid or cream form, put up for retail sale, nesoi3402.11.20Linear alkylbenzene sulfonates3402.11.40Anionic, aromatic or modified aromatic organic surface-active agents, whether or not put up for retail sale, nesoi3402.11.50Nonaromatic anionic organic surface-active agents (other than soap)3402.12.10Aromatic or modified aromatic cationic organic surface-active agents (other than soap)3402.12.50Nonaromatic cationic organic surface-active agents (other than soap)3402.13.10Aromatic or modified aromatic nonionic organic surface-active agents (other than soap)3402.13.20Nonaromatic nonionic organic surface-active agents (other than soap) of fatty substances of animal or vegetable origin3402.13.50Nonaromatic nonionic organic surface-active agents (other than soap), other than of fatty substances of animal or vegetable origin3402.19.10Aromatic or modified aromatic organic surface-active agents (other than soap) other than anionic, cationic or nonionic3402.19.50Nonaromatic organic surface-active agents (other than soap) nesoi3402.20.11Surface-active3402.20.51Surface-active, washing, and cleaning preparations nesoi, put up for retail sale, not of heading 34013402.90.10Synthetic detergents put up for retail sale3402.90.30Surface-active, washing, and cleaning preparations cont. any aromatic or modified aromatic surface-active agent, put up for retail sale3402.90.50Surface-active, washing, and cleaning preparations nesoi, put up for retail sale3506.10.50Products suitable for use as glues or adhesives, nesoi, not exceeding 1 kg, put up for retail sale3506.91.10Adhesive preparations based on rubber or plastics (including artificial resins), optically clear, for flat panel & touchscreen displays3506.91.50Other adhesive preparations based on rubber or plastics (including artificial resins)3506.99.00Prepared glues and other prepared adhesives, excluding adhesives based on rubber or plastics, nesoi3803.00.00Tall oil, whether or not refined3804.00.10Lignin sulfonic acid and its salts3805.90.10Pine oil containing alpha-terpineol as the main constituent3805.90.50Terpenic oils, nesoi, produced by treatment of coniferous woods; crude dipentene; sulfite turpentine and other crude para-cymene3806.10.00Rosin and resin acids3806.20.00Salts of rosin or of resin acids3806.30.00Ester gums3806.90.00Resin acids, derivatives of resin acids and rosin, rosin spirit and rosin oils, run gums, nesoi3807.00.00Wood tar and its oils; wood creosote; wood naphtha; vegetable pitch; preparations based on rosin, resin acids or vegetable pitch3811.90.00Prepared additives for mineral oils (incl. gasoline) or other liquids used for the same purposes as mineral oils, nesoi3812.10.10Prepared rubber accelerators containing any aromatic or modified aromatic rubber accelerator nesoi3812.10.50Prepared rubber accelerators not containing any aromatic or modified aromatic rubber accelerator nesoi3812.20.10Compound plasticizers for rubber or plastics containing any aromatic or modified aromatic plasticizer nesoi3812.20.50Compound plasticizers for rubber or plastics not containing any aromatic or modified aromatic plasticizer nesoi3812.39.60Compound plasticizers for rubber3812.39.70Bis(1,2,2,6,6-pentamethyl-4-piperidinyl) sebacate3812.39.90Antioxiding prep & oth compound stabilizers for rubber or plastics, nesoi3815.11.00Supported catalysts with nickel or nickel compounds as the active substance3815.12.00Supported catalysts with precious metal or precious metal compounds as the active substance3815.19.00Supported catalysts other than with nickel or precious metal or their compounds as the active substance3815.90.10Reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalytic preparations, nesoi, consisting wholly of bismuth, of tungsten or of vanadium3815.90.20Reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalytic preparations, nesoi, consisting wholly of mercury or of molybdenum3815.90.30Reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalytic preparations, nesoi, consisting wholly of inorganic substances nesoi3815.90.50Reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalytic preparations, nesoi3826.00.10Biodiesel not containing petroleum or bituminous oil3826.00.30Biodiesel containing <70% petroleum or bituminous oil3901.40.00Ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers, having a specific gravity of less than 0.943912.11.00Cellulose acetates, nesoi, in primary forms, nonplasticized3912.31.00Carboxymethylcellulose and its salts4001.10.00Natural rubber latex, whether or not prevulcanized4001.21.00Natural rubber smoked sheets4001.22.00Technically specified natural rubber (TSNR), in primary forms4001.29.00Natural rubber in primary forms other than latex, smoked sheets or technically specified natural rubber (TSNR)4001.30.00Balata, gutta-percha, guayule, chicle and similar natural rubber gums, in primary forms4002.11.00Styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) or carboxylated styrene-butadiene rubber (XSBR), latex, in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip4002.19.00Styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), carboxylated styrene-butadiene rubber (XSBR), except latex, in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip4002.20.00Butadiene rubber (BR), in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip4002.31.00Isobutene-isoprene (butyl) rubber (IIR), in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip4002.39.00Halo-isobutene-isoprene rubber (CIIR or BIIR), in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip4002.41.00Chloroprene (chlorobutadiene) rubber (CR), latex, in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip4002.49.00Chloroprene (chlorobutadiene) rubber (CR), other than latex, in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip4002.51.00Acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR), latex, in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip4002.59.00Acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR), other than latex, in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip4002.60.00Isoprene rubber (IR), in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip4002.70.00Ethylene-propylene-nonconjugated diene rubber (EPDM), in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip4002.80.00Mixtures of natural rubber gums with synthetic rubber, in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip4002.91.00Synthetic rubber and factice derived from oils, in latex form, in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip, nesoi4002.99.00Synthetic rubber and factice derived from oils, in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip, nesoi
Click here to view related stories and content on the US-China trade war landing page.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/09/18/10260120/us-to-impose-tariffs-on-200bn-worth-of-chinese-imports-may-add-more/
-
Trump Hits China With Tariffs on $200 Billion in Goods, Escalating Trade War
Sep 18, 2018 | The New York Times
By Jim Tankersley and Keith Bradsher
President Trump, emboldened by America’s economic strength and China’s economic slowdown, escalated his trade war with Beijing on Monday, saying the United States would impose tariffs on $200 billion worth of goods and was prepared to tax all imports.
Mr. Trump, in a statement released late Monday, showed no sign of backing down from the type of full-blown trade war between the world’s two largest economies that has rattled financial markets, saying he was prepared to “immediately” place tariffs on another $267 billion worth of imports “if China takes retaliatory action against our farmers or other industries.”
The tariffs on $200 billion worth of products comes on top of the $50 billion worth already taxed earlier this year, meaning nearly half of all Chinese imports into the United States will soon face levies. The next wave of tariffs, which are scheduled to go into effect on Sept. 24, will start at 10 percent before climbing to 25 percent on Jan. 1. The timing of the staggered increase will partially reduce the toll of price increases for holiday shoppers buying Chinese imports in the coming months.
“For months, we have urged China to change these unfair practices, and give fair and reciprocal treatment to American companies,” Mr. Trump said. “We have been very clear about the type of changes that need to be made, and we have given China every opportunity to treat us more fairly. But, so far, China has been unwilling to change its practices.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The tariffs are aimed at pressuring China to change longstanding trade practices that Mr. Trump says are hurting American businesses at a moment when the administration believes it has an advantage in the trade dispute. China’s economy is slowing, with consumers holding back and infrastructure spending slowing sharply. The Chinese slowdown is expected to worsen as America’s tariffs ramp up. The United States, by contrast, has continued to experience robust economic growth, including the lowest unemployment rate since 2000.
White House officials said on Monday that China could win relief from the tariffs by acceding to the administration’s trade demands, including allowing American companies greater access to the China market and dropping its requirement that American companies hand over valuable technology to Chinese partners. Officials said the United States would only continue trade negotiations if the Chinese were “serious” about giving ground on those issues.
The tariffs are aimed at hurting China, but they could hamper the American economy and bring pain for consumers. Unlike the first round of tariffs, which were intended to minimize the impact on American consumers, this wave could raise prices on everyday products including electronics, food, tools and housewares.
Retailers, manufacturers and a wide swath of other American businesses have warned that the new tariffs could hurt their profits, hiring and growth. The administration held six days of public hearings on the proposed $200 billion round of tariffs last month, which were dominated by companies warning that the United States no longer had the capacity to produce replacement products for the Chinese imports that would be hit by tariffs.
Economists warn the tariffs could chip away at economic growth in the United States. Morgan Stanley researchers estimate that the latest round could reduce economic growth in the United States this year by 0.1 percentage points, adding to another 0.1 percentage-point drag from tariffs currently in place. And the effects are likely to grow if China retaliates again, as it has threatened to do.EDITORS’ PICKSHow McCain Got the Last Word Against TrumpAgents Tried to Flip Russian Oligarchs. The Fallout Spread to Trump.Why David Chang Matters
ADVERTISEMENT
The administration did remove roughly 300 product lines — and some individual products — from the list after companies objected. Among the items dropped are smart watches, Bluetooth devices, bike helmets, plastic gloves, high chairs, play pens and certain chemicals. But, in some cases, partial product lines will be taxed while other parts are not. For example, high tech network routers and smart watches share a product line, but under the United States trade representative plan, the routers would be subject to tariffs while watches are not.
“It will be a lot of money coming into the coffers of the United States of America. A lot of money coming in,” Mr. Trump said during remarks at the White House on Monday. He added that the United States cannot tolerate the trade gap between what it exports to China and what it imports from that country.
“We can’t do that anymore,” he said.
Mr. Trump’s decision is a significant escalation of an already serious trade dispute — one with seemingly no end in sight. After months of failed trade talks, top officials from China and the United States were tentatively scheduled to talk later this month in Washington. But it is unclear whether Beijing will agree to come to Washington with the new tariffs set to go into effect.
“We are open to talk if there are serious talks,” Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council, said in an interview on Monday.
Mr. Trump also indicated he was willing to end the trade war — if China agreed to his demands. “China has had many opportunities to fully address our concerns,” Mr. Trump said. “Hopefully, this trade situation will be resolved, in the end, by myself and President Xi of China, for whom I have great respect and affection.”How Trump’s Trade War Went From 18 Products to 10,000
The battle began when the United States imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines. It has led to a global tit-for-tat targeting billions of dollars of goods.July 11, 2018
“The Chinese are livid and drafting their own battle plan — they won’t take this sitting down,” said James Zimmerman, a longtime lawyer in Beijing and the former four-time chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce there.
ADVERTISEMENT
Trade analysts said Mr. Trump’s approach risked further confrontation with the Chinese.
“Washington’s view seems to be that tariffs and threats of more tariffs will soften up the Chinese and make them more amenable to negotiations,” said Eswar Prasad, a Cornell economist who specializes in trade issues. “The evidence that, in response to U.S. bullying tactics, China just stiffens its spine and strikes back with proportionate tariffs against U.S. imports has had no discernible effect on the Trump administration’s take-no-prisoners approach to this rapidly escalating trade war.”
China is expected to further retaliate against the United States, and top officials have warned that could include penalizing American companies that rely on Chinese components for phones, cars, televisions and other products. China’s commerce ministry has said that it is ready to put similar tariffs on $60 billion a year of American goods in response to the threat from the United States. China has matched previous tariff moves dollar for dollar, but the number of American goods to tax is dwindling because, for many years, it has only imported about a quarter as much as it exports to the United States.
Lou Jiwei, China’s finance minister until his recent retirement and now a senior Communist Party adviser, delivered an unexpectedly strong threat to the United States in a lunch speech at the forum, which is organized by a government agency reporting directly to the cabinet. Mr. Lou said that, if necessary in the trade war, China could halt exports to the United States of components that are crucial to American companies’ supply chains.
Mr. Lou said that it would take years for American companies to find alternatives to China. “To take a step back, the United States can establish an alternative supply chain in a third country, but it takes time — what about the pain of three to five years? This is enough to cross a political cycle,” he said.
American businesses — which have warned that tariffs could hurt profits, force job cuts and, in some cases, destroy companies, said the taxes were going to hurt the United States more than the administration realized. The National Association of Chemical Distributors released a study this month that predicted nearly 28,000 chemical distributor and supplier jobs would be eliminated because of higher prices from the $200 billion round of tariffs.
“These tariffs are going to be paid for by the working families who drive our economy,” said Jonathan Gold, a spokesman for a business group formed to fight tariffs called Tariffs Hurt the Heartland. “Tariffs are taxes, plain and simple. By choosing to unilaterally raise taxes on Americans, the cost of running a farm, factory or business will grow. In many cases, these costs will be passed on to American families.”
The tech industry, while spared on certain products, called the administration’s approach “misguided” and said it would hurt American consumers while doing little to change China’s trade practices.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Today’s retaliatory tariffs are not an effective trade policy and may violate U.S. law,” Gary Shapiro, chief executive of the Consumer Technology Association, said in a statement. “We urge the administration to reconsider its misguided approach of increasing tariffs, as they are directly paid for by American companies and consumers.”
The total wave of tariffs thus far has not been large enough to meaningfully affect consumer prices broadly across the economy — only narrowly, for certain products. Economists warn that the effects could grow noticeably larger if Mr. Trump follows through with his threat to subject nearly all Chinese imports to tariffs.
Asked about Mr. Trump’s tweets in the morning, regarding the lack of an impact on prices across the economy from tariffs, Mr. Kudlow stuck with the president. “With respect to the impact of tariffs, we’ll see,” he said. “We’re following it. We don’t see any problems so far.”
“I don’t see any reason to believe at the present time that the president’s trade reforms are going to damage the economy.”
The Trump administration has demanded steep cuts in Chinese tariffs and investment restrictions but has particularly focused on stopping the Chinese industrial policy initiative known as Made in China 2025.
Chinese policymakers have long said that they are willing to cut tariffs in particular, but want concessions from the United States, such as curbs on the Commerce Department’s ability to impose steep tariffs on imported goods that are government subsidized or are dumped below the cost of producing them. The United States has long refused, under the Obama administration and now under the Trump administration, contending that the American market is already so open that further concessions are not needed.
As for Made in China 2025, Chinese officials dismiss its importance. “We do not think this is such an important strategy for us or our industries,” said Wang Yiming, a vice president of the Chinese cabinet’s Development Research Center.
Chinese officials have expressed a willingness to get rid of the Made in China 2025 name, but they have been much more cautious about accepting limits on some of the key features of Chinese industrial policy, like enormous loans from state-owned banks at very low interest rates to favored industries.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/politics/trump-china-tariffs-trade.html
-
China Says It Will Immediately Retaliate When Trump Tariffs Take Effect
Sep 18, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Danielle Paquette
Beijing will immediately retaliate against President Trump’s new tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports, setting the stage for a protracted dispute that could raise prices of household goods in both countries.
Chinese president Xi Jinping has refused to budge amid mounting threats from Trump, who vowed to place higher border taxes on practically everything the United States buys from the China if Beijing unrolls new duties next week.
“In order to safeguard our legitimate rights and interests and the global free trade order, China will have to take countermeasures,” the country’s Ministry of Commerce said in a statement. “We deeply regret this.”
The Chinese government previously warned it will hit back with tariffs on an additional $60 billion in American goods following Trump’s escalation, which would slap higher border taxes on nearly all U.S. exports to China.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Tuesday that China had not yet decided what countermeasures to deploy. “We will release them in time,” he said.
Analysts say Xi’s defiance reflects his desire to present China to the world as a superpower.
“China needs to show that it will stand up to Trump and the United States in order to demonstrate to the rest of the world that it is now America’s rival,” said Shaun Rein, managing director at the China Market Research Group in Shanghai.
Trump’s latest measures inject uncertainty into the status of the trade talks, Chinese officials said, suggesting the commercial battle between the world’s two largest economies could drag on indefinitely.
Beijing said it hopes the American president will “correct” his actions before the Sep. 24 deadline, urging the White House to consider the far-reaching consequences. Economists say the cost of consumer products such as air conditioners, furniture, lamps and handbags will rise, since many American manufacturers build goods on Chinese soil.
But Trump has pledged to punch back if Beijing retaliates, this time on $267 billion in Chinese products.
China purchased roughly $130 billion in American goods last year — less than a third of what the United States ordered from Chinese enterprises. Now Beijing is poised to impose higher border taxes on a total of $110 billion in U.S. products.
In an August statement, China’s Commerce Ministry said it would respond to Trump’s latest round of tariffs with duties on more than 5,200 types of American imports, including industrial parts, chemicals and medical instruments.
Ni Feng, deputy director of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, said he expects a swift response from the Chinese government.
“After his list is out, then China’s countermeasures will follow,” Ni said.
Chen Dingding, founder of the think tank Intellisia in Guangzhou, said China will continue to welcome negotiations.
“We will fight and talk at the same time,” he said.
China’s vice premier, Liu He, was expected to visit Washington next week to restart negotiations with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, but analysts say the $200 billion development likely knocked that meeting off the table.
[Trump to impose tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods in trade battle]
Fang Xinghai, vice chairman of China’s securities regulator, said at a forum in Tianjin on Tuesday that Trump’s tactics have “poisoned” the dealmaking atmosphere.
Trump’s announcement landed in China on Sept. 18, a day considered the start of Japanese aggression 87 years ago and an anniversary some Chinese see as an informal day of national humiliation.
Beijing has said it would also unleash “qualitative” measures against the United States, which some American firms have interpreted as heightened regulations and stalled visas.
The threat of more tariffs on $60 billion in U.S. products — and Trump’s pledge to target another $267 billion in Chinese goods if that retaliation materializes — has concerned the American business community in China.
“Contrary to views in Washington, China can — and will — dig its heels in and we are not optimistic about the prospect for a resolution in the short term,” William Zarit, chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, in a Tuesday statement.
China has maintained that it’s well positioned to withstand blows in a geopolitical tussle, even as the nation’s growth is projected to slow this year.
The country’s central bank, meanwhile, has allowed its currency to slide about 5 percent since January, giving Chinese exports an edge in overseas markets while making imports costlier. (On Tuesday, it cost 6.88 renminbi to buy a dollar.)
Analysts say the People’s Bank of China probably won’t greenlight much more tumbling since a fading RMB could spook more assets out of the country.
“The weakening of the RMB could help offset the new tariffs,” said Larry Hu, chief China economist at Macquarie Commodities and Global Markets, a consultancy in Hong Kong. “However, it will also hurt China itself.”
Other signs of weakness in China’s economy as the trade war escalates include cooling consumer spending, slowing infrastructure investment and a relatively low but growing rate of corporate bond defaults.
The Shanghai Composite Index, meanwhile, has plummeted more than 20 percent since the year’s start, with losses snowballing after Trump launched the trade war.
Some analysts have predicted the business uncertainty will prompt layoffs in China, which currently has a tight labor market, with unemployment at 3.8 percent.
But demand for Chinese products on American soil has jumped amid rising tensions: the latest census data, released Wednesday, showed the U.S. goods deficit with China this year has grown about 8 percent to $234 billion from the same time last year.
Deutsche Bank economists Zhiwei Zhang and Yi Xiong estimated in a September analysis that an escalated trade war will shave only a half percentage point off the country’s growth. Goods to the United States, they noted, accounted last year for just 12 percent of China’s total exports.
“The Chinese authorities likely feel no urgency to give in and agree with all the terms the U.S. side requested,” Zhiwei and Yi wrote.
Tim Stratford, former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative and managing partner of the global law firm Covington’s Beijing office, predicted at a World Economic Forum panel in Tianjin on Tuesday that the conflict will see no winner soon.
“They’re concerned the U.S. motivation is wanting to keep China down,” Stratford said. “I expect therefore we’re going to have a deadlock for quite some time.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-could-soon-target-practically-all-us-imports-as-it-retaliates-in-trade-war/2018/09/18/7a12708a-bac9-11e8-adb8-01125416c102_story.html?utm_term=.1bcdb418091f
-
CFP Survey Highlights Increasing Management Programmes
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
In its latest survey of company progress towards managing chemicals in an environmentally sound way, Chemical Footprint Project has reported a leap in scores being achieved by businesses.
The organisation’s annual report, launched at Chemical Watch’s 'Safer Chemicals in Products' conference in Boston, says that companies’ average scores had jumped from 41% of possible points in 2015 to 59% in 2017.
The survey is an initiative of the NGO Clean Production Action and other partners that helps corporations measure their progress on transitioning to safer chemicals.
Twenty-four companies with more than $677bn in annual revenue took part in 2017. Throughout the survey's three-year history, 43 companies have participated, including ten that have been included for three years running. Those ten companies also followed the improvement trend in 2017, with average scores increasing from an average of 43% of 100 possible points in 2015 to 55% in 2017.
Consumer or institutional purchaser facing companies. ... are the ones that have the highest risk of having hazardous chemicals in their products" Mark Rossi, CPA.
"Companies in building, retail, electronics, apparel, consumer goods, healthcare and toys have been sectors that have been active in participating in the CFP survey," Mark Rossi, Executive Director of Clean Production Action, told Chemical Watch.
"They are all brands that are consumer facing or institutional purchaser facing. And they are the ones that have the highest risk of having hazardous chemicals in their products."
The highest scorers among companies agreeing to publicly share their 2017 results were: Beautycounter and Case Medical, both with 91 points; Seventh Generation, 88 points; Seagate Technology, 81 points; Humanscale, 85 points; Naturepedic, 77 points; Levi Strauss, 76 points; and Milliken, 73 points. All of the companies were well above the average of 59 points.
Participants evaluated their chemicals management performance using 20 questions and were awarded points based on four key pillars:management strategy (20 points);chemical inventory (30 points);disclosure and verification (20 points); andfootprint measurement (30 points).
Across all four pillars, the survey found that transparency is rising and companies are increasingly making their policies public. In 2015, 46% of responders posted policies on their websites. In 2017, that number grew to 63%.
Companies also reported expanding the scope of their policies beyond chemicals in products to include chemicals in manufacturing operations, packaging, and supply chains, as well as showing a preference for safer alternatives, and publishing their policies online.
Average scores for corporate policies on chemicals of high concern (CoHCs) and safer alternatives rose from 42% of possible points in 2015 to 67% in 2017."Measuring CoHCs across all products by mass is a challenge, but the 2017 results clearly show increased efforts by responders to quantify the CoHCs in their products," CFP said.Goals
Companies reported reducing 42 million pounds of CoHCs in products. The goal- setting leaders in this area are GOJO Industries, which has committed to reducing its chemical footprint 50% by 2020, and Walmart, which plans to reduce its chemical footprint 10% by 2022.
With regard to chemical inventory, 92% of survey respondents said they had some form of a restricted substances list (RSL). For the first time in 2017, CFP also asked companies about MRSLs — which restrict chemicals used in manufacturing that do not end up in the final product above de minimus levels — and some 21% reported having both an RSL and an MRSL.
CFP is an initiative to elevate "chemical footprinting" to the equivalent of carbon and water footprinting. Signatories to the project include investors with more than $2.3trn in assets under management.
Next steps:Developing criteria for measuring chemical footprints in supply chains through BizNGO collaboration starting in 2019;releasing Q4 updated guidance, including updated chemicals of high concern and substances of very high concern (SVHC) lists;launching the next survey on 1 January 2019 closing 31 March 2019; andissuing their annual report in Q2-Q3 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70342/cfp-survey-shows-increasing-management-programmes-transparency
-
Lawyer Thrown Off Toxic Chemical Cases Had Client Pay His Six-Figure Punishment
Sep 18, 2018 | Forbes
By John O'Brien
More than 30 lawsuits blame Pennsylvania-based Armstrong World Industries, once Lancaster's largest employer, for exposing workers to chemicals that led to sickness, suffering and death. But they’ve been pursued by a lawyer who “made a mockery of the law” and whose clients are paying, figuratively and literally, for his actions.
This month, a Lancaster County judge took the remarkable step of disqualifying Pittsburgh-area attorney George Chada from his representation of former AWI workers and their families claiming brain damage and cancer from a solvent known as TCE. These lawsuits made local headlines but years later have barely progressed, instead becoming twisted into an issue of whether Chada was competently handling them.
The compensation the families are seeking is possibly as far away now as it was when their cases were filed – if they end up with anything at all.
And one woman, who in 2009 became the first to file and has assumed a leadership position among the plaintiffs, earlier this year paid the six-figure appeal bond on more than $120,000 in sanctions imposed by the court on Chada.
“The order on these sanctions would have put my attorney, George Chada, in a deposition as a witness for (defendant) Brenntag,” Sandra Cooper told Legal Newsline in an email.
“He has been my attorney for 13 years. I have invested untold time and financial resources to preserve my cases, and to fight for some measure of justice for my family and the other workers.
“The only way to preserve my legal representation was to post an appeal bond, which I did. I was not coerced or asked to do this.”
Cooper lost her husband in 2014 when he died at the age of 58. They were married 37 years.MORE FROM FORBESGrads of Life BRANDVOICECorporate Mentoring Meets The ClassroomCivic Nation BRANDVOICEThe Playbook: Secrets To Success In The Big Ten Voting ChallengeUNICEF USA BRANDVOICESuper Typhoon Mangkhut Batters The Philippines
In that time, she says he was exposed to TCE while working at AWI, and the lawsuits allege a mixture known as “Safety Solvent” was used at the Lancaster facility despite its harmful effects on those who breathed its fumes.
(AWI is based in Lancaster, makes floors and ceilings and is one of several dozen companies forced into the bankruptcy system by asbestos lawsuits.)
In Chada’s complaints, he says Safety Solvent was a blend of three organic solvents developed by AWI, but at the same time alleges Brenntag made it. The company eventually asked the court to sanction Chada for suing it when he had no reason to think Brenntag made or sold Safety Solvent.
Further, Chada should have known workers used a product called Solvesso, made by a different company, to clean up a 2003 spill at AWI, Brenntag said. That spill is the basis of four of the lawsuits.
Sanctions were granted against Chada on this issue, but there were many, many more problems. They’re all laid out in a 35-page documentthat asked Chada to show why he should not be disqualified from the lawsuits.
Chada, through West Chester lawyer Jake Becker, motioned for Judge Leonard Brown to recuse himself from the cases. Attached were emails from four clients who still believed Chada was suitably representing them:
-Cooper: “In reviewing Judge Brown’s rulings, I have come to believe that they are incorrect. Please use this email as affirmation of my desire to continue with George Chada as my counsel.”
-Michael and Carolyn Lynch: “We disagree with the actions taken by Judge Brown and wish to continue retaining George Chada as our attorneys in matters relating to our lawsuit against Brenntag and Armstrong World Industries.”
-Shawn and Lori Patterson: “Shawn and I believe that Judge Brown’s rulings are incorrect. We would like George Chada to remain as our attorney for the duration of this case. (We) believe he is quite a competent and able representative.”
-Judy Wendler: “I believe the judge’s rulings to be wrong, and I still wish to have George Chada as my attorney.”
But Judge Brown wasn’t persuaded and didn’t hold back in his Aug. 28 order, using words like “incompetent,” “frivolous” and “dishonest.”
Chada’s behavior included filing duplicative documents in some cases while failing to file documents in others, submitting untimely briefs and incorrectly citing precedent, as well as:
-Filing a motion to find a defendant in contempt of a stay, even though no stay had been entered;
-Adding additional defendants without getting permission;
-Continuing to file claims for secondary exposure, fraudulent misrepresentation and intentional spoliation, even though those claims had been struck from four model cases in September; and
-Serially filing amended complaints without permission from the court while ignoring court directions to remove certain claims, denying AWI and Brenntag the chance to have their defenses ruled on.
Brenntag and AWI weren’t the only ones harmed by this – “Chada’s practice also had the effect of prolonging the litigation to the detriment of his clients,” Judge Brown wrote.
Eight years after the case started, Chada filed a second amended complaint on Cooper’s behalf in 2017.
Months later, the amount of sanctions entered against him was $126,434.23. Cooper paid the $151,721.08 to the court as an appeal bond for him, plus an extra $8,000 that seems to be the product of a miscalculation.
Chada had appeared in court on June 8 to assure Judge Brown he would be posting the appeal bond that day but was waiting on deposits to be credited to one of his “operating accounts.”
A month later, he filed two more lawsuits, still naming Brenntag as a defendant even though he had been sanctioned in January for pursuing claims against that company.
His newest lawsuits charge the law firm Barley Snyder with the destruction of AWI’s employee exposure and medical records.
“Attorney Chada continues to file new complaints containing claims already rejected by the court,” Judge Brown wrote.
He added that having Cooper pay his appeal bond (plus that extra $8,000) creates a conflict of interest.
“In his answer, attorney Chada replied: ‘It is specifically denied that any client of Mr. Chada paid more money than required.’ He offered no further explanation,” Judge Brown wrote.
“Attorney Chada’s conduct has made it impossible for the parties in these cases – plaintiffs and defendants – to receive the fair (trial) due process requires. Defendants continue to face claims not viable under Pennsylvania law, as attorney Chada ignores court orders.
“They continue to face uncertainty as to the nature of the claims brought against them, given attorney Chada’s confusing pleading practice and inability or unwillingness to abide by the model case agreement.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2018/09/18/lawyer-thrown-off-toxic-chemical-cases-had-client-pay-his-six-figure-punishment/#7317c4ea535e
-
Exclusive: Bayer Puts Stake in Chemical Park Operator Up for Sale-Sources
Sep 17, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
Bayer is inviting financial investors to bid for its 60 percent stake in chemical park operator Currenta after initially failing to agree a sale to its former chemicals subsidiary Covestro, three people familiar with the matter told Reuters.
Bayer, which is focusing on healthcare and crop protection after the takeover of U.S. seed maker Monsanto, has mandated Morgan Stanley to help with the transaction. Buyout firms and infrastructure investors have been asked to put in initial bids by the middle of October, the sources said.
Currenta, which operates infrastructure facilities at German chemical complexes in Leverkusen, Dormagen and Krefeld-Uerdingen, could be valued at upwards of 1 billion euros ($1.2 billion) and possibly more than 2 billion, according to one of the sources.
Covestro, Morgan Stanley and Bayer declined to comment.
Currenta's three industrial sites were once dominated by Bayer but after the drugmaker's staggered exit from the production of industrial chemicals and plastics, Bayer no longer plays a major role among Currenta's more than 70 customers.
ADVERTISEMENT
Bayer needs to rebuild its financial firepower after the $63 billion takeover of U.S. seeds maker Monsanto.
It is competing with larger pharma rivals as it bids for the rights to promising new treatments from biotech firms to try to strengthen its drugs development pipeline.
Despite the widened group of prospective buyers, a sale to Covestro, whose products include transparent plastics for road-side noise barriers and panoramic car roofs, can still not be ruled out.
"Covestro is half in, half out. They're just not finding any common ground," said one of the sources, describing the state of negotiations with Bayer.
Currenta mainly supplies Bayer's former subsidiaries Covestro and the special chemicals company Lanxess, which owns the remaining 40 percent in Currenta, with electricity, steam and natural gas.
ADVERTISEMENT
It also provides services including transportation, maintenance, waste management and workers' safety and employs 3,200 staff.
Even prior to Covestro's 2015 carveout from Bayer and subsequent stock-market listing, no internal agreement could be reached about transferring Bayer's Currenta stake to Covestro, even though the subsidiary was set to replace its parent as Currenta's main customer, the sources said.
Standard & Poor's cut its credit rating of Bayer to triple-B in the wake of the Monsanto deal and Bayer has vowed to pay back debt to return to a single A rating over the long run.
Covestro, in turn, is buying back shares and has bolstered its investment ambitions, banking on stable demand for specialty materials even beyond the industry's current upswing.
The maker of transparent polycarbonate plastics and chemicals for padding foam in mattresses and car seats expects to rake in more than 2 billion euros in cash flow after investment expenditure this year, boosted by stronger-than expected demand. ($1 = 0.8579 euros)
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/09/17/business/17reuters-bayer-currenta-exclusive.html
-
IG Criticizes EPA's Lax Scrutiny of Asbestos in Schools
Sep 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is criticizing the agency's oversight of schools' management and monitoring of asbestos in their buildings, adding to concerns that the agency is not adequately regulating the carcinogen under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
OIG's Sept. 17 report, “EPA Needs to Re-Evaluate Its Compliance Monitoring Priorities for Minimizing Asbestos Risks in Schools,” finds that EPA has divested resources from the asbestos program and prioritized other aspects of its TSCA program and enforcement, leading to lax oversight over the management of existing or potential asbestos in older school buildings.
In response to the report, EPA agreed to adopt OIG recommendations to require EPA regions to “incorporate asbestos strategies in their [TSCA] compliance monitoring efforts [and] inform local educational agencies, in coordination with the regions, that they must develop and maintain an asbestos management plan, regardless of the presence of an exclusion statement, and monitor compliance.”
The report adds to growing concerns that EPA is not planning to adequately regulate asbestos risks under TSCA. For example, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and environmentalists are criticizing agency plans to analyze and possibly regulate some existing and renewed uses of asbestos, charging it falls short of the total ban that is needed.
For example, they charge an EPA study plan on existing uses fails to consider legacy uses and uses regulated by other EPA programs as well as uses regulated by other agencies. They also say a proposed significant new use rule (SNUR) to address renewed uses limits its oversight to 15 potential enumerated uses but fails to address other possible uses, such as reuse of asbestos in brake liners from scrapped vehicles which is turned into materials for car parts and other products.
OIG's review examined EPA's implementation of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), which amended the original 1976 TSCA in 1986 to require EPA to craft rules “addressing the inspection of, management of and response to asbestos-containing material found in elementary or secondary schools ... and require local educational agencies (LEAs) to inspect their school buildings for asbestos-containing material, prepare asbestos management plans, and perform asbestos response actions to prevent or reduce asbestos hazards. AHERA regulations apply to all public and private nonprofit schools offering kindergarten through 12th grade classes...”
AHERA is implemented by EPA in coordination with states. Twelve “waiver” states conduct “their own AHERA-like programs, through which they conduct both compliance monitoring and enforcement,” while nine more “non-waiver” states plus Puerto Rico receive EPA “grants to conduct compliance monitoring but refer enforcement cases to the EPA. The EPA conducts compliance monitoring and enforcement in the other 29 states, as well as the District of Columbia and the other U.S. territories.”
OIG finds that “waiver and non-waiver states conducted 87 percent of the total inspections from fiscal year 2011 to FY15, while the EPA conducted 13 percent of the total inspections in the federal implementation jurisdictions."
OIG's survey shows that AHERA programs “are not well-funded and inspection numbers in waiver and non-waiver states significantly outnumber those in federal implementation jurisdictions. This results in states having varying degrees of oversight to none at all. Without knowing whether LEAs are complying with AHERA ... there is an increased risk that asbestos in schools may go unnoticed, potentially resulting in asbestos exposure.”
OIG notes that EPA's response is that “disinvestment from the asbestos program has been due, in large part, to increasing resource limitations and competing TSCA priorities. For example, the lead program has been a priority for the TSCA program due to the risk-based impacts of lead exposure to sensitive and vulnerable populations.”
OECA also cited AHERA's status as a “mature program” for the situation. OIG explains, “as schools have become more aware of asbestos hazards and the need to manage these hazards appropriately, a significant inspection/enforcement presence is not considered to be as critical as when AHERA was initially implemented. The EPA has not documented that the risk of asbestos exposure in schools has diminished significantly under AHERA. Nonetheless, the EPA has been disinvesting in AHERA while prioritizing other TSCA programs.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ig-criticizes-epas-lax-scrutiny-asbestos-schools
-
Higher TSCA Fees Loom for New Chemical Submissions
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Companies may want to get their new substance notifications in before 1 October when significantly higher TSCA fees are slated to take effect, a US law firm has advised.
As proposed earlier this year, the TSCA fees rule calls for raising the cost of submitting a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) from $2,500 to $16,000 and charging $4,700 for applications under certain exemptions, such as the low volume exemption (LVE) or test market exemption (TME) – activities that are currently free.
The final version of the rule is under inter-agency review at the White House’s Office of Management Budget (OMB). While an exact date for the final rule’s issuance – and the precise fee schedule it will contain – remain undetermined, the higher fees are scheduled to take effect in October, regardless.
At a recent Keller and Heckman TSCA seminar, firm attorney Tom Berger said that companies with plans to submit a new substance notification in the coming months "might want to do it before October 1, because fees are going up".Timing
The Lautenberg Act, which amended TSCA in 2016, calls for the collection of some $20m fees from industry each year, beginning in fiscal year 2019, that will offset 25% of the EPA’s annual costs to administer its chemical review activities.
The agency has therefore signalled that its new fees will be incurred at the start of the fiscal year: 1 October. The proposed rule says the EPA does not plan to collect fees until the final rule has taken effect; instead, it "intends to record actions that would be expected to trigger payment of fees and once the rule is final, send invoices to the affected parties".Uptick in submissions?
Keller and Heckman said the firm has seen a "substantial increase" in TSCA new chemical notification work in the last few months due to the upcoming fee rise. And because the option to ‘consolidate’ up to six PMNs under a single filing fee requires prior EPA approval, "time is running out even more rapidly" for companies considering such an approach.
The EPA said it has not conducted an analysis to determine if there has been a recent increase in the notifications.
But the agency’s caseload of substances under review sat at 485 as of 4 September – well above the 300 that the agency says is "typical". The backlog is at its highest since April 2017, according to its most recent update on new substance programme statistics.
Nevertheless, Keller & Heckman said that the revised law’s requirements on new chemical submissions make it "more important than ever to submit extremely well-reasoned and prepared new chemical notifications".
"Ultimately it could be more cost-effective for a company to submit a well-prepared notice under the new fee structure than a hastily assembled one before 1 October".
https://chemicalwatch.com/70347/higher-tsca-fees-loom-for-new-chemical-submissions
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Safe Are the Foods Your Children Are Eating?
Sep 17, 2018 | Consumer Reports (In The Washington Post)
Consumer Reports has no financial relationship with any advertisers on this site.
Certain chemicals added to food and used in food packaging have been linked to negative health effects, and children may be most at risk. That’s according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published in July in the journal Pediatrics.
“Parents are right to worry about what they feed their kids, especially when it’s prepackaged,” says James E. Rogers, director of food-safety research and testing at Consumer Reports. “But learning more about what to look out for can help you make the right choices when you feed your family.”
The AAP report and an accompanying statement highlighted five chemical groups of concern: bisphenols (such as BPA), which line metal cans and are mixed into plastics; phthalates (which make plastic soft); perfluoroalkyl chemicals (or PFCs, which are found in grease-proof wrappers and packaging); perchlorate (found in food packaging); and nitrates/nitrites (curing agents found in some meats).
A number of studies performed in the past two decades have linked these and other chemicals to a variety of health problems, including developmental and reproductive harms and obesity (bisphenols, phthalates, and PFCs), thyroid hormone disruption (perchlorate, nitrates/nitrites) and cancer (nitrates/nitrites).
Open questions remain, including exactly how harmful some of these chemicals are for children and whether the amount that most are exposed to is risky. What’s clear is that there’s not enough evidence to prove such chemicals are harmless for everyone. And that’s especially true for children, whose developing organ systems may be particularly vulnerable.
“There are lots of chemicals that are put into foods without the evidence base to show that they’re safe,” says the report’s senior author, Sheela Sathyanarayana, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington. “They may very well be safe, but we don’t know. And that’s the point.”It's not just food additives
This new report is only the latest in a flurry of recent findings that suggest that the food we feed children sometimes contains additives that may be risky or toxic contaminants that should never be there.
For example, experts (including those from Consumer Reports) have recently questioned the safety of rice and rice-based products for infants and young children, as recent research has found these products can harbor a growing list of heavy metals.
One study published in October 2017 found that among a sampling of 119 popular cereal brands, rice cereals had, on average, three times as much methylmercury, the most concerning type of mercury, as multigrain cereals had; and 19 times as much as in cereals made with grains other than rice. Another study published one month later found infant rice cereals to contain about six times more arsenic than other grain cereals.
“One of the most important things we can do is raise awareness about this issue among the general population,” says Tunde Akinleye, a food-safety expert at Consumer Reports. “Consumers should also continue to demand changes to the way the Food and Drug Administration regulates and oversees the safety of the food we feed ourselves and our children.”
In a statement provided to Consumer Reports, the American Chemical Council, an industry group, said that “all plastics intended for contact with food are reviewed for safety and must meet stringent FDA safety requirements before they can be used in food packaging.”
According to Sathyanarayana, it’s important to remember that your child is not going to be harmed by a one-time exposure to any of these chemicals. “Don’t panic if you’re feeding your kid a hot dog once a week,” says Sathyanarayana, “but you should really be trying not to do that every single day.”5 ways to minimize exposure
Many of the chemicals that are potentially concerning are practically everywhere (even in dust), so it’s impossible to avoid them completely, says Akinleye.
But there are some easy ways you can lower the risk to yourself and to your kids:
Focus on whole fruits and vegetables. Buying fruit either whole or frozen — as opposed to canned, packaged or processed — can greatly minimize exposure to BPA (from cans) and phthalates (from packaged or processed food).
Wash hands and produce. Consumer Reports' experts recommend rinsing, rubbing or scrubbing fruit and vegetables to help remove pesticide residue, and washing your hands after handling food products and packaging. Soaking apples in a solution of baking soda and water can remove more pesticides than rinsing in tap water or a bleach solution. Seeking out organic produce can also reduce your exposure to pesticides.
Be cautious with plastic. Some of the most concerning chemicals are mixed into plastic containers, food wraps and packaging. And when they're heated or exposed to hot liquids, the chemicals can leach into your food or drink. The AAP suggests using glass or stainless-steel alternatives to plastic when possible, and avoiding putting plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher.
The AAP also recommends using the recycling number to identify plastics that carry the highest risk: recycling codes 3, 6 and 7 contain phthalates, styrene and bisphenols, respectively. “Biobased” or “greenware” plastics are fine, because they’re made from corn and not bisphenols.
Avoid processed meats, especially if you're pregnant. Previous studies have linked the consumption of "ultra-processed" foods, such as hot dogs, chicken nuggets, sodas and sweets, to obesity, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Additionally, many processed meats contain nitrates and nitrites, preservatives that may form cancer-causing compounds called nitrosamines in the body.
Double-check the label. Read the fine print on package labels to ensure you're getting a product that doesn't contain nitrates or nitrites, says Charlotte Vallaeys, Consumer Reports' senior policy analyst and top food labels expert.
Some processed meats labeled “no nitrates or nitrites added” may still contain them from nonsynthetic sources, such as celery juice or powder, says Vallaeys, and these can be just as harmful. Watch out for phrasing that says “except for those occurring naturally in . . . .” That means it’s not completely nitrate- or nitrite-free.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/how-safe-are-the-foods-your-children-are-eating/2018/09/17/7398985c-9688-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?utm_term=.36b0a89c8c2b
-
(ACC Mentioned) Asbestos in Schools: EPA Failing to Protect Students, Report Says (2)
Sep 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA must better protect students, teachers, and workers from asbestos in schools as Congress required, according to the agency’s inspector general.
The Environmental Protection Agency is failing to enforce asbestos protections Congress required, the inspector general said in a report issued Sept. 17. These requirements include schools having asbestos-management plans, trained personnel to address asbestos contamination, and periodic inspections to ensure compliance.
All EPA regions either have stopped funding completely or significantly reduced the resources they spend on their asbestos programs, according to the report.
“Without compliance inspections, the EPA cannot know whether schools pose an actual risk of asbestos exposure to students and personnel,” the inspector general said.
More than 50 million students from kindergarten through 12th grade attend more than 131,000 public and private school facilities in the U.S., and more than 7 million teachers and others work in those schools, according to the report.
The report said the EPA had agreed to take several actions by the end of September 2019 to improve its efforts to protect students and school personnel, including working with its regions and school districts to improve compliance with existing asbestos protections for schools.
EPA ClaimsThe agency, however, issued a statement Sept. 17 faulting the Obama administration for failing to do enough to protect children from asbestos.
“The Trump administration is taking proactive steps to reduce asbestos exposure, which includes a new proposed regulation that, for the first time, would prohibit the currently unregulated former uses of asbestos.” EPA spokesman Michael Abboud said in an emailed statement.
The rule Abboud mentioned does not address schools specifically, but would bar—without EPA review and approval—the production or importation of some asbestos-containing products such as floor tile and roofing materials.
Union InputJennifer Long, an industrial hygienist working for the United Federation of Teachers, told Bloomberg Environment that the EPA can and should do more to protect everyone at schools. The union isn’t suggesting asbestos in schools be removed, she said by email.
“In many cases, schools with intact asbestos do not pose a health risk. The risk is primarily when asbestos fibers are released into the air when these materials in schools deteriorate over time, or become disturbed or damaged,” she said.
“Emphasis should be placed on routine inspections, maintenance, and in ensuring no new asbestos containing materials are introduced into the construction of new schools or in the renovation of existing schools,” Long said.The union wants the EPA to ban asbestos, she said.
Asbestos AssessmentsThe inspector general published its report as the EPA’s chemicals office has decided to ignore asbestos in schools and other buildings as it evaluates the health risks the cancer-causing mineral poses.
The EPA is evaluating asbestos and nine other chemicals to comply with requirements in the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments.
Some critics of the EPA’s assessment have threatened to sue if the agency continues to ignore the health risks of ongoing asbestos exposures. If courts were to agree that those critics are right, the agency could be required to evaluate whether its own and other agencies’ asbestos regulations adequately protect people.
“It’s time for the EPA to take immediate action to stop asbestos exposure from legacy uses that we know are affecting our kids, and finally ban asbestos,” Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, told Bloomberg Environment on Sept. 17.
Industry Points to BenefitsThere is no need to ban asbestos’ ongoing uses, said the American Chemistry Council.
A few chemical manufacturers, specifically the lOccidental Chemical Corp., the Olin Corp., and Westlake Chemical Corp., use chrysotile asbestos diaphragms to as they make chlorine, caustic soda, and hydrogen.
The chemical trade association emphasizes that chlorine is a building block chemical that is integral to many products it says positively impact the public. These include safe drinking water from the tap, 88 percent of the 100 most common pharmaceuticals, surface disinfectants, and agricultural inputs, among other uses.
The chemical manufacturers that use asbestos “adhere to established safety protocols to minimize potential asbestos exposure to workers, the public, and the environment,” the chemistry council said.
“ACC and its members have and will continue to work with the EPA to ensure the risk evaluation of asbestos is scientifically accurate and continues to be protective of worker and environmental health,” it said in an email to Bloomberg Environment.
Asbestos in Schools RulesThe inspector general’s Sept. 17 report focuses on the EPA’s compliance with congressional mandates from 1986.
Under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, the EPA is responsible for making sure public and nonprofit schools identify asbestos-containing materials in their buildings every three years and maintain an updated asbestos management plan.
The agency’s rules are intended to protect individuals like a Dearborn Heights, Mich., janitor who was ordered to dry sand floor tiles that contained asbestos and faced retaliation when she objected. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined the school district in 2016.
(Updated with additional reporting throughout.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/asbestos-in-schools-epa-failing-to-protect-students-report-says-2
-
Watchdog: EPA Asbestos Protection for Schoolchildren Lagging
Sep 18, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
The Environmental Protection Agency is shifting money away from a congressionally mandated program meant to get harmful asbestos out of schools, even though the threat of contamination remains, the agency's internal watchdog said on Monday.
Asbestos, which builders used for decades as insulation and as a fire-resistant material, can cause lung diseases, cancer and other health problems. Under a 1986 federal act, the EPA remains responsible for monitoring whether local officials are checking for asbestos in schools and cleaning it up, the agency's Office of the Inspector General said.
The watchdog office is an independently funded operation within EPA.
The inspector general's report says half the EPA's regional districts only check for asbestos in a school if they receive a specific complaint.
One EPA regional office — the Dallas-based headquarters for the south-central U.S. — did no asbestos inspections in schools between 2012 and 2016, the inspector general found.
ADVERTISEMENT
The report says some local EPA offices have eliminated resources for asbestos oversight for schools, citing dwindling resources and competing priorities.
EPA spokesman Michael Abboud said Monday that the Obama administration "did not do enough to provide adequate protections to children from asbestos exposure."
The Trump administration says it now wants to eliminate any currently unregulated use of asbestos. Environmental groups want the government to ban the use and import of asbestos entirely.
The U.S. Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/09/17/us/politics/ap-us-epa-asbestos-in-schools.html
-
Over 100 Lawmakers Consistently Voted Against Chemical Safeguards: Study
Sep 18, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
More than 100 lawmakers consistently voted for legislation to weaken safeguards against toxic chemicals, a recent study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released Tuesday found.
In the environmental group's first annual scorecard of the voting patterns of House lawmakers on chemical policy measures, the group found that a number of largely Republican lawmakers voted for measures that aim to weaken chemical standards or place obstacles in front of new chemical protections.
The report found that over 100 lawmakers consistently voted for these measures at every chance they got.
Legislators who EWG say consistently championed legislation that would weaken chemical safeguards include Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minn.), Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) and Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas). All three politicians were among a group that introduced their own bills that in some fashion could make it easier for chemicals to pass regulatory hurdles.
Lewis for example introduced a bill that could require agencies to submit chemical safety plans for congressional review, which EPW said could delay or block the implementation of the safeguards.
"While no president has ever done as much to weaken safeguards for toxic chemicals as Donald Trump, too many members of Congress have collaborated with the Trump administration or cast votes in favor of policies that reversed or delayed chemical bans, gutted chemical safety rules, rejected sound science, weakened worker and consumer protections, and denied justice to asbestos victims," the report found.
The report also highlighted Republican lawmakers who voted for legislation that would increase chemical standards including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) who voted against the farm bill, which included a number of amendments making it easier for pesticides to pass inspection, the group said.
Concerns about chemical safety standards have grown under the Trump administration as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other departments move to implement a number of new policies critics say weaken environmental protections. The EPA this summer ha been criticized for new plans to regulate asbestos.
Asbestos is largely not banned on the federal level, but a 2016 law gave the EPA authority to prohibit the carcinogen.
The EPA’s proposal, released in June, came under criticism that it would open the door to widespread uses of asbestos. EPA officials have ardently denied the accusations, saying the proposed regulations would effectively ban the substance.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/407093-over-100-lawmakers-consistently-voted-against-chemical-safeguards
-
Group Releases First-Ever Congressional Scorecard
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
An environmental lobby group today released the first-ever scorecard grading House lawmakers on their support for toxic chemicals legislation.
Like other green congressional ratings, the Environmental Working Group Action Fund's analysis found a sharp partisan divide in voting patterns.
Out of 435 voting members of the House, 140 Republicans backed all 17 measures that EWG's political arm claimed would weaken toxic chemical safeguards.
On the other hand, 149 Democrats consistently voted for measures to uphold chemical safety protections.
In the middle of the voting spectrum were a handful of retiring lawmakers as well as some who are facing tough re-election battles.
For example, retiring Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson's 12 percent record of votes that EWG classified as "pro-environment" was the lowest of any Democrat and lower than about a dozen Republicans.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, who is fighting a strong Democratic challenger, voted "pro-environment" 59 percent of the time — more than any other Republican.
The votes EWG focused on will likely be scored in other green groups' ratings, as well. They include legislation well known and deeply loathed by environmentalists such as the "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act," H.R. 26.
EWG opposed the "REINS Act" because it would require "congressional OK for new chemical safety rules," the scorecard says.
The "REINS Act" passed the House in the first days of the 115th Congress but has been stuck on the Senate floor for more than a year (Greenwire, May 17, 2017).
The ratings also take into account several amendments EWG believes would have protected people and natural resources from toxic chemicals.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/09/18/stories/1060098157
-
EPA Agrees To Industry Request To Review Chloroprene IRIS Analysis
Sep 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Months after rejecting an industry data quality request to revise a controversial risk analysis for chloroprene, a chemical used to make synthetic rubber, EPA appears to have opened the door to reviewing the science underlying its original analysis, a move that could set a precedent for any future requests for correction (RFC).
EPA has not formally agreed to reconsider its Jan. 25 decision rejecting an RFC that Denka Performance Elastomers (DPE) filed under the Data Quality Act (DQA) to revise its 2010 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of the human health risks of chloroprene. The IRIS assessment has proven controversial because, when coupled with air pollution modeling, drove strict controls on the company's plant in LaPlace, LA.
But top EPA risk assessors have reached an agreement with the company's consultants to analyze and potentially advance to peer review a new physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model, which are generally used to project absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) of synthetic or natural chemical substances in humans and other animal species, that could be used to revise the agency's controversial 2010 assessment.
“They've proposed to develop a PBPK model . . . they're in the process of developing it,” an EPA source tells Inside EPA, explaining a July meeting on the issue between IRIS leaders and Denka's consultants at Ramboll Environ, and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) officials.
At the meeting, Denka and its consultants reiterated their concerns with the 2010 IRIS assessment, and also discussed their ongoing PBPK modeling effort.
Once peer-reviewed, the model could be used to update EPA's 2010 IRIS assessment of chloroprene, which Denka and its consultants argue contains too strict a cancer risk estimate.
The EPA source says “if the model comes in and it's of good quality,” the agency will have it externally peer-reviewed.
In a July 24 letter after the meeting, Denka thanked IRIS leadership for “the opportunity to present the findings from our updated PBPK model and sensitivity analyses” and also outlined the company's understanding of its agreement with the agency.
“We are prepared to provide EPA with a working PBPK model with full documentation that will allow EPA to use the model and perform the necessary internal and external peer review. . . . We look forward to providing EPA with all the necessary support to facilitate the entire process. We were pleased to hear that EPA intends to give high priority to the PBPK model evaluation and we look forward to receiving an updated timeline for the evaluation process.”
The controversy over the IRIS assessment led to a critical House science committee hearing on the IRIS program last fall, and prompted Denka to file its RFC against the IRIS assessment under the DQA. EPA denied the request last January, and Denka appealed to the agency in a request for reconsideration in July.
NATA Data
Concerns with the Denka plant originated with EPA's 2015 release of its 2011 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) data showing high levels near the plant of the likely carcinogen chloroprene, combined with the 2010 IRIS assessment. EPA and LDEQ are using NATA to target the plant's emissions - a novel use of the air toxics data to support specific compliance action rather than broader strategic efforts.
In its first appeal to EPA in June 2017, Denka filed the RFC along with a letter from its president and CEO, Koki Tabuchi, who formally petitioned to "withdraw and correct" what he considered errors in EPA's 2010 assessment.
The analysis classified chloroprene as a likely human carcinogen and sets an inhalation unit risk (IUR) estimate for cancer potency of 5x10^-4 per microgram per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3)^-1 when inhaled daily over a lifetime.
This IUR, together with the NATA data, is the basis for the enforcement effort to reduce the plant's emissions to 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m^3). But Tabuchi blamed the IRIS assessment for enforcement actions from state and federal officials that he says could force the facility to close.
Tabuchi charged that EPA and LDEQ "pressed DPE to reduce emissions to achieve an extraordinarily miniscule ambient air target concentration of 0.2 ug/m^3 for chloroprene on an annual average basis . . . based on a risk assessment that applied the erroneous and scientifically unsubstantiated IUR from the 2010 IRIS" assessment.
Meanwhile, surrounding residents have sought to file a class action suit against the company, arguing that it is insufficiently protecting them from cancer risks.
EPA last January denied Denka's RFC after IRIS scientists conducted a systematic review to determine if any newly available information would justify updating the 2010 assessment. Systematic review is a structured and documented process for transparent literature review and evaluation of the information. IRIS has been developing an approach for its use over the past several years.
The IRIS staff concluded that seven new chloroprene studies evaluated "represent novel approaches to analyzing existing epidemiologic, toxicological, and toxicokinetic data available for chloroprene. However … it is the opinion of the EPA that these studies do not present sufficient evidence or provide adequate rationale for re-evaluating the entire chloroprene toxicity database."
But, the EPA source says, Denka consultants “recognized in reading the denial an opportunity to address one of the critical questions -- the ability to use a PBPK model.”
The agency's denial of the RfC explains that “EPA ultimately concluded that the PBPK model available at the time of the assessment was inadequate for calculation of internal dose metrics or interspecies dosimetry extrapolations for a number of reasons,” before going on to evaluate three newer studies that Denka argued in the RfC “address critical model validation issues identified at that time as a barrier to the application of a PBPK model.”
But EPA instead concluded that “there are a number of serious concerns regarding the development and/or application of the PBPK models (Yang et al., 2012), including poor model optimization that resulted in underestimates of organ-specific metabolism (i.e., kidney) and unexplained inconsistencies between the internal dose metric and tumor response in male mice.”
Further, when EPA sought to obtain model code for the Yang study, they were unable to provide complete, documented code, making it impossible for agency modelers to review it.
Request For Reconsideration
In its July 24 request for reconsideration, Denka continues to protest EPA's 2010 cancer risk estimate, arguing that EPA erred in concluding that epidemiological data on chloroprene supports a causal relationship between exposure to the chemical and cancer, or that it supports EPA's finding that chloroprene is a likely carcinogen.
The request also charged that EPA ignored its cancer risk assessment guidelines and its peer review panel when it selected the mouse as predictive of human response. In addition, it charged that EPA incorrectly selected mouse data as the basis for its estimate, and did not use a PBPK model in its calculations and that it failed to address criticisms about several of these decisions raised by the panel of independent experts who peer reviewed the draft.
As a result, Denka argues that its consultants “calculated that EPA overestimated the IUR by a factor of 156.” In its request for reconsideration, Denka adds that “The erroneous IUR has directly harmed [DPE] as the owner and operator of the only Neoprene production facility in the United States.”
The company calls itself “an environmentally proactive company and is fully committed to complying with environmental requirements.” It argues that even though it is challenging the IRIS assessment, it has complied with regulatory requirements, noting that it voluntarily agreed with LDEQ to reduce emissions by about 85 percent compared to its 2014 emissions.
This has required controls costing “more than $30 million” to install and hundreds of thousands per year in operating costs. But despite those costs and reductions, Denka will still not be able to achieve the 0.2 ug/m3 target.”
Denka argues that EPA should not have denied its earlier RFC, because if EPA had “considered DPE’s RFC on the scientific merits, EPA would have recognized that the 2010 Review does not represent the best available science, methods, or interpretations. EPA would have recognized that the epidemiological evidence does not provide any credible evidence of a link between chloroprene exposure in workers and increased risk of lung or liver (or any other) cancer mortality. EPA would also have recognized that EPA’s IUR, based on the female B6C3F1 mouse, grossly overestimates potential human risks.”
The company adds that it also disagrees with EPA's “dismissal of two key new studies that support the application of a PBPK model to correct the chloroprene IUR, (Yang et al. (2012) and Allen et al. (2014)). However . . . DPE’s consultants have developed a PBPK model that DPE believes addresses EPA’s concerns about currently available PBPK models for chloroprene.”
The agency source calls the situation “a real effort by both the company and EPA to utilize the best available science. . . . They've committed substantial efforts to reduce emissions . . . even as they're having that contractor develop this model. They haven't waited” to take pollution control measures.”
Similarly, the source anticipates that EPA will work quickly to review anything that comes in, “because there is a lot of concern in the community.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-agrees-industry-request-review-chloroprene-iris-analysis
-
Legislation Would Mandate Action Plan for PFAS Contamination
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
A group of bipartisan lawmakers has introduced a bill that would set standards for federal agencies' responsibilities in places where per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are detected.
Under the bill, agencies would need to make an action plan and enter into an agreement with affected states within one year of their request.
The bill, titled the "PFAS Federal Facility Accountability Act of 2018," by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy, would also require EPA to decide whether the chemicals should be designated as hazardous substances under the Superfund law.
"This bipartisan effort will help Michigan continue our rapid response to the PFAS contamination issue. We must increase cooperation between the states and the federal government so that everyone is on the same page. That's exactly what this bill does," Upton said in a statement.
The man-made chemicals have shown up in soil, sediment and water near current and former military and industrial sites. They have been used in a wide range of consumer products and in firefighting foam used by the armed forces.
An Environment Subcommittee hearing earlier this month focused on PFAS. Michigan has several contaminated sites that have drawn attention in recent months, and Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the ranking member on a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee, is planning a hearing next week.
"We need an all-hands-on-deck response to the growing PFAS contamination in Michigan. PFAS is a man-made chemical, and it will require a man-made solution from all of us working together. This bipartisan legislation will help states such as Michigan respond quickly when contamination is detected," said House bill co-sponsor Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.).
A bipartisan group of senators is also backing PFAS legislation (Greenwire, Aug. 24), and lawmakers included provisions to a pending defense spending measure.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/09/18/stories/1060098167
-
US NGOs Caution Against Foam Insulation Materials
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A group of US NGOs has called on building owners and specifiers to avoid foam insulation and several air-sealing materials they say contain chemicals of concern whose emissions may pose a threat to human health.
The call came in a recent report authored by Energy Efficiency for All – a partnership of NGOs that includes the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the National Housing Trust.
In the report, the groups rank insulation and air-sealing products most frequently used in the US building sector, taking into account the products' chemical composition and potential health impacts, as well as general performance and relative costs.
Ingredients of concern flagged up in A Guide to Healthier Upgrade Materials include:formaldehyde;halogenated flame retardants;isocyanates; andphthalate plasticisers.Product rankings
Spray foam had the lowest ranking in the report's list for building insulation materials. This is because it contains the halogenated flame retardant TCPP, the organotin catalyst dibutyltin dilaurate and isocyanates.
The report also gave low ratings to polyisocyanurate (polyiso) rigid foam board for containing TCPP; and expanded and extruded polystyrene foam (EPS and XPS) for containing the halogenated flame retardant HBCD.
In the air sealing category, flame retardants were also a factor in the poor rating of one-part polyurethane spray foam sealants. Modified polymer sealants and one-component polyurethane sealants, which contain phthalates, also received low marks.
By contrast, noncombustible sodium silicate caulk came as the most highly recommended product for sealants.
And expanded cork board received the highest ranking on the report's insulation list. Fibreglass and cellulose insulation products also came recommended by the NGOs.Further recommendations
The NGOs criticised the "mostly weak regulatory environment" in the US that allows insulation and air-sealing products to contain chemicals of concern.
TSCA is "much too slow" at reviewing chemicals used in building products, they added. And volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations miss the mark on compounds that are toxic in indoor air, because they focus on ozone and exempt chemicals that do not contribute to smog formation.
The NGOs also criticised building product manufacturers that list "only the minimum" information about contents and associated health hazards in safety data sheets (SDSs) required by the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Osha).
"Lack of transparency regarding chemical content still presents a major challenge in trying to select healthier products," they said.
The authors have pressed for companies to offer voluntarily greater ingredient disclosure through programmes such as Health Product Declaration (HPD) and Declare.
And they also have called for further investment in alternative products, such as mushroom-based (mycelium) insulation and non-isocyanate spray foam insulation.
"We have seen that when manufacturers see a market demand, they innovate and create new products that can meet both health and energy performance criteria," they wrote. "There must be further investment in their efforts in order for these new products to be adopted quickly and widely enough to gain efficiencies of scale."
https://chemicalwatch.com/70201/us-ngos-caution-against-foam-insulation-materials
-
California Professional Cosmetics Ingredients Bill Signed Into Law
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a bill law requiring cosmetics used in professional settings to bear a label listing the product ingredients, the first US state to do so.
While retail cosmetics must have ingredients labels under US federal law, states are not required to extend that to products used by salon workers.
California's move, which takes effect from 1 July 2020, will give consumers and professionals the opportunity to view ingredients in a way that is already standardised across food and cleaning products.
NGO Women’s Voices for the Earth called it "a major victory for worker and consumer right to know".
"Until now, only retail cosmetics manufacturers were required to list product ingredients. This same transparency was not required of professional cosmetics, even if products contained ingredients linked to severe health concerns like cancer, birth defects, and respiratory issues," it said in a statement.
The law, formerly bill AB 2775, was introduced by Assembly Member Ash Kalra (D) and passed both chambers of the legislature without dissent. It was backed by an array of NGOs and several businesses and industry groups, including the Personal Care Products Council, the California Chamber of Commerce and Unilever.
"AB 2775 provides salon workers with more ingredient transparency and increased awareness so they can make informed decisions about their use or avoidance of chemicals that may pose a workplace risk," Mr Kalra said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70348/california-professional-cosmetics-ingredients-bill-signed-into-law
-
J&J Talc Supplier Takes No Chances on Another Big Jury Loss (1)
Sep 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jef Feeley
Imerys SA, which supplies talc to Johnson & Johnson, isn’t taking chances as another jury weighs whether to sock the health-care giant with a punishing verdict.
A unit of Imerys agreed to settle its part of a California woman’s lawsuit blaming both companies for causing her cancer with asbestos-tainted talc just before the case was set to go to a state-court jury in Pasadena following a four-week trial.
The terms of the settlement weren’t disclosed when the judge announced it Monday. In July, a St. Louis jury ordered J&J to pay $4.69 billion in damages to 22 women who blamed their ovarian cancer on exposure to asbestos in the company’s powders. That was the sixth-largest product-defect verdict in U.S. history. Imerys reached a confidential settlement a few days before that trial that people familiar with the accord said included a payment of at least $5 million.
A previous case over alleged exposure to asbestos-laced talc that Imerys didn’t settle resulted in April in a $117 million verdict in New Jersey against it and J&J, of which the Paris-based mining company was responsible for 30 percent.
In the Pasadena case, Carolyn Weirick alleged that talc provided by Imerys to J&J for its baby powder and other products caused her mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos exposure.
Why Johnson & Johnson Would Like to Forget 2016: QuickTake Q&A
The world’s largest health-care products maker faces more than 10,000 other suits claiming its baby powder caused cancer. The St. Louis verdict is under appeal.
Imerys wouldn’t comment Monday on why it decided to settle the Pasadena case just before company lawyers were scheduled to give closing arguments to jurors.
“Imerys Talc America is committed to the quality and safety of its products, as evidenced by our quality testing results that consistently show no asbestos,’’ the company said in a statement.
Carol Goodrich, a J&J spokeswoman, didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment on Imerys’s decision to settle.
J&J’s lawyers asked Judge Margaret Oldendorf to grant a mistrial after they learned Imerys had decided to settle. Oldendorf refused and will allow jurors to weigh claims against the health-care company.
School CounselorWeirick, 59, is a school counselor who said she’s been using J&J’s talc products, such as baby powder and its former Shower-to-Shower line, for more than 40 years. She was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2017 and said her only exposure to asbestos came from use of talc products.
During the trial, Weirick’s lawyers told jurors that when they tested baby powder found in her home, they found 11 asbestos fibers in it, enough to have caused her cancer.
J&J hasn’t taken responsibility for the asbestos found in its products and has broken trust with consumers, Jay Stuemke, one of her lawyers, said in closing arguments. “We can’t trust that these companies have done the testing they should have done or even the testing they’ve claimed to have done,’’ Stuemke said.
J&J denies the company’s products have ever contained asbestos and said it’s difficult to pinpoint the causes of cancer. The case should be about “science, not speculation,’’ Christopher Vejnoska, one of the company’s lawyers, said in his final argument.
Lawyers for J&J and Weirick have agreed the counselor has suffered about $1.2 million in actual damages over her cancer claims. Stuemke asked jurors for $25 million in compensation for past and future pain and suffering. She’s also seeking punitive damages.
The case is Carolyn Weirick v. Brenntag North America, BC656425, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (Pasadena).
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/j-j-talc-supplier-takes-no-chances-on-another-big-jury-loss-1
-
Big Oil Acts to Police Itself as U.S. Relaxes Climate Regulation
Sep 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kelly Gilblom
The U.S. has relaxed environmental rules on oil companies, yet they aren’t fully embracing the change.
Royal Dutch Shell Plc said Sept. 17 it is keeping methane-reduction targets despite Environmental Protection Agency plans to ease Obama-era rules on leaks of the gas. Other oil majors have also pledged to cut their emissions of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse pollutants.
The companies’ move to police themselves comes as shareholders step up demands for responsible climate policies. Investment funds around the world have ditched oil and gas stocks in recent years, forcing the large global producers to prove they’re good corporate citizens amid the shift to cleaner energy.
“The oil majors’ societal license to operate will be increasingly scrutinized by investors,” Christyan Malek, head of EMEA oil and gas research at JPMorgan Chase & Co., said in a message. It’s “prudent” to preempt the “inevitable rising consumer, governmental and investor focus on Big Oil’s ability to transition toward cleaner energy sources.”Exxon, BP
In May, Exxon Mobil Corp. said it would lower its methane emissions 15 percent by 2020, after BP Plc made a similar declaration in April. Both companies, together with Shell, Total SA, and four other peers, also signed a set of “guiding principles” last year to reduce methane leaks and improve the accuracy of emissions data.
That task may be expensive, requiring new equipment and technology costing millions of dollars. But the pressure on oil producers to clean up their act makes such investments unavoidable, according to JPMorgan. European companies will have to spend far more on producing clean fuels than previously expected, or else shrink along with oil demand, the bank said in a report.
Shell is aiming for “methane emissions intensity” below 0.2 percent by 2025, according to a statement. The company’s baseline leak rate is currently an estimated 0.01 percent to 0.8 percent across its oil and gas operations.
“Shell is setting its own ‘high-watermark’ for the energy transition,” Malek said.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/big-oil-acts-to-police-itself-as-us-relaxes-climate-regulation
-
Cheniere Strikes LNG Deal with Oil Trader Vitol
Sep 17, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
Cheniere Energy of Houston said Monday that it has agreed to sell liquefied natural gas to the Swiss energy trader Vitol, giving Cheniere another foothold in Europe at a time when the Trump administration is working to reduce the continent's reliance on gas from Russia.
Vitol represents the second long-term European contract this year for Cheniere, which began exporting LNG processed from the flood of U.S. shale gas in early 2016. Technically, Vitol, which agreed to buy 700,000 metric tons a year from Cheniere, could deliver the gas anywhere in the world, but it maintains substantial operations in Europe. The same is true for Swiss energy trader Trafigura, which agreed to buy 1 million metric tons of LNG a year from Cheniere in another 15-year deal concluded early this year.
Europe has long relied on natural gas piped from Russia, and is becoming more reliant on natural gas as it shifts power plants from burning coal. Research firm Wood Mackenzie noted that Europe's demand for natural gas imports has jumped considerably within the last seven years, and said it expects that rise to continue through 2025 as countries continue to reduce their use of coal and the continent's existing gas reserves become more costly to develop.
RELATED: Europe becoming more dependent on Russian gas, DOE official says
"This leaves Europe with a burgeoning import dependency," said Murray Douglas, the firm's research director for European gas. "Gas will continue to benefit from this more permanent and structural shift in the power market."
U.S. officials have recently called for domestic LNG producers to ramp up exports to Europe as a counterweight to Russia. Steven Winberg, assistant secretary of fossil energy, warned last week during a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that Europe was becoming more dependent on Russian natural gas during a tense period for relations between Russia and the West.
"That does not have to be the case," he said. "Our nation is endowed with vast supplies of natural gas and production is growing rapidly."
The Vitol contract is the latest long-term sales agreement for Cheniere, which has signed similar deals with buyers in Asia and Latin America as it ramps up exports from its facilities on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Vitol's shipments are expected to begin this year.
Vitol, active in the LNG market since 2005, delivers LNG around the world and has access to gas storage facilities in six European countries. "We believe that LNG has an important role to play in the future energy mix," CEO Russell Hardy said in a statement.
The U.S. is quickly becoming a global player in LNG as companies look to build export terminals amid a boom in natural gas production in West Texas, Appalachia and elsewhere. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is pushing to expedite its reviews of projects planned for the Gulf Coast and the East Coast.
Most U.S. companies are eyeing Asia in their search for customers. China, South Korea, India and other Asian nations are working to reduce dangerous air pollution levels by shifting from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas, making the continent a key driver in global demand for LNG.
FERC earlier this month issued regulatory schedules for its environmental review of 12 LNG export facilities, including six in Texas. Among them were Freeport LNG's project in Brazoria County, Sempra Energy's Port Arthur project and NextDecade LNG's project in Brownsville.
Cheniere was the first U.S. company to export LNG, operating from its Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana. The company, which now ships to nearly 30 foreign markets, is expanding that terminal and building a second one in Corpus Christi.
Virginia's Dominion Energy also began exporting LNG from a terminal in Maryland earlier this year.
Other U.S. companies are expected to begin exports next year, including two based in Houston. Freeport LNG is working to open its Gulf Coast terminal at Quintana Island, and Kinder Morgan is completing an export terminal in Georgia.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Cheniere-strikes-LNG-deal-with-oil-trader-Vitol-13234990.php
-
Without Much-Needed Investment, the US Gas Industry is Facing a 'Waste of Capital,' IEA Says
Sep 18, 2018 | CNBC
By Natasha Turak
On the production side, U.S. shale gas is performing strongly — but a current lack of investment projects in the sector could be "economically disruptive," according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
"Without additional investments into American liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, the American gas industry will have to keep gas on the ground, which would be a waste of capital, economically quite disruptive," Laszlo Varro, chief economist at the IEA, told CNBC's Steve Sedgwick at the GasTech conference in Barcelona on Tuesday.
U.S. natural gas is being produced at record levels thanks to the shale revolution, brought about by the extraction technique known as fracking. And the booming demand for LNG in Asian markets, China in particular, should mean massive business for U.S. gas exporters.
But Varro pointed to major bottlenecks in export capacity due to global trade tensions and a lack of sufficient investment into projects for export infrastructure.
"If there is no export infrastructure development, then a large amount of American gas will simply stay on the ground," he said. "Because given that the domestic energy system is not going to be able to absorb that much gas domestically, if there are no export projects, then American gas prices will have to go down to a very low level to shut production down."
The IEA's forecasts for the energy industry assume international trade will function without disruption, and therefore sees excess U.S. gas production going to meet China's need for natural gas.
But this week's announcement that the White House is raising tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese goods does not bode well for trade prospects, consequently stunting support for export infrastructure investments.
Nonetheless, Varro was optimistic that global trade would return to normal.
"Our basic assumption is that international trade of LNG will continue," he said. "And investors very much hope that the trade policy decisions will support this."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/18/without-greater-investment-us-gas-industry-facing-a-waste-of-capital.html
-
Atlantic Coast Gas Pipeline Can Resume Construction, FERC Says
Sep 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ryan Collins
Construction activities for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline along project areas that previously received a stop work order can now continue, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said Sept. 17.
Prior to resuming previously authorized construction activities across federal lands or waters, pipeline developers Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC and Dominion Energy Transmission Inc. must provide written concurrence from the U.S. Forest Service and Army Corps of Engineers that the revised biological opinion “is consistent with those agencies’ respective authorizations,” FERC said in its filing.
With FERC’s authorization in hand, Duke Energy Corp. is now mobilizing its crews to resume construction on its section of the gas pipeline in North Carolina, spokeswoman Tammie McGee said in an email.
Duke hasn’t experienced any significant impacts from Hurricane Florence on the project, according to McGee.
The pipeline is on track to be completed by end of 2019.https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/atlanticcoast-gas-pipeline-can-resume-construction-ferc-says
-
Chemours Plant Inaccessible to N.C. Inspectors Due to Flooding
Sep 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Hurricane Florence has rendered a Chemours Co. plant that produces toxic, long-lasting chemicals that have contaminated water supplies in North Carolina inaccessible to state inspectors.
Inspectors had to suspend water sampling at the Chemours Co. plant in Fayetteville, N.C., since Hurricane Florence hit the state late last week, Megan Thorpe, a spokeswoman with the state’s Department of Environmental Quality, said.
Thorpe told Bloomberg Environment her department’s inspectors hope to visit the plant and resume sampling Sept. 17, but because floodwaters nearby continue to rise, that may not be possible.
The plant is located less than a half a mile from the banks of the Cape Fear River. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration water gage next to the plant indicates that the river will soon enter major flood stage and will peak at 68 feet on the afternoon of Sept. 18.Emerging Contaminants
The Fayetteville plant produces some per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances chemicals, or PFAS, which are used in nonstick coatings and fire fighting sprays.
PFAS are extremely long-lasting in the environment and have been linked to long-term health problems such immune and thyroid damage and reproductive problems at sufficient levels of exposure. Water utilities across the country have been detecting PFAS in their aquifers and have been struggling to deal with the clean up costs.
Residual pollution from the Chemours plant over the years—particularly from the PFAS chemical known as GenX—has made its way into the Cape Fear River and has caused problems for drinking water supplies downstream from the plant. Several of these downstream communities are now suing Chemours over the long-term effects of the pollutants.
Chemours didn’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/chemours-plant-inaccessible-to-nc-inspectors-due-to-flooding
-
Rivers, Death Toll and Environmental Hazards Still Rising in Carolinas as Flooding Sets Records
Sep 17, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Patricia Sullivan, Rachel Siegel, Mark Berman and Joel Achenbach
The death toll from Hurricane Florence rose Monday to 32, and the misery in the Carolinas might be many days from cresting. The historic storm has disrupted life for millions of people, and the surging floodwaters have spawned an environmental calamity across a vast region pocked with manure ponds and coal ash pits.
Florence is gone, devolving into a wet atmospheric blob drifting toward the Northeast, and the sun has finally come out here. But life has not returned to normal. The Carolinas are rattled and anxious amid rising waters. Going anywhere in a vehicle is still perilous. Hundreds of thousands of people have no electricity, and many schools remain shuttered.
The number of closed and impassable roads climbed to 1,500 in North Carolina, the U.S. Transportation Department said. Interstates 40 and 95, two of the state’s main transportation arteries, are only partially open. Many communities are isolated, including this storm-battered city wedged between the coast and the Cape Fear River.
Thousands of people remain in emergency shelters across the state. First responders have rescued 2,600 people and 300 animals, Gov. Roy Cooper (D) said at a news conference.
“Catastrophic flooding and tornadoes are still claiming lives and property. For most parts of North Carolina, the danger is still immediate,” Cooper said. Authorities in North Carolina said late Monday that 25 people in the state had died from storm-related causes, while officials in South Carolina said they had confirmed six deaths linked to the storm. Officials in Chesterfield County, Va., linked one fatality to the remnants of Florence after a building partially collapsed during an apparent tornado that spun off from the storm Monday afternoon.
Flooding from Hurricane Florence in Lumberton, N.C., on Monday. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)Among the dead was 1-year-old Kaiden Lee-Welch, whose body was found Monday in Union County, N.C., the sheriff’s office said. Officials said the child’s mother drove past barricades Sunday night and hit rushing water. She managed to get the baby out of a car seat, but the violent flood carried the boy away.
“I know people are eager to get back to work and get back to school,” the governor said. “I urge you, if you don’t have to drive, stay off the road.”
As the region’s waters rise, numerous environmental hazards are materializing in the Carolinas. The North Carolina Pork Council reported a manure lagoon breach on a small farm in Duplin County but said the solids remained contained.
“While there are more than 3,000 active lagoons in the state that have been unaffected by the storm, we remain concerned about the potential impact of these record-shattering floods,” the council said on its website.
Many hog ponds in eastern North Carolina were damaged during Hurricane Floyd in 1999, and the bacteria-laden liquid and solid waste flowed downstream to estuaries, inciting algae blooms and fish kills.
Duke Energy’s two Brunswick nuclear reactors remain stable, but the isolation of the facilities by floodwaters, and the difficulty workers faced going to and from the site, led the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over the weekend to declare a “hazardous event.” Duke Energy said no employees are stranded and there is no flooding at the site.
In a number of locations in eastern North Carolina, the sewer- and drinking-water systems have been damaged or overwhelmed.
“We do have observed releases of wastewater from manholes, from overtopped sewer areas in the impacted zone,” Reggie Cheatham, the Environmental Protection Agency’s director of emergency management, said in a teleconference with reporters.
Cheatham said the wastewater treatment system in Jacksonville, N.C., which experienced storm surge during Florence’s landfall on Friday morning, suffered a “catastrophic” failure.
“They basically had to deal with the storm surge, loss of power, and obviously shut down pumps, and the system completely depressurized, and they haven’t been able to bring that back up,” he said.The misery of the Carolinas in Florence?s wide path of destruction VIEW GRAPHIC
He said the wastewater system in Wilmington had released partially treated water into the Cape Fear River. Other sites experiencing releases of wastewater include the eastern North Carolina communities of Princeton and Kenansville, Cheatham said.
Also in Wilmington, a second breach has occurred in a coal ash landfill at a Duke Energy facility. Flooding had damaged a containment wall this weekend and led to an estimated 2,000 cubic yards of coal ash flowing into a ditch not far from the Cape Fear River. Duke Energy employees and contractors worked with heavy machinery to create a new berm to contain the material. The company said the coal ash, which the EPA considers toxic, poses no hazard to the public or the environment. The details of the second breach remain unclear, Cheatham said.
A CSX train hauling chemicals derailed late Sunday in Anson County, N.C., south of Charlotte and near the South Carolina border. Cheatham said eight cars derailed due to washed-out tracks. An unknown volume of diesel fuel spilled, but the fuel did not reach the nearby Pee Dee River, he said.
Many people flooded out of their homes will not be able to return quickly. Some rivers in the Piedmont have hit their high-water mark and will begin to drop. But the story is different in the flat marshlands to the east, where the rivers will crest and then stay at elevated levels for many days, said Trent Ferguson, the South Atlantic Division water manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Flooding from Hurricane Florence on Monday in Leland, N.C., which is just outside of Wilmington along the Atlantic coast. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)In Lumberton, N.C., a temporary berm hastily constructed to prevent the Lumber River from surging into the west side of town collapsed Sunday night, sending a blast of sand and mud across the road and unleashing torrents of water into neighborhoods. The sandbag barrier was built by volunteers late last week in hopes of preventing Florence’s floodwaters from pouring through a spot where Hurricane Matthew caused damage just two years ago.
Lee Hester, deputy commander of Lumberton Rescue and EMS, estimated there were as many as 800 homes in the flooded neighborhood. “Some people left after Matthew,” he said. “But there are still a lot of people there.”
By Monday afternoon, the sky had cleared and Lumberton residents had their first glimpse of sunshine in almost a week. But Florence was not finished wreaking destruction. The surging Lumber River engulfed streets and homes and made many roads in the city impassable.
Here in Wilmington, people wait nervously for the Cape Fear River to crest. The water level hit 17 feet on Monday and is expected to rise to 24 feet by next weekend, said Wilmington Mayor Bill Saffo. The river flooding feels like a second natural disaster, coming in the wake of the hurricane strike.
“Evacuees, do not return until you are notified to do so,” said Woody White, chairman of the board of commissioners of New Hanover County, where Wilmington is located. “It is not now.”
Bob Richling carries Iris Darden, 84, out of her flooded home as her daughter-in-law, Pam Darden, gathers her belongings in the aftermath of Hurricane Florence in Spring Lake, N.C., on Monday. (David Goldman/AP)Food is becoming an issue. It ran low at the New Hanover Regional Medical Center, according to Wayne Strauss, the hospital’s food service director. With the usual supply routes cut off, the Army came to the rescue, sending a cargo plane from Fort Bragg, outside Fayetteville, N.C. It touched down on a Harris Teeter parking lot Monday afternoon. An assembly line of soldiers and hospital employees passed boxes of food, plates and plastic cups out of the back of the plane and into a waiting truck.
“The supplies will help us survive,” Strauss said.
New Hanover County officials said they also have received 20 truckloads of food and water from Fort Bragg, enough to sustain up to 60,000 people for the next three days. The trucks arrived Monday along back roads, led by savvy state troopers who knew how to get through the flooded lowlands.
That route was for professional drivers only: No “safe, stable and reliable route currently exists for the public to get to and from Wilmington,” the state Department of Transportation said late Monday.
About 800 people are staying in the county’s newly consolidated shelter at Hoggard High School, and they are being fed by the county. One person died there Monday morning of natural causes, officials said.
As a few more stores open, District Attorney Ben David warned that prosecutors will target any companies engaging in price-gouging. He also urged residents to get several estimates before hiring contractors to clean up and repair their homes.
The storm could cost the region up to $22 billion, most of it in property losses, according to an analysis released Monday by Moody’s Analytics. The company warned that “there is a high probability that Florence’s costs will be revised significantly higher with added information or inland flooding.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/florence-rivers-death-toll-and-environmental-hazards-still-rising-in-carolinas-as-flooding-sets-records/2018/09/17/c178cfb2-ba8f-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html?utm_term=.6739d6bf2a16
-
House PTC Hearing: Progress and Problems on Display
Sep 18, 2018 | Railway Age
By Mischa Wanek-Libman
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials held its second hearing of the year on Sept. 13 on implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC).
Seven rail industry stakeholders testified before the subcommittee, including Federal Railroad Administrator Ron Batory; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chairman Robert Sumwalt; Government Accountability Office (GAO) Physical Infrastructure Team Director Susan Fleming; Amtrak Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Scot Naparstek; Association of American Railroads (AAR) President and CEO Ed Hamberger; Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) General Manager Jeff Knueppel (on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association, APTA); and Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Executive Director Stacey Mortensen.
In an opening statement, Railroad Subcommittee Chair Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) said, “We’ve seen a great deal of progress, from freight rails as well as commuter rails across the entire country. But we’ve still seen [problems]. We’ve still seen accidents. We’ve had promises made to us as a committee that haven’t been met … We asked the entire industry, if there’s something you need, let us know … The patience has grown thin.”
FRA: Administrator Batory’s written testimony included possible civil penalties FRA is authorized to assess on those railroads that fail to meet the statutory deadline. While the civil penalty schedule recommends a $16,000 penalty for failure to complete PTC implementation on a required track segment, FRA’s current minimum civil penalty is $853 and the ordinary statutory maximum is $27,904. FRA may assess a civil penalty for each day the non-compliance continues. FRA could also opt for a one-time, monthly, quarterly, annual or other time frame. Batory said the end goal of any enforcement action is to compel a railroad to complete PTC implementation as efficiently and safely as possible.
NTSB: The hearing took place a day after the 10th anniversary of the Chatsworth, Calif., Metrolink/Union Pacific accident that killed 25 people and injured 102 others. The accident propelled Congress to pass the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which included the mandate for PTC implementation. Chairman Sumwalt said NTSB urges swift implementation, but noted that only about 40% of the nation’s rail network will operate under PTC, which he says leaves a significantly decreased level of safety along non-PTC track-miles.
GAO: Found that 32 of 40 railroads reported that they, or the railroad that owns the track on which they operate, will apply for an extension. Sixteen commuter and smaller freight railroads reported planning to apply for an extension using substitute criteria, and of these, 12 intend to apply for substitute criteria based on early testing such as field testing. Though substitute criteria are authorized in law, GAO said this approach defers time-intensive RSD testing into 2019 and beyond. In March 2018, GAO recommended FRA take steps to systematically communicate extension information to railroads and to use a risk-based approach to prioritize agency resources and workload. GAO noted that FRA has taken some steps recommended in March 2018 to address communicating and clarifying extension information, as well as using a risk-based approach to prioritize agency resources and workload.
Amtrak: The biggest take-away from the hearing was Naparstek’s announcement that Amtrak will file for a 2020 alternative schedule based on “the difficulty of competing testing with so many freight and commuter partners.” Naparstek said 222 of Amtrak’s 315 daily trains currently operate with PTC protection along at least a portion of all of their routes.
AAR: Hamberger said freight railroads are addressing interoperability with each other, as well as with their tenant railroads. He called interoperability “the biggest remaining challenge of PTC implementation,” but also noted that by the end of 2018, PTC will be fully operational along 80% of required freight miles.
APTA: Knueppel explained that despite technical problems, the commuter rail industry continues to make significant progress implementing PTC. He also explained the pressure placed on commuter agency funding when implementing this technology, especially considering the immense backlog many agencies have in state-of-good-repair work. He requested Congress provide additional funding “to enable publicly funded commuter railroads to quickly implement, operate, and maintain PTC, as well as address the massive backlog of other deferred critical infrastructure and safety projects.”
ACE: Mortensen provided several concrete examples of what smaller stakeholders are faced with regarding a tight vendor market. She said PTC equipment was ordered in March 2017, but delivery did not occur until April 2018 due to amount of orders the vendor had. Additionally, the vendor could not establish a site workforce until late June.
Rep. Denham ended the hearing with a simple, but direct, “PTC, get it done.”
Editor’s Note: “Patience has grown thin … Get it done.” Useless political posturing that has nothing to do with reality. One moment in particular from the hearing supports its dog-and-pony-show aspect: Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.), the newest member of the Rail Subcommittee, asked a question as to “why the freight rail industry is lagging even though the government has awarded nearly $1 billion in grants for PTC.” Ed Hamberger was doing his usual excellent job explaining that the grants benefitted short line and commuter railroads, not the Class I’s, which are 100%-self-financing PTC, when Denham interrupted his answer to heap praise on retiring Congressman Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) and make fun of Capuano’s love of short-sleeve button-down shirts (Capuano had to leave for another appointment). Short-sleeve dress shirts then became a running joke throughout the rest of the hearing. So, here was Ed Hamberger making a critical distinction for the benefit of a young (age 34) first-term Congressman, and it was squashed by Denham—who was just honored by the AAR with a Railroad Achievement Award. This award is given to members of Congress who have “shown leadership on policies that help ensure the vitality of railroads in the United States.” You would think that Denham would show more respect for Hamberger. — William C. Vantuono
https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/house-ptc-hearing-progress-and-problems-on-display/
-
Metra Passes Major Milestone in Implementation of Positive Train Control
Sep 17, 2018 | NBC Chicago
By Phil Rogers
Metra says it has passed a major milestone with the completion of installation of a critical and expensive safety system designed to prevent deadly collisions and derailments.
That system, known as Positive Train Control, or PTC, uses sophisticated satellite and GPS-based technology to allow computers aboard those trains to communicate with each other, with signals, and central command centers, preventing any two trains from being in the same place at the same time.
PTC is also designed to stop trains from ignoring switches and speed limits, the cause of many deadly incidents, such as an Amtrak derailment last December near Tacoma which killed 3 people.
“As this works, it has to work with every train,” said Metra CEO Jim Derwinski. “This will make our safe network, even safer.” A Look Over Chicago's Union Station as Metra Reports DelaysSky5's Mike Lorber reports on Metra BNSF Line delays reported Monday afternoon.(Published Monday, Aug. 27, 2018)
On Monday, Metra marked a milestone with installation of PTC equipment in 528 vehicles, and another 240 trackside locations.
The agency says it believes it will be fully operational with the safety system by 2020. But ever since it was mandated by Congress, PTC has been marred by controversy--primarily because of complexity and cost. Here in Chicago, the nation’s most complex rail terminal, the price tag is expected to top $400 million.
“This is a $4.1 billion effort,” said Jeff Kneupel, General Manager of Philadelphia’s SEPTA transit authority. “This is a sophisticated and unprecedented technological challenge.” Metra: No Fare Increase, but Big Issues Loom Ahead
Sophisticated indeed. In the Chicago area, Metra’s trains must be able to communicate not only with each other, but with those on 13 other railroads. Each day, that means some 700 commuter trains will have to talk to another 700 freight and Amtrak trains. And if two trains come too close to each other, or a locomotive ignores a signal or upcoming switch, the system is designed to immediately bring that train to a stop.
Nationwide, PTC installation will have to cover some 58,000 miles of track.
In railroad terms, that task of making the brains of the trains talk to each other is called “interoperability”. Not all railroads contracted to use the same systems. But all have to be able to communicate, and its turned out to be a time-consuming venture to make that happen.
“In Los Angeles it took them about 18 months to get the Metrolink, Union Pacific, and Burlington interoperable,” Derwinski said. “Those lessons learned in L.A. are now here with us.”
Metra says the Burlington Northern line is up and running with PTC now---the reason BN commuters were hit with changes in their years-old schedules earlier this year. (PTC needs more time for trains to turn around, and that meant spacing out the BN timetables). The Union Pacific expects to be up and running with PTC in some form by year’s end.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Metra-Passes-Major-Milestone-on-Implementation-of-Positive-Train-Control-493509641.html
-
Omitted Health Costs Could Tip Scales on EPA Methane Rollback
Sep 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA knows its plans to relax Obama-era oil and gas methane limits could harm public health due to related air pollution increases, but it hasn’t calculated the exact toll on health.
The Environmental Protection Agency for several years has chosen not to monetize public health effects in its oil and gas rules, including during the Obama administration. But the stakes are higher now, environmentalists and health researchers said, because the Trump EPA proposal could allow for the release of thousands more tons of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs—a precursor for the lung irritant ozone—and hazardous air pollutants over the next decade.
Those public health costs “could be the thing that determines whether the rule is actually justified or not,” Avi Zevin, an attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity, told Bloomberg Environment.
“They should be doing a more complete consideration of what those costs of the foregone health benefits are, what they would mean, and how that factors into their decisionmaking,” Zevin said.
The EPA estimated its Sept. 10 proposal (RIN:2060-AT54) would cause increases of 100,000 short tons of VOCs and 3,800 short tons of hazardous air pollutants between 2019 and 2025. Those increases are in addition to a bump in methane of 380,000 short tons, or to 8.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
The agency quantified the cost of the extra methane emissions in its regulatory impact analysis. But the EPA said data limitations prevented it from doing the same for extra emissions of VOCs and hazardous air pollutants, even though it acknowledged those emissions could degrade air quality and harm human health.
Insignificant Increases
Oil and gas industry groups said the projected pollution increases are relatively small compared to total U.S. emissions.
The estimated methane increases are roughly 1.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a year, which is about 0.02 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions tallied by the EPA in its annual inventory, Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, told Bloomberg Environment.
The estimated bump in VOC emissions is similarly insignificant when compared to total U.S. emissions, she added.
Sgamma said the EPA’s analyses also don’t account for how the regulation might work in practice. She touted a provision in the Trump proposal that allows companies to apply to use new technologies to detect and repair leaks. The Obama administration’s rule, by contrast, locked companies into a specific method and timeline of conducting inspections, she argued.
“The net effect of this rule could be more emissions reductions,” Sgamma said of the new proposal. “Whenever we apply new technology, we can do it faster, quicker, cheaper, more efficiently, and deliver greater environmental benefit.”
Benefits and Costs
The Trump EPA isn’t the first to decline to monetize the public health effects of VOC and hazardous air pollutants. The Obama administration, in its 2016 regulation, also didn’t quantify these impacts, similarly citing data limitations.
But environmentalists argue in that case, it was extra benefits the EPA was failing to quantify. The agency had already justified the benefits of the methane reductions outweighed the costs of compliance.
“It didn’t matter from that context whether they had done a more granular attempt to estimate the benefits,” Zevin said.
The Trump administration, by contrast, is already limiting how it calculates the climate benefits of reducing methane. Ignoring a whole category of potential public health damages carries even more weight, he said.
The EPA is also operating in a world where the science has continuously improved, researchers said.
To claim data limitations or uncertainty as an excuse not to do the calculations is “particularly more egregious now because we have better data and a long track record of doing this stuff in public journals,” John Loomis, a professor in Colorado State University’s Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, told Bloomberg Environment.
Loomis and a colleague published a study in 2017 quantifying the environmental costs and benefits of fracking in 14 states.
Scientific Uncertainty
Uncertainties do pose challenges in the science, particularly as it relates to how much pollution is coming from the sector, researchers said.
For example, emissions from oil and gas production vary depending on where the drilling operations are located, when the emissions are occurring, and what the weather is like, Nicholas Muller, an associate professor of economics, engineering, and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, told Bloomberg Environment.
Emissions from drilling operations closer to metropolitan areas, with the risk of exposing more people, cost more than those from operations in remote areas, Muller added.
But as science improves, researchers are finding the impacts of air pollutants to be even more damaging.
EPA’s own scientists in research published July in Environmental Science & Technology journal estimated pollution from the sector could cause nearly 2,000 premature deaths, 1,000 respiratory or cardiovascular-related hospital visits, 3,600 emergency room visits, and more than 1million cases of worsened asthma or acute respiratory symptoms in 2025. In high-production states such as Oklahoma, Colorado, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas, the effects would be even more acute.
“The science is always uncertain, but that’s never a reason not to act,” Aimee Curtright, senior physical scientist at RAND Corp., told Bloomberg Environment.
2013 Damage Estimates
Curtright and several colleagues in 2013 estimated the air pollutant emissions from shale gas extraction in Pennsylvania and quantified the monetary damages of their public health impacts.
The recent research from EPA scientists appears to improve a model Curtright and her colleagues used, allowing the July study to pinpoint even more geographically specific impacts, she added.
Curtright said if the agency wanted to be conservative in dealing with uncertainties, it could include a full range of possible impacts.
But environmentalists and some researchers suggest the EPA may not want to conduct the full analysis because its results would undercut its attempts to undo emissions rules.
“If you already know the answer, the last thing you want is to have an analysis out there that contradicts that,” Loomis said.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/omitted-health-costs-could-tip-scales-on-epa-methane-rollback
-
EPA Rejects Interstate Ozone Petitions, Spurring Criticism From Carper, EDF
Sep 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has finalized its rejection of petitions filed by Delaware and Maryland asking the agency to curb interstate ozone air pollution by finding such action is unnecessary to help the states attain federal air standards, spurring criticism from Senate environment panel ranking member Tom Carper (D-DE) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
In response to the agency's Sept. 17 announcement that it is rejecting the petitions, Carper accused the agency of an “abject failure” to protect human health from ozone-related harms.
Similarly, EDF Senior Attorney Graham McCahan said, “EPA’s irresponsible decision to deny these petitions will cause unnecessary risk to the health of millions of Americans. Maryland and Delaware have offered proven and affordable solutions to the problem of dangerous air pollution that is encroaching on them from neighboring states.”
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler on Sept. 14 signed the final rule rejecting the petitions filed under Clean Air Act section 126 and released it on Sept. 17, satisfying a court-ordered deadline to respond to the petitions by Sept. 15. EPA has yet to publish the notice in the Federal Register, but when it does the two states could file suit over the rule as a final agency action subject to judicial review.
Section 126 allows states to ask EPA to directly regulate air pollution sources in other states upwind that petitioning states claim are preventing or interfering with their national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) attainment.
Delaware's four petitions asked EPA to regulate power plants in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, while Maryland's petition targeted 36 electric generating units at power plants in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. All the petitions were largely predicated on asking EPA to ensure that the plants consistently run existing pollution controls or maintain operation using clean-burning natural gas, rather than coal.
Echoing the proposed rejection of the petitions, EPA says the requests are unnecessary to ensure that areas in the two states attain NAAQS for ozone, because the Obama-era Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading rule will ensure NAAQS compliance.
EPA in the 126 petition denial finds that the sources in the affected upwind states do not violate the air law's “good neighbor” obligation to mitigate interstate emissions either with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, set at 75 parts per billion (ppb) or the tougher 2015 ozone standard set at 70 ppb. The agency’s “independent analysis indicates that the identified sources in Delaware’s and Maryland’s petitions do not currently emit and are not expected to emit pollution in violation of the good neighbor provision for either the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS,” EPA says.
NAAQS Attainment
EPA in its final decision defends its projections of ozone NAAQS attainment against accusations by Delaware, Maryland and others that the agency is overly optimistic. The final rule includes a lengthy defense of EPA's choice to model ozone standards attainment by 2023.
This is also likely to be a key issue in potential litigation over EPA's finding that no further regulatory action beyond the CSAPR program, as updated in 2016, is required to meet the agency's 2008 ozone NAAQS. East Coast states in their comments on the so-called CSAPR “closeout” rule indicated that the 2023 date is far beyond some air law deadlines for states to attain the NAAQS, and therefore arbitrary and unlawful.
EPA “interprets the requirements of the good neighbor provision to apply in a manner consistent with the designation and planning requirements in [Clean Air Act] title I that apply in downwind states and, in particular, the timeframe within which downwind states are required to implement specific emissions control measures in nonattainment areas relative to the applicable attainment dates,” the agency says in its final petition response.
This interpretation means the agency focuses on attainment deadlines for “moderate” nonattainment areas, rather than the earlier deadlines for “marginal” nonattainment areas, because marginal areas do not have to craft specific measures to come into compliance in the state implementation plans for NAAQS attainment.
Carper's statement on the rejection continued, “Perhaps the most troubling and misleading part of this decision is that EPA claims that Delaware will soon have clean air, while simultaneously gutting clean air protections. By EPA Administrator Wheeler’s own admission, the agency has no idea how other recent Trump Administration clean air rollback will affect the air quality in our state and, yet, they are denying these 126 petitions.”
EDF's McCahan meanwhile suggested the environmental group would take unspecified steps to help the two states in their bid to reduce ozone levels. “We’ll keep working to help them -- and other downwind states -- provide cleaner, safer air for their people,” he said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-rejects-interstate-ozone-petitions-spurring-criticism-carper-edf
-
Jerry Brown Made Climate Change His Issue. The Result: Attacks From All Sides.
Sep 18, 2018 | The New York Times
By Somini Sengupta
It was a big act, one of the last in the final days of a long political career, and it was about one of his life’s passions: safeguarding the environment.
Jerry Brown, 80, the four-term governor of California who is to retire in January, was the principal organizer and reluctant star of the Global Climate Action Summit, a high-octane gathering of lawmakers, executives and scientists working to beat back global warming.
But even as he sought to rally other politicians to the cause, Governor Brown’s conference underscored the limits of what politicians can do to avert the most catastrophic effects of climate change — even the politician who leads California, the wealthiest state in the country and the world’s fifth-largest economy.
“We can spread it, encourage it. I’ll try to do that,” he said in an interview in his office in the State Capitol in Sacramento. “But at the end of the day, this takes a conversion. It’s almost a quasi-religious transformation that has not occurred but must occur. Or the world will pay a very heavy price in life and economic detriment.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Governor Brown has been pummeled from different sides. From the nation’s capital have come attacks on California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. From the activist street have come blistering protests demanding that he halt oil drilling in the state.
Friends say he is anything but optimistic. For a man who has devoted his life to politics, they say, he has also come to understand that incremental political change may not be enough to meet the climate change challenge.
“He has a gloomy instinct about the ability of politics to save us, but he can’t help but try,” said Orville Schell, a journalist and a biographer of Governor Brown who has known him for more than 40 years. “He has doubts about whether politics is the salvation.”
Not just American politics. Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said Governor Brown’s doubts stemmed in part from talking to leaders abroad and realizing how far their policies are from making a difference.
“He is pretty pessimistic. He sees these leaders. He talks with them,” said Dr. Ramanathan, who worked with Governor Brown on a state law to ban short-lived pollutants like methane. “He can see the cliff we are all rushing toward.”EDITORS’ PICKS‘True Detective’ Director Cary Fukunaga Is Bringing His Obsessions to NetflixAgents Tried to Flip Russian Oligarchs. The Fallout Spread to Trump.When the Supreme Court Lurches Right
ADVERTISEMENT
Governor Brown’s legacy on climate change is shaped by California’s peculiarities. The state was built on extractive industries like coal and oil, even as it has pioneered some of the world’s most ambitious measures on pollution and conservation. California has long encouraged alternative energy, and yet it is tethered to cars. Of the 10 most polluted cities in the country, eight are in California, according to the American Lung Association. Oil wells dot some of the poorest areas of the state.
Governor Brown trained to be a Jesuit priest. But he ultimately followed the footsteps of his father, Pat Brown, becoming, like him, a governor of California, first in 1975 for two consecutive terms, and then again in 2011 for another two terms.
Environmental protection has long been a signature issue. He was known for being spartan in his personal life, embodying a 1970s ethos of “small is beautiful.” In his early days as governor, futurists were invited to give talks at the statehouse. Air quality was a campaign pitch in the mid-1970s. He was an early proponent of solar power.
Once, in 1980, in one of his three presidential bids, he told a student journalist that, one day, people would be making phone calls from their wristwatches.
That student journalist was Bill McKibben, who went on to become an environmental writer and, later, the founder of an activist group called 350.org. “He is a visionary guy,” Mr. McKibben said.
Mr. McKibben is now a prominent thorn in Governor Brown’s side. He wants the governor to stop oil drilling in the state. I spotted him smiling and strolling through a noisy protest that briefly blocked one entrance to the climate conference on Thursday.
“He’s done a good job addressing the demand side,” Mr. McKibben said over the din of drumbeats, adding that now, at the end of his fourth term, is Governor Brown’s best chance to curtail the supply side by stopping oil production in the state. “The governor is in an unparalleled position to do something about it, and he never has to run for re-election again. There are very few moments in American politics when you get a free shot.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Patricia de Lille, a veteran politician and the mayor of Cape Town who was attending the conference, is no stranger to protests. “My advice to Governor Brown is to engage,” she said. “I deal with protests every day. At least these are peaceful.”ImageProtesters in San Francisco with a cutout of Governor Brown on Wednesday, the first day of the climate meeting.CreditCayce Clifford for The New York Times
Governor Brown has taken an aggressive posture against the White House on climate change, helping to lead an alliance of states, cities and businesses vowing to uphold the commitments of the Paris accord even though President Trump has said the United States will exit.
California has also led a coalition of American states suing the Trump administration over auto emissions rules. At the conference, Governor Brown missed no chance to excoriate the White House, describing Mr. Trump at one point as “liar, criminal, fool. Pick your choice.”
Governor Brown has sought to use state law to curtail demand for oil and gas, but he also tasked his administration to look into how to tackle oil production in the state, the chairwoman of the state’s air resources board, Mary D. Nichols, said.
He set a target of five million electric cars on the road by 2030. He rallied Republicans in his state to support a cap-and-trade program. And just days before his climate meeting began last week, he signed into law a bill that mandates 100 percent carbon-free electricity in the state by 2045.
As for oil drilling in the state, he said production had declined during his tenure. To suspend drilling in his state, as his detractors demand, he said, would do nothing to curb production in other places like Saudi Arabia.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We either do nothing and smoke marijuana because it’s legalized, or we put our shoulder to the plow and do everything we can,” he said. “I don’t know if I’m an optimist. I’m a realist.”
Governor Brown sat at the head of a long table in a dark room, lit only by the afternoon light mottled by trees out front. He didn’t much look at the pile of notes in front of him. His interview with me was one of 23 scheduled back-to-back that afternoon.
His own age was very much on his mind. “I feel the pressure of being 80. I think, ‘How many more years before I’m senile, sick and drooling?’” he said. “That’s real. O.K.?”
He said he would keep focusing on climate change after he leaves the Statehouse in January, though he wasn’t sure exactly how. Ms. Nichols, who has worked with him for decades, said she wouldn’t be surprised if he used his influence to work with those working on the front lines of climate solutions. “He is not resting on his laurels or being the guardian of his own history, though he is a history-minded individual,” she said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/climate/jerry-brown-climate-change.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested