Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - May 9, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Us Tariff Escalation Could Have Greater Impact on Chemicals and Plastics
May 9, 2019 | ICIS
US President Donald Trump’s threat to raise tariffs on the latest batch of $200bn in Chinese imports from 10% to 25% on 10 May would hit a far broader range of chemicals and plastics than in prior rounds, magnifying the impact on the... -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S.-China Trade Talks Set to Begin as Threat of Higher Tariffs Loom
May 9, 2019 | Tire Business
By Miles Moore
The U.S. is prepared to go ahead with plans to raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of goods from China — including tires and other automotive components — to 25%, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Farmers, Industry Association Urge U.S. to Reach Deal With China
May 9, 2019 | Ecns.cn
American soybean farmers on Tuesday urged President Donald Trump not to push through with his tariff threat and quickly bring an end to the trade dispute with China. Davie Stephens, president of the American Soybean Association... -
China Hardens Trade Stance as Talks Enter New Phase
May 9, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Lingling Wei and Bob Davis
The new hard line taken by China in trade talks—surprising the White House and threatening to derail negotiations—came after Beijing interpreted recent statements and actions by President Trump as a sign the U.S. was ready to make... -
The Energy 202: Trump Administration Is Largely Following Through on Manufacturing Group's
May 9, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Early in President Trump’s term, a powerful group of manufacturers delivered to his deputies a “wish list” of regulations they wanted rewritten. Two years later, the Trump administration appears to have largely followed through... -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: Asbestos Ban Would Create a ‘Significant Shortage of Chlorine’
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The American Chemistry Council has registered its opposition to a bill that would impose an across-the-board ban on asbestos, arguing that such a step would leave chlor-alkali manufacturers without a viable alternative in the short term. -
EPA Ignored Advice from Staff Experts When Issuing New Asbestos
May 9, 2019 | Asbestos.com
By Matt Mauney
More than a dozen senior officials and experts at the Environmental Protection Agency urged the EPA to ban asbestos outright, a new report shows. Two internal memos obtained by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and... -
Asbestos: EPA Issues Final Rule on ‘Discontinued Uses’ as Agency Critics Push for Total Ban
May 9, 2019 | Safety + Health Magazine
The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a final rule on asbestos intended to keep manufacturers from reintroducing “discontinued uses” of the known human carcinogen into the market without EPA approval. -
Trump EPA Ignored Its Own Scientists' Calls to Ban Asbestos, 'Bombshell' Report Shows
May 9, 2019 | EcoWatch
By Jessica Corbett
In a report that elicited calls for congressional action, The New York Times revealed Wednesday that "senior officials at the Environmental Protection Agency disregarded the advice of their own scientists and lawyers in April when the... -
US EPA Round-Up
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
PMN receipts for February: The US EPA received 16 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in February and 36 amendments to past PMNs, according to an 8 May Federal Register notice. The manufacturer's identity was withheld as... -
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State: 'Nation's Strongest' Chemicals in Products Policy Becomes Law
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Washington Governor Jay Inslee has signed into law a "precedent-setting" measure to regulate the use of chemicals in products, which its supporters say is the strongest such policy in the nation. The Pollution Prevention for Our Future ... -
Sterilizer Panic Sends Medical Industry to Regulators for Aid
May 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ayanna Alexander
Medical companies don’t see alternatives to a cancer-causing sterilizer, so they hope federal regulators will allay lawmakers’ fears. A Willowbrook, Ill., facility that sterilized medical tools using ethylene oxide closed in February... -
US Congress Round-Up
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
PFAS drinking water bill: Congressman Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey) has introduced a bill providing financial assistance for removing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from drinking water. HR 2533 would amend the... -
California to Ban Controversial Pesticide, Citing Effects on Child Brain Development
May 8, 2019 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
California, one of the nation’s largest agricultural states, announced plans Wednesday to ban the widely used pesticide chlorpyrifos linked to neurological problems in infants and children even as federal regulators have allowed... -
Calif. Moves to Ban Chlorpyrifos
May 9, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California will seek to ban the controversial pesticide chlorpyrifos, citing evidence that even minimal exposure damages children's brains. The Golden State will seek to cancel registration of chlorpyrifos, a move that triggers... -
Blood Levels of Oxybenzone From Sunscreen Exceed US FDA Threshold
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Blood levels of active ingredients in sunscreen exceed a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) threshold for potentially waiving some toxicology studies, according to a "preliminary" study conducted by researchers at the federal... -
The Growing Impact (and Threat) of Green Chemistry Laws
May 9, 2019 | Manufacturing.net
By Dennis Raglin
Picture the domino falling. Washington State is poised to enact a set of “green chemistry” regulations similar to California’s. These types of regulations go well beyond federal chemical laws like Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)... -
Internal Documents Show 3M Hid PFAs Dangers for Decades
May 9, 2019 | Detroit Free Press
By Keith Matheny
A 3M environmental specialist, in a scathing resignation letter, accused company officials of being "unethical" and more "concerned with markets, legal defensibility and image over environmental safety" when it came to PFAS, the... -
Echa Round-Up
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
CLH consultations: Echa is requesting comments on the harmonised classification and labelling proposals for: 2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol: the Netherlands is proposing a future entry in Annex VI of CLP of reproductive toxicity 1B... -
Energy Department Won’t Deny Pending LNG Export Applications
May 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Energy Department doesn’t plan to deny any pending applications to export liquefied natural gas, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said. “As long as I’m still secretary of energy, we will not,” Perry says in response to a question from House... -
D.C. Circuit Tosses Challenge to FERC Approval of New Market Project
May 9, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Gavin Bade and Ben Lefebvre
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today dismissed a lawsuit against Dominion Energy’s New Market Project, ruling an environmental group did not have standing to challenge FERC’s climate change policy for natural gas projects. -
Mixed Bag of Comments for DOE Proposed Rule Change
May 9, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Philip Athey
The public comment period has ended for a Department of Energy rule that industry leaders welcome but critics worry is nothing more than an invitation by DOE to be sued. The proposed rule would change how the department sets... -
Group Wants Inquiry Into N.C. Legislator's Links to Duke
May 9, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Emery P. Dalesio
A clean energy advocacy group wants an investigation into whether a longtime North Carolina legislator violated ethics laws by pushing legislation sought by Duke Energy Corp. while his law firm did legal work for a gas pipeline project. -
As Washington State Bans Fracking, Sanders Calls for Nationwide Ban
May 9, 2019 | Truthout
By Jake Johnson
As Bernie Sanders called for a national ban on fracking due to the serious threat it poses to the climate, air quality, and water supply, Washington Governor and 2020 presidential candidate Jay Inslee won praise from environmental... -
Hazmat Agency Seeks Lithium Battery Industry Expertise (1)
May 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A federal agency is seeking people with expertise in the transportation and lithium battery manufacturing industries to reduce the chance of batteries exploding or catching fire while in transit. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety... -
House Spending Bill Would Bar Paris Withdrawal
May 9, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Anthony Adragna
A House spending bill released today would bar the U.S. from leaving the Paris climate accord and again permit federal contributions to the Green Climate Fund. Democrats also included language in the fiscal year 2020 House... -
House Democrats Try to Resume U.S. Backing of Green Climate Fund
May 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
House Democrats are taking the first steps toward resurrecting U.S. backing of a United Nations fund that helps developing nations cut their greenhouse gas emissions and address climate impacts. President Donald Trump has... -
Democrats Revive Paris Agreement, Green Climate Fund
May 9, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
House Democrats are looking to revive an idea from the climate proposal that passed the House last week in their State Department spending bill, offering a look at how they will attempt to tackle climate change in the appropriations... -
In Trump vs. California, the State Is Winning Nearly All Its Environmental Cases
May 9, 2019 | Governing
By Anna M. Phillips
More than two years into the Trump presidency, California has embraced its role as chief antagonist -- already suing the administration more times than Texas took President Obama to court during eight years in office. It's having an... -
Ewire: LCV Seeks to Intensify Focus on Climate in 2020
May 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
One top environmental group is seeking to further increase attention on climate change in the Democratic presidential primary, urging all of the candidates seeking to take on President Donald Trump in 2020 to publicly embrace “an...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Us Tariff Escalation Could Have Greater Impact on Chemicals and Plastics
May 9, 2019 | ICIS
US President Donald Trump’s threat to raise tariffs on the latest batch of $200bn in Chinese imports from 10% to 25% on 10 May would hit a far broader range of chemicals and plastics than in prior rounds, magnifying the impact on the US, Chinese and global economies.
The first US round of 25% tariffs on $34bn in Chinese imports implemented in July 2018 and China’s retaliatory tariffs did not include chemicals. However, US and China tariffs in round 2 on August 2018 and round 3 on September 2018 targeted chemicals directly.
The second round involved 25% tariffs on $16bn in US and Chinese imports, directly impacting $2.0bn of US chemicals and finished plastics exports to China, and $2.2bn of China’s exports to the US.
However, the third round of tariffs on both sides, which targeted $200bn in Chinese products and $60bn in US goods ratcheted up the impact on chemicals and finished plastics to $8.8bn on US exports, and $13.2bn on Chinese exports.
The mitigating factor was that the US planned 25% tariffs on this batch of $200bn in Chinese imports were taken down to 10%, while China’s planned 5-25% tariffs on $60bn in US imports were set to 5-10%. But now the US is threatening to take these rates on round 3 from 10% to 25% on 10 May.
25% TARIFF PROHIBITIVE
A tariff of 10% can be considered workable, but 25% is prohibitive. Take for example, US high density polyethylene (HDPE) and linear low density PE (LLDPE) exports to China that are under 25% tariffs in the second round.
Despite the fact that the US is adding big chunks of such PE capacity, and primarily for export, its exports to China - the number 1 PE deficit market - have plummeted. From October 2018 through February 2019, average monthly US exports of HDPE to China were down 58% to 10,611 tonnes versus the year-ago period, according to the ICIS Supply and Demand Database. For LLDPE, they were off 62% to 9,218 tonnes.
The US is instead stuffing channels in southeast Asia and Latin America, driving down prices. The US now sends far more LLDPE to Vietnam than to China - a stunning development.
PREPARE FOR RETALIATION
So it is worth revisiting which bulk commodity chemicals would be impacted if the US ratchets up tariffs from 10% to 25% on this third round of $200bn in Chinese imports, and if China in turn retaliates with higher tariffs on its third round.
For China, the bulk commodity chemicals most impacted in this escalation from a volume standpoint based on 2018 trade flows would be caustic soda, titanium dioxide (TiO2), acrylic acid, styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) and acetic acid.And anticipating a retaliatory response from China on its third round of tariffs on US imports, where current tariffs stand at 5-10%, the US bulk chemicals and polymers most impacted would be ethylene dichloride (EDC), polypropylene (PP), TiO2, n-butanol (NBA) butadiene (BD) and propylene glycol (PG).
Solely in bulk commodity chemicals and polymers, US exports to China were more heavily impacted in round two.
ACC SEES RISKS AS TOO HIGH
The latest escalation in the US-China trade war is a clear threat to the US chemical sector. The risks of higher tariffs are “simply too high”, said the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
“China supplies the United States with several chemicals which are not available anywhere else and which are critical inputs to US manufacturing. China is also the third-largest export market for US chemicals manufacturers,” pointed out Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the ACC.
The US and China tariffs are already “disrupting supply chains, cutting off markets and eroding US chemical manufacturing competitiveness”, he added.
In 2018, US chemical imports from China actually rose a robust 22.7% as companies stocked up inventories ahead of the tariffs, but US chemical exports to China gained only 2.7%, leading to a tripling of the US trade deficit in chemicals with China to $4.0bn, according to the ACC.
“The ACC and its members strongly urge President Trump to remain focused on sensible solutions with China this week and forgo the imposition of higher tariffs.”
CHEMICAL STOCK REACTION
US chemical equity prices took another big hit on Tuesday following Monday’s declines as investors started to weigh in the risks of no US-China trade deal, with notable declines for Chemours (-8.0%), DowDuPont (-4.4%), LyondellBasell (-2.3%), Westlake Chemical (-2.2%) and Huntsman (-2.0%).
However, in a positive scenario in which a trade deal is struck, chemical earnings and stock prices could surge, noted Charles Neivert, analyst at Cowen, in a 6 May report.
“We believe the Street is vastly underestimating the upside potential of a trade resolution on chemical company earnings, especially for Dow, LyondellBasell, Westlake and Olin,” said Neivert.
Export prices for US producers are far lower than they would have been without the trade issues. Plus, the export tonnage and the percentage of export sales has been rising, so this discounted product has had a greater negative impact on earnings, the analyst said.
A trade resolution should not only lead to higher export prices, which would apply to the larger export volumes, but also support domestic prices, he added.
“Based on our channel checks, the gap between the PE price to a mid-to-large size distributor versus an export seller is 15 cents/lb or more [versus a typical gap of 5-6 cents/lb],” said Neivert.
“A trade resolution could bring the gap back to near normal if product goes to China instead of being forced into other markets. The margin benefit to a producer selling 25% of its output to export could add 2-3 cents/lb to overall margin without having to initiate a price hike,” he added.
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/05/09/10361427/us-tariff-escalation-could-have-greater-impact-on-chemicals-and-plastics
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S.-China Trade Talks Set to Begin as Threat of Higher Tariffs Loom
May 9, 2019 | Tire Business
By Miles Moore
The U.S. is prepared to go ahead with plans to raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of goods from China — including tires and other automotive components — to 25%, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).
The agency's notice — which appears in the May 9 Federal Register — was published even as a Chinese delegation was en route to Washington to continue trade talks with the U.S.
The notice singles out all Chinese goods that received import duties of 10% in September 2018. The new tariffs are to take effect May 10.
The 194-page list, which covers 5,745 separate items, includes virtually every type of pneumatic tire; many rubber chemicals, synthetic rubbers and grades of natural rubber; and rubber auto and industrial parts including V-belts, conveyor belts, tubes, pipes and hoses.
In the notice, the USTR also said it would establish a process by which individuals and companies affected by the tariffs may request that particular products be excluded from the additional duties.
The Auto Care Association (ACA), National Retail Federation (NRF) and American Chemistry Council were among the business groups urging President Trump to reconsider raising tariffs.
On the other hand, the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) cheered Mr. Trump's stance against unfair Chinese trade practices. Retread Instead, a coalition of retreaders that promotes the economic and environmental advantages of retreading, said new tariffs would be helpful to retreaders, though not as much as the antidumping and countervailing duties levied against Chinese truck and bus tires earlier this year.
In two tweets May 5, Mr. Trump said he would institute the new tariffs, which he sanctioned last year under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. He also said he would place 25% tariffs on another $325 billion worth of Chinese goods, but the May 8 USTR notice did not mention that.
Section 301 allows the president to take remedial action against imports from countries that commit unfair trade practices against U.S. goods.
Mr. Trump originally planned to institute the 25% tariffs Jan. 1. He later moved the date to March 1, then finally postponed them indefinitely pending the results of trade talks with China.
However, on May 5 he said he believed the tariffs were working and should be raised.
"For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA of 25% on 50 Billion Dollars of High Tech, and 10% on 200 Billion Dollars of other goods," he wrote. "These payments are partially responsible for our great economic results."
Mr. Trump doubled down on his comments May 8, tweeting that his proposals to raise tariffs were having the desired effect on the Chinese:
"The reason for the China pullback & attempted renegotiation of the Trade Deal is the sincere HOPE that they will be able to 'negotiate' with Joe Biden or one of the very weak Democrats, and thereby continue to ripoff the United States ($500 Billion a year) for years to come.…"Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump
The reason for the China pullback & attempted renegotiation of the Trade Deal is the sincere HOPE that they will be able to “negotiate” with Joe Biden or one of the very weak Democrats, and thereby continue to ripoff the United States (($500 Billion a year)) for years to come....80.2K5:48 AM - May 8, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy27.7K people are talking about this
The ACA, which has opposed tariffs on Chinese goods from the beginning, issued a statement May 6 asking Mr. Trump to reconsider.
The organization said it supports the Trump administration's efforts to combat China's unfair trade practices but opposes the use of tariffs as a negotiating strategy.
"The proposed sudden increase from 10% to 25% would have an immediate negative impact no only on the U.S. businesses that manufacture and distribute these parts, but the motoring public who will see higher prices on a wide range of products," ACA President and CEO Bill Hanvey said.
David French, NRF senior vice president for government relations, said his organization also opposes tariffs.
"Tariffs are taxes paid for by American business and consumers, not by China," Mr. French said. He cited a recent report stating that the 25% tariffs would cost the U.S. 934,000 jobs, cost the average U.S. family $767 and reduce the Gross Domestic Product by 0.37 percent.
AAM Editorial Manager Matthew McMullan blogged on the AAM website May 8, agreeing with the administration's sentiments that the Chinese were "backsliding" on their commitment to resolve trade issues with the U.S.
"There's a lot of bipartisan support for the tough negotiation position the administration has taken," Mr. McMullan wrote. "So don't settle for selling soybeans, Mr. President!"
Clif Armstrong, president and CEO of Marangoni Tread North America, speaking on behalf of Retread Instead, noted that the new tariffs are over and above the countervailing and antidumping duties the International Trade Commission implemented in mid-February.
"While the Section 301 trade tariff moving form the current 10% to 25% will have a positive impact on making both non-Chinese-produced new tires and retreading as a whole more competitive, it will not have the same impact as the AD and CVD will have," Mr. Armstrong said.
Nevertheless, "anything that brings parity to the market that allows quality and cost per mile to be a determining factor versus simply single-use and low acquisition cost is welcome," he said.
The stock market reacted shakily to the news of the higher tariffs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, after dropping 473 points May 7, regained only 2.51 points May 8 to close at 25,967.33.
https://www.tirebusiness.com/government-law/us-china-trade-talks-set-begin-threat-higher-tariffs-loom
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Farmers, Industry Association Urge U.S. to Reach Deal With China
May 9, 2019 | Ecns.cn
American soybean farmers on Tuesday urged President Donald Trump not to push through with his tariff threat and quickly bring an end to the trade dispute with China.
Davie Stephens, president of the American Soybean Association (ASA), said in a statement that American soy farmers have found themselves in the crosshairs of Chinese countermeasures, and prolonging the battle will be even more damaging.
Trump on Sunday tweeted that he would hike tariffs on Chinese goods worth 200 billion U.S. dollars to 25 percent from 10 percent on Friday.
"Farmers are in a desperate situation. We need a positive resolution of this ongoing tariff dispute, not further escalation of tensions," the ASA statement said.
China is a key market for U.S. soybean exports, but last year sales plunged by about 75 percent year-on-year to just over three billion U.S. dollars.
Stephens said prices are already depressed, so "we need the China market reopened to U.S. soybean exports within weeks, not months or longer [...] before the 2019 harvest begins in September."
"The financial and emotional toll on U.S. soybean farmers cannot be ignored," he added.
The chemical industry is facing similar difficulties and also urged the White House to work fast.
"The risks of continuing to use tariffs as a negotiating tactic with China are simply too high – and any potential benefits still unclear," American Chemistry Council President Cal Dooley said in a statement on Monday.
"China supplies the United States with several chemicals which are not available anywhere else and which are critical inputs to U.S. manufacturing," he said.
Dooley noted that China is the third largest U.S. export market. He said that future growth for the chemical industry depends on a strong trading relationship with China and a trade policy that creates certainty and predictability for investors.
http://www.ecns.cn/news/economy/2019-05-09/detail-ifzicwaz7649289.shtml
-
China Hardens Trade Stance as Talks Enter New Phase
May 9, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Lingling Wei and Bob Davis
The new hard line taken by China in trade talks—surprising the White House and threatening to derail negotiations—came after Beijing interpreted recent statements and actions by President Trump as a sign the U.S. was ready to make concessions, said people familiar with the thinking of the Chinese side.
High-level negotiations are scheduled to resume Thursday in Washington, but the expectations and the stakes have changed significantly. A week ago, the assumption was that negotiators would be closing the deal. Now, they are trying to keep it from collapsing.
Adding to the pressure, the U.S. formally filed paperwork Wednesday to raise tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods to 25% from the current 10% at 12:01 a.m. Friday. Beijing’s Commerce Ministry responded by threatening to take unspecified countermeasures. At a campaign rally in Florida Wednesday night, Mr. Trump said Chinese leaders “broke the deal” in trade talks with the U.S.
In the current negotiations, the U.S. thought China agreed to detail the laws it would change to implement the trade deal under negotiation. Beijing said it had no intention of doing so, triggering Mr. Trump’s threat Sunday to escalate tariffs and bringing the dispute into the open.
The hardened battle lines were prompted by Beijing’s decision to take a more aggressive stance in negotiations, according to the people following the talks. They said Beijing was emboldened by the perception that the U.S. was ready to compromise.
In particular, these people said, Mr. Trump’s hectoring of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to cut interest rates was seen in Beijing as evidence that the president thought the U.S. economy was more fragile than he claimed.
Beijing was further encouraged by Mr. Trump’s frequent claim of friendship with Chinese President Xi Jinping and by Mr. Trump’s praise for Chinese Vice Premier Liu He for pledging to buy more U.S. soybeans.
An April 30 tweet, in which Mr. Trump coupled criticism of Mr. Powell with praise of Chinese economic policy, especially caught the eye of senior officials. “China is adding great stimulus to its economy while at the same time keeping interest rates low,” Mr. Trump tweeted. “Our Federal Reserve has incessantly lifted interest rates.”
“Why would you be constantly asking the Fed to lower rates if your economy is not turning weak,” said Mei Xinyu, an analyst at a think tank affiliated with China’s Commerce Ministry. If the U.S.’s resolve was weakening, the thinking in Beijing went, the U.S. would be more willing to cut a deal, even if Beijing hardened its positions.
That assessment, however, flies in the face of a strong U.S. economy. Gross domestic product in the first quarter rebounded from the end of 2018, with growth clocking in at a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 3.2%, up from 2.2% the prior quarter. The jobs report for April, released on Friday, showed the unemployment rate falling to 3.6%, the lowest in nearly 50 years.
Obstacles remain for President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to sign a trade agreement.
But at the same time, China’s economy has stabilized this year following months of weakness. Although China’s exports dropped unexpectedly in April, its first-quarter growth came in at 6.4%, beating market expectations. The generally improving economic picture gave Beijing more confidence in trade talks, as did a recent conference on the country’s vast infrastructure-spending program, called the Belt and Road Initiative, which was attended by about 40 heads of government and state.
Chinese leaders saw the conference turnout “as China has more leverage to improve relations with other countries and with the U.S. business community,” said Brookings Institution China specialist Cheng Li. “It made them play hardball.”
If China misread the signals—and vice versa—it wouldn’t be the first time.
The history of U.S.-China trade negotiations is filled with misunderstandings, as the two nations, with very different political systems, struggle to figure out each other’s intentions.
When China was negotiating to join the World Trade Organization in the late 1990s, for instance, China’s premier visited Washington mistakenly expecting then-President Clinton to approve a deal. At the end of negotiations in Beijing, then-U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky walked out on the talks, convinced that Beijing was jerking her around, only to come back and finish the deal.
“China has often pushed back on specific commitments during the negotiations,” said Clete Willems, who recently left as White House trade negotiator to take a job at the law firm of Akin Gump. “These are difficult things to undertake, but critical to a successful outcome.”
In addition to the tariff increase slated for Friday, Mr. Trump has also said he plans to “shortly” levy new 25% tariffs on $325 billion of Chinese goods, a move that would widely affect consumer goods.
The aggressive U.S. response initially cast doubt on a trip by Mr. Liu to Washington this week. Mr. Liu is now scheduled to lead talks beginning Thursday, a day later than originally planned. He is scheduled to have a one-on-one dinner with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer Thursday.
Unlike prior visits, Mr. Liu wasn’t given the title of Mr. Xi’s “special envoy,” suggesting that he doesn’t have the power to make significant compromises. The Chinese delegation has also been slimmed down from the 100-plus team originally planned, although the entourage will also include Commerce Vice Minister Wang Shouwen and Finance Vice Minister Liao Min.
In another apparent sign of mixed signals, Trump administration officials had thought they had made it clear that they were weary of negotiations and that it was time for Beijing to make specific commitments to change laws, including adding protections for intellectual property and barring the forced transfer of U.S. technology.
Comments last week by Mick Mulvaney, the president’s acting chief of staff, were supposed to drill home that notion. The talks “won’t go on forever,” he said in Los Angeles. “At some point in any negotiation you go, ‘We’re close to getting something done so we’re going to keep going.’ On the other hand, at some point you throw up your hands and say, ‘This is never going anywhere.’”
But at the same conference, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin sent the opposite signal, saying the talks were “getting into the final laps.”
As talks resume Thursday, one big question mark is whether China will agree to U.S. demands for changes in Chinese law to implement the trade deal. Beijing maintains this would impinge on Chinese sovereignty and take too long to implement, but Beijing had made similar commitments in prior trade deals, including those it signed to join the WTO in 2001.
U.S. officials say Beijing has failed to make good on those commitments, while China has promised to further liberalize its economy.
“The U.S. is correct to seek a multiprong approach of not relying solely on commitments but also actually changes to the laws, so as to ensure Chinese leadership intentions are fully conveyed down to all local levels of government,” said Harvard Law Professor Mark Wu.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-china-decided-to-play-hardball-in-trade-talks-11557358715?mod=hp_lead_pos2
-
The Energy 202: Trump Administration Is Largely Following Through on Manufacturing Group's
May 9, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Early in President Trump’s term, a powerful group of manufacturers delivered to his deputies a “wish list” of regulations they wanted rewritten.
Two years later, the Trump administration appears to have largely followed through on those requests, according to a new report.
An analysis from Public Citizen, a left-leaning nonprofit consumer rights advocacy group, examined how various government agencies have responded to the 132 requests that the group, the National Association of Manufacturers, submitted to the Trump administration about two months into his presidency.
Public Citizen found just 71 of those requests seemed to actually line up with major government rules on which the Trump administration could take action. Of those, government agencies — such as the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department — moved to modifiy, delay or get rid of 60 of them during Trump's time in office. That's about 85 percent.
Matt Kent, a regulatory policy associate at Public Citizen who wrote the report, said his work “is strong evidence that our government agencies are working for the corporations they are supposed to be regulating instead of working to protect the public.”
When reached for comment, Ross Eisenberg, NAM’s vice president for energy and resources, conceded that “there’s no denying that we’ve been effective advocates for our members and have had a great partner in the Trump administration.”
But he added that in virtually every instance the association has asked the administration to reconsider a rule, it has also asked for a replacement. “What too often gets lost in this conversation is that we aren’t simply saying 'no' to regulation — what we are pushing for is smarter, better regulation,” he said.
Among the lobbying group’s priorities when Trump first took office, according to the March 2017 list, was reversing the decline in coal-fired power, which could raise energy costs for manufactuers.
So it asked the Trump administration to lift a moratorium on coal-mining leases on federal lands and rewrite the Obama-era Clean Power Plan meant to reduce heat-trapping emissions from coal power plants.
By 2018, the administration had fulfilled both of those requests.
Those regulatory changes also included the EPA endorsing the scientifically contentious idea that the burning of wood for energy is “carbon neutral” and the White House withdrawing guidance directing federal agencies to consider climate-change impacts in legally mandated environmental reviews of construction projects.
NAM submitted its “wish list” at the request of the Commerce Department, which had asked the public for suggestions to reduce regulatory burdens on manufacturers.
The association’s roster of members, which with 14,000 includes manufacturers of all sizes, spans economic sectors to include the machinery manufacturer Caterpillar, the tire company Goodyear, the carmaker Toyota, the pharmaceutical firm Merck, chip maker Intel and electronics giant Samsung, as well as the energy firms Southern Co., Devon Energy, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil.
In Trump’s Washington, NAM has emerged as an influential player in helping to shape both the regulations its members face and also the president’s image as job creator-in-chief.
NAM gave Trump a platform to speak at its annual meeting toward the end of 2017 at the same time the lobbying group was pushing members of Congress on the president's biggest agenda item at the time: passing a package of tax cuts.
NAM, of course, is not the only lobbying group with the administration’s ear. Others, such as the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute, asked for many of the same regulatory rollbacks that NAM has.
But Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen, said the NAM list is a useful “proxy” for understanding how industry in general has influenced regulators over the past two years.
“Given just how broad-based the push to deregulate has been,” Narang said, “we think that this NAM report is one of the best proxies in terms of demonstrating that corporate and special interests are both driving and benefiting from the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda.”
Oftentimes, those different lobbying groups would work together.
In June 2018, for example, while meeting at NAM, an API representative discussed with Andrew Wheeler, then the Environmental Protection Agency’s deputy administrator, an item on the NAM priority list from a year before: a reconsideration of Obama-era emission standards on new oil and gas wells.
Staffers for both Wheeler, who eventually become the EPA’s top official, and his predecessor in that job, Scott Pruitt, were in frequent contact with NAM lobbyists, according to emails released to the Sierra Club under the Freedom of Information Act.
When reached for comment, EPA spokesperson James Hewitt said the agency “has met with a diverse range of stakeholder groups” over the past two years.
Unlike the previous administration, he added, “we find engagement crucial in helping craft lawful, responsible regulations that protect our environment and our economy.”
A good chunk of the manufacturers’ requests — 61 of 132 — were too vague or inconsequential to be associated with a major regulatory action that the Trump administration could take, according to Public Citizen.
And there are another 11 specific requests that the Trump administration did not take action on — or even, at times, took action counter to the wishes.
Immigration was one of those issues. For example, NAM has asked — to no avail so far — that the spouses of highly-skilled H-1B visa holders be allowed to work in the United States as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/05/09/the-energy-202-trump-administration-is-largely-following-through-on-manufacturing-group-s-wish-list/5cd30829a7a0a46cfe152c95/?utm_term=.b90d11c96cf3
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: Asbestos Ban Would Create a ‘Significant Shortage of Chlorine’
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The American Chemistry Council has registered its opposition to a bill that would impose an across-the-board ban on asbestos, arguing that such a step would leave chlor-alkali manufacturers without a viable alternative in the short term.
The trade group’s comments came in an 8 May hearing before the House’s Environment and Climate subcommittee, during which lawmakers heard testimony on the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act (HR 1603).
Introduced in March, the measure seeks to amend TSCA to prohibit the manufacture, processing and distribution of asbestos in all forms. The ban would take effect one year after the law’s enactment.
But testifying before the subcommittee, Mike Walls, ACC vice president of regulatory and technical affairs, said this timeline is problematic for chlor-alkali manufacturers, which rely on asbestos in the production of chlorine.
"We certainly know that there are alternatives to asbestos diaphragm cells. But there are no drop-in replacements for those uses," said Mr Walls.
"We are talking about a transition time that is significant, that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars," he continued. "[The bill] would essentially create a significant shortage of chlorine in the US market."
However, consumer and worker advocates told lawmakers that a ban is needed now.
"There is no safe level of asbestos exposure or no such thing as the controlled use of asbestos," said Linda Reinstein, president and cofounder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. "Only a comprehensive and rapid elimination of all asbestos from US commerce will fully protect public health."
TSCA evaluation
Consideration of the bill comes even while the EPA is reviewing the limited and still ongoing uses of asbestos via the TSCA risk assessment process.
Aside from the asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry, these include sheet gaskets for use in chemical production, brake blocks used in oil drilling equipment and certain aftermarket automotive parts.
Alexandra Dunn, head of the agency’s toxics programme, testified before the subcommittee that the EPA is "on track" to finalise the evaluation by its December deadline. If that finds that the substance’s ongoing use presents unreasonable risks to human health or the environment, it will then have one year to propose a rule addressing those risks, and an additional year to finalise it.
Asked whether a potential ban would be difficult for the agency to manage, Ms Dunn said: "If under TSCA we reach a conclusion that there is an unreasonable risk presented under the conditions of use, and that a ban is the only way that those risks could be mitigated, EPA would have the capability to manage that process."
She did not discuss how or if the agency would manage the shorter timeline imposed by HR 1603. The EPA does not have a formal position on the bill. Risk management under TSCA
Under TSCA, any potential restriction or ban on ongoing uses would likely be promulgated by December 2021, said Ms Dunn, though there is an option for a six-month extension.
But while the statute requires the EPA take risk management actions for substances it determines pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, it also calls for it to set "an appropriate transition time" when implementing a prohibition or ban that will substantially prevent a specific condition of use.
And it must consider whether "technically and economically feasible alternatives that benefit the environment ... will be reasonably available as a substitute when the proposed prohibition or other restriction takes effect" as part of the section 6(a) rulemaking process.
Representative Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), meanwhile, cited concerns about the scope of the EPA’s TSCA review of the substance, and what that would mean for any subsequent risk management action.
"I’m concerned that you’ve excluded relevant cancers, relevant forms of asbestos, significant exposure pathways, and I think you’re failing to meet the letter and the spirit of the law by failing to evaluate firefighters as a relevant disproportionately exposed subpopulation," he told Ms Dunn.
"I don’t think your actions implementing TSCA comport with the law. I don’t think you’re moving toward a ban," he said in articulating his rationale for supporting the bill.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77380/acc-asbestos-ban-would-create-a-significant-shortage-of-chlorine?q=%E2%80%9CAmerican+Chemistry+Council%E2%80%9D
-
EPA Ignored Advice from Staff Experts When Issuing New Asbestos
May 9, 2019 | Asbestos.com
By Matt Mauney
More than a dozen senior officials and experts at the Environmental Protection Agency urged the EPA to ban asbestos outright, a new report shows.
Two internal memos obtained by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and shared with the New York Times reveal the EPA’s own scientists and lawyers advised the agency to issue a complete ban of asbestos instead of the recent regulations that only restricted its domestic use.
In the memos, dated Aug. 10, 2018, EPA staff members wrote that the agency “should seek to ban all new uses of asbestos because the extreme harm from this chemical substance outweighs any benefit.”
Asbestos is a known carcinogen. Exposure to microscopic asbestos fibers can cause malignant mesothelioma and other serious diseases.
The memos also noted there are adequate alternatives to asbestos.
In April, the EPA issued a new regulation that requires agency approval before importing most asbestos products.
The rule was a tougher take on the EPA’s originally proposed Significant New Use Rule, but the internal memos reveal experts within the agency feel it doesn’t go far enough.
“Given the significant number of asbestos sites that EPA has to clean up due to improper disposal or abandonment, opening the door to new uses of asbestos is not an economically-wise or health-protective idea,” the memos said.
Experts Question EPA’s Review Process
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the rule gives regulators “unprecedented authorities” to prohibit asbestos products from entering or re-entering the U.S. market.
“Prior to this new rule, EPA did not have the ability to prevent or restrict certain asbestos products from being reintroduced into the market,” Wheeler said in a statement.
Alexandra Dunn, the EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, said the rule gave the agency the power to “close the door” on certain asbestos products and uses.
The rule requires products such as asbestos vinyl floor tiles, insulation, cement products and roofing felt to get agency approval before they can be imported, produced or sold in the United States.
But the memos show in-house experts at the EPA consider the agency’s review process seriously flawed. Experts criticized the agency’s outdated classification of six types of asbestos, noting that the Toxic Substances Control Act was established more than 30 years ago when the EPA lacked knowledge about additional types of asbestos fibers.
“Given the current state of knowledge, relying on the decades old AHERA/TSCA definition will potentially limit the notifications that EPA receives for significant new uses of asbestos,” the memos said. “All currently known fiber types should be included in the definition of asbestos so that EPA will be assured of receiving notifications and associated information about significant new uses for any asbestos.”
EPA experts also noted that legacy uses of asbestos still pose a threat to public health, noting that “exposure to older uses of asbestos is just as dangerous as exposure to newer uses.”
Homes, schools, churches and other buildings built before 1990 likely still contain asbestos products.
“Regulated industries contact EPA when they have been surprised to find out that their buildings and other facilities were constructed with asbestos, when they had been assuming asbestos had been banned a long time before,” the staff members wrote. “If asbestos was banned, then these surprises would not continue to take place.”
Review of Asbestos Due in December
The U.S. remains one of the only industrialized nations in the world without a comprehensive ban on asbestos. The last asbestos mine in the U.S. closed in 2002, but asbestos-containing products such as sheet gaskets and aftermarket automotive brakes continue to cross American borders.
A congressionally mandated risk evaluation of asbestos is due by December. The results of that review, as part of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, will shape the future of asbestos in the United States.
More than 60 countries have banned the import, export and all uses of the toxic mineral, including the entire European Union, Australia, Japan and Canada.
Brazil, which for years supplied the U.S. with most of its chrysotile asbestos, voted for a ban in November 2017.
The U.S. imported 750 tons of raw asbestos in 2018, according to the U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries report. All of it was used by the chloralkali industry, which manufactures semipermeable diaphragms to make chlorine.
Asbestos exposure of any kind can lead to serious health conditions. In the memos, EPA staff members criticized the agency’s review for considering only lung cancer and mesothelioma as possible harmful effects of asbestos exposure.
“There are other significant lethal and non-lethal harms from asbestos exposures, including asbestosis and other respiratory ailments, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and cancers of the stomach, esophagus, larynx and pharynx,” they wrote. “These additional harms should be included if there is to be a comprehensive evaluation of the risks from exposure to asbestos.”
https://www.asbestos.com/news/2019/05/08/epa-ignores-experts-asbestos-ban/
-
Asbestos: EPA Issues Final Rule on ‘Discontinued Uses’ as Agency Critics Push for Total Ban
May 9, 2019 | Safety + Health Magazine
The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a final rule on asbestos intended to keep manufacturers from reintroducing “discontinued uses” of the known human carcinogen into the market without EPA approval.
The significant new use rule, published in the April 25 Federal Register and set to go into effect June 24, would initiate a review process requiring EPA approval for entities seeking to start or resume uses that include – but are not limited to – adhesives, sealants, and roof and non-roof coatings; arc chutes; millboard; reinforced plastics; roofing felt; and vinyl-asbestos floor tile.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer links asbestos exposure to lung cancer and mesothelioma – a rare cancer that affects the body’s tissue, usually in the linings of the chest, lungs or abdomen – among other health problems.
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization is one of the groups opposing the rule. In an April 17 press release, organization President Linda Reinstein calls the rule “toothless” and “deeply disappointing,” citing data that links asbestos to nearly 40,000 deaths in the United States each year.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) has urged EPA to ban asbestos completely. Legislation renewing the call for a ban – named for Reinstein’s late husband, Alan, who died from mesothelioma in 2006 – was introduced in both the House and Senate in March.Sign up for Safety+Health's free monthly email newsletters and get the news that's important to you.
Asbestos is among the first 10 chemicals undergoing evaluation for potential health and environmental risks under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
EPA states that the rule doesn’t impact the prohibited uses of asbestos covered in a 1989 partial ban.
https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/18386-asbestos-epa-issues-final-rule-on-discontinued-uses-as-agency-critics-push-for-total-ban
-
Trump EPA Ignored Its Own Scientists' Calls to Ban Asbestos, 'Bombshell' Report Shows
May 9, 2019 | EcoWatch
By Jessica Corbett
In a report that elicited calls for congressional action, The New York Times revealed Wednesday that "senior officials at the Environmental Protection Agency disregarded the advice of their own scientists and lawyers in April when the agency issued a rule that restricted but did not ban asbestos."
Asbestos is a group of fibrous, heat-resistant minerals used in manufactured goods, particularly building materials. According to the World Health Organization, "All types of asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx and ovary, and asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs)."
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement last month that the agency's new rule "gives us unprecedented authorities to protect public health" and block certain products from the market. However, environmental and public health advocates raised concerns at the time about loopholes that remain, with one critic calling the regulation "toothless."
Criticism of the rule resurfaced Wednesday when the Times reported on a pair of internal EPA memos from last August, in which more than a dozen agency experts wrote:Rather than allow for (even with restrictions) any new uses for asbestos, EPA should seek to ban all new uses of asbestos because the extreme harm from this chemical substance outweighs any benefit — and because there are adequate alternatives to asbestos.
Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), was among those who demanded action from federal lawmakers following the "bombshell" report.
"The sheer number of lives cut short and families destroyed from asbestos exposure demand nothing less than an outright ban," Benesh said in a statement. "I can't think of an easier vote for members of Congress to cast than for a bill that bans a substance responsible for the deaths of so many."
The reporting came as a subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing Wednesday morning to consider legislation that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) "to prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of asbestos and asbestos-containing mixtures and articles."
"If Administrator Wheeler and the Trump administration won't act," said Benesh, "then Congress must by passing this critical piece of legislation that finally bans asbestos."
Sharing a link to the Times article on Twitter, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), the committee's chairman, said, "This is exactly why we need to ban asbestos and why my committee is holding a hearing today on legislation that would fully ban this toxic material."
During the committee hearing, Pallone noted that it has been 40 years since the EPA started its work to ban asbestos under the TSCA, 30 years since the agency finalized its ban, and 28 years since the ban was struck down in court — and yet, "asbestos is still being imported into the United States, it is still being used in this country, and it is still killing about 40,000 Americans every year."
"Twenty-eight years of frustration, of sickness, and loss," he said. "We have known the dangers of asbestos for decades. Enough is enough."
The hearing centered on H.R. 1603 — also known as the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2019. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), the bill's sponsor, took to Twitter Wednesday to highlight a testimony from the widow of the legislation's namesake.
After Alan Reinstein was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2003, Linda Reinstein and Doug Larkin co-founded the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO). Alan Reinstein and Larkin both died in the years that followed, but Linda Reinstein remains ADAO's president and CEO.
"I'm honored to have H.R. 1603 named after my husband," Linda Reinstein told lawmakers Wednesday, "but it's really for the hundreds of thousands of Alans who have paid a price for this man-made disaster with their lives."
https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-asbestos-ban-2636681458.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
-
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
PMN receipts for February
The US EPA received 16 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in February and 36 amendments to past PMNs, according to an 8 May Federal Register notice. The manufacturer's identity was withheld as confidential business information (CBI) on 30 of these submissions.
The agency also stated that in February it received: one significant new use notification (Snun) and amendments to two previously submitted Snuns; twenty-five notices of commencement (NOCs); and test data in support of 16 PMNs.
Section 5 of TSCA requires notification when any person intends to manufacture or import a chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, either for the first time (PMN) or for a 'significant new use', for substances subject to a significant new use rule (Snur). Submitters must provide the EPA with the appropriate information before initiating the activity; the agency reviews those notices, evaluates risk and takes appropriate action.
Under 2016 updates to TSCA, the EPA must publish a list of these submissions monthly.
Update to chemical dashboard
The agency has updated its online Computational Toxicology (CompTox) Chemical Dashboard as part of its effort to "ensure informed chemical safety decisions".
The CompTox dashboard includes chemistry, toxicity, exposure and bioactivity data collected from several agency programmes.The latest version adds 110,000 chemicals and associated data, bringing the database’s total to 875,000 substances.
It also includes interface changes aimed at improving navigation of data, such as a batch search mode to allow users to search for thousands of chemicals at once.
The CompTox dashboard was developed three years ago in an effort to consolidate data scattered across several other web applications, such as the ToxCast or Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program dashboards. With that information now housed in a single place, there are plans to shut down the older platforms later this summer.
IRIS methylmercury science meeting
The EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System programme has released a preliminary agenda for the 15 May public science meeting focussed on the methylmercury IRIS assessment plan (IAP).
An IAP sets out the approach for assessing a substance, including summary information of the scoping and initial problem formulation, assessment objectives and the evidence considered most pertinent to the review.
The purpose of the public meeting, which will be webcast, is to improve or clarify the IAP for methylmercury.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77379/us-epa-round-up
-
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State: 'Nation's Strongest' Chemicals in Products Policy Becomes Law
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Washington Governor Jay Inslee has signed into law a "precedent-setting" measure to regulate the use of chemicals in products, which its supporters say is the strongest such policy in the nation.
The Pollution Prevention for Our Future Act (SB 5135) will require the state’s Department of Ecology to act on products containing high-concern chemicals, including PFASs, phthalates, flame retardants, phenolic compounds and PCBs.
Regulatory actions the department may take to "increase transparency and reduce the use" of these substances include notification or ingredient disclosure requirements, as well as restrictions or prohibitions when feasible alternatives are available.
Governor Inslee signed the legislation on 8 May as part of a package of five bills, aimed at protecting the area’s endangered Southern Resident orca whales. The measures were introduced following a set of recommendations last year from a taskforce organised to address the waning killer whale population.
"By signing these bills, we are investing in one of our most iconic Pacific Northwest animals," said Mr Inslee. "The orcas are part of our identity as Washingtonians and we’ve gotten one step closer in protecting them."
The act sets in motion a series of deadlines, including a requirement for the Department of Ecology to identify its first set of priority products by 1 June 2020.
A variety of criteria must be considered when identifying these products, defined as those that are "a significant source of, or use of, priority chemicals".
This includes: the estimated volume of a concerning chemical present in a product; how widely the product is sold or used; potential exposure by sensitive populations or species during the product’s use, disposal or decomposition; and if another state has acted on such a product, or if it has been identified in a Washington chemical action plan (CAP).
Regulations to address the first set of priority products are due to be adopted by June 2023.
'Leading the nation'
Laurie Valeriano, executive director of NGO Toxic-Free Future, commended the state for "leading the nation with this new law that tackles classes of chemicals, like PFAS, ending the chemical-by-chemical approach that does not solve the problem."
"The state has studied these chemicals long enough, as part of their existing toxics reduction programme, and now it’s time for action," Ms Valeriano added.
The organisation has urged the state Departments of Ecology and Health to move swiftly to implement the new law and to take action on chemicals of concern.
Mike Schade, director of the Mind the Store campaign at Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, added that large retailers should "get out in front of this law" by prioritising for reduction and elimination the chemical classes named in it.
But the American Chemistry Council remains opposed to the measure, which it says presumes that the presence of a chemical means a product can be harmful.
"ACC believes that regulatory action on products should be based on the best available science and incorporate an understanding of both the inherent hazards and the likelihood of adverse health or ecological effects that may occur, based on an identified level of exposure," it told Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77370/washington-state-nations-strongest-chemicals-in-products-policy-becomes-law?q=%E2%80%9CAmerican+Chemistry+Council%E2%80%9D
-
Sterilizer Panic Sends Medical Industry to Regulators for Aid
May 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ayanna Alexander
Medical companies don’t see alternatives to a cancer-causing sterilizer, so they hope federal regulators will allay lawmakers’ fears.
A Willowbrook, Ill., facility that sterilized medical tools using ethylene oxide closed in February following public outrage over its elevated air emissions. Ethylene oxide, or EtO, is a colorless, odorless gas that the EPA labeled a carcinogen.
More than half of all medical supplies are disinfected with ethylene oxide, and without viable alternatives the medical industry wants regulators to explain just how dire the consequences could be.
The Advanced Medical Technology Association, a medical device trade group, plans to poll its members and then submit information on how the device sterilization process works to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, spokesman Greg Crist said. Alternatives include gamma radiation or e-beam sterilization, which bathes devises in electrons. However, those processes don’t work for every medical device.
“We’re asking members what percentages do you sterilize with gamma or EtO or other forms of sterilization and make that information available to the EPA, so they can better understand it’s role in the device industry,” Crist said.
Democrats who represent Illinois in Congress—Sens. Tammy Duckworth and Richard Durbin and Reps. Sean Casten, Bill Foster, Dan Lipinski, and Brad Schneider—have all raised concerns about the dangers of ethylene oxide.
Pediatric breathing tubes from Smiths Medical, a major Sterigenics customer, are already running short. Viant Medical Inc., a Michigan-based sterilizer that also uses ethylene oxide, will shut its doors later this year, which could exacerbate problems.
Sterigenics and Viant Medical clean more than 600 medical products, according to the FDA, which warned the closures could cause device shortages nationwide.
There could be a domino effect within the manufacturing process and the supply side if ethylene oxide isn’t better understood, Crist said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/sterilizer-panic-sends-medical-industry-to-regulators-for-aid
-
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
PFAS drinking water bill
Congressman Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey) has introduced a bill providing financial assistance for removing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from drinking water.
HR 2533 would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the EPA to establish a grant programme to upgrade water infrastructure in the US with treatment technology to remove the substances. The bill would take effect within 180 days of enactment.
House environment committee hearing on PFAS
The House of Representatives Environment and Climate Change subcommittee will house a hearing reviewing a series of bills addressing PFAS contamination.
It will take place at 10:30am EDT on 15 May, in Washington, DC.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77382/us-congress-round-up
-
California to Ban Controversial Pesticide, Citing Effects on Child Brain Development
May 8, 2019 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
California, one of the nation’s largest agricultural states, announced plans Wednesday to ban the widely used pesticide chlorpyrifos linked to neurological problems in infants and children even as federal regulators have allowed the product to remain on the market.
State health officials said their decision came amid growing evidence that the pesticide, which is used on crops such as oranges, grapes and almonds, “causes serious health effects in children and other sensitive populations at lower levels of exposure than previously understood.” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) also has proposed $5.7 million to support the transition to “safer, more sustainable alternatives,” according to the California Environmental Protection Agency.
The ban, which is expected to take six months to two years to take full effect, comes as other states have started taking similar action. Last year, Hawaii became the first state to ban pesticides containing chlorpyrifos, though that will not take effect until 2022. New York lawmakers recently approved legislation to ban the pesticide by Dec. 1, 2021. Oregon, Connecticut and New Jersey also have bills to take chlorpyrifos off the market.
Environmental groups were quick to praise California’s decision, calling it a major win for public health that would help protect children, farmworkers and wildlife affected by the pesticide.
“Gov. Newsom has done what the Trump administration has refused to do: protect children, farmworkers and millions of others from being exposed to this neurotoxic pesticide,” Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, said in a statement. “With the governor’s action, California is once again showing leadership in protecting public health.”
DowDuPont, which manufactures chlorpyrifos and has insisted the chemical is safe for its intended uses, vowed Wednesday to fight California’s ban, saying it would “remove an important tool for farmers and undermines the highly effective system for regulating pesticides that has been in place at the federal level and in the state of California for decades.”
“This proposal disregards a robust database of more than 4,000 studies and reports examining the product in terms of health, safety and the environment,” company spokesman Gregg Schmidt said in an email. “We are evaluating all options to challenge this proposal.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that between 5 million and 8 million pounds of chlorpyrifos is applied nationwide. Although farmers in California have scaled back their annual application from 2 million pounds in 2005 to 900,000 pounds in 2016, it still makes the state the nation’s top user.
Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a phone interview that agricultural activists and environmentalists had spent more than a dozen years working to take chlorpyrifos off the market in California.
“It is groundbreaking,” she said of California’s move. “The states can chip away at this, and California’s a big part of the puzzle. Ultimately, though, we are going to need that federal ban to ensure protection for everybody.”
Chlorpyrifos has been used by farmers for decades to kill pests on crops. The EPA long ago banned its spraying indoors to combat household bugs, but only in recent years did the agency seek to end its use in agriculture, after mounting scientific evidence that prenatal exposure can pose risks to fetal brain and nervous-system development.
In 2015, under President Barack Obama, the EPA proposed revoking all uses of chlorpyrifos on food crops. That move came in response to a petition filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America. A federal judge had given the EPA until late March 2017 to decide whether to finalize its ban.
Facing a time crunch, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to scrap the proposed ban, saying he wanted to provide “regulatory certainty” to farms that relied on the pesticide. He also noted that the Agriculture Department had raised concerns about the methodology EPA scientists had used in determining that chlorpyrifos posed serious health risks.
Sheryl Kunickis, director of the Office of Pest Management Policy at the USDA, agreed with the decision at the time, saying it would allow “this important pest management tool [to] remain available to growers, helping to ensure an abundant and affordable food supply for this nation and the world.”
The chemical industry also has resisted a ban. Dow AgroSciences, which manufactures the pesticide, said in late 2016 that the Obama administration’s assessment of its safety “lacks scientific rigor.” The company added that it “remains confident that authorized uses of chlorpyrifos products, as directed, offer wide margins of protection for human health and safety.”
In August, a federal appeals court ordered the EPA to ban chlorpyrifos, saying in a 2-to-1 decision that the law requires the agency to act if it finds that exposure to a pesticide used on food can cause harm.
Judge Jed S. Rakoff, writing for the majority, said that over the past two decades, agency scientists had documented the possible adverse effects of chlorpyrifos on the mental and physical development of infants and children. He said the EPA “stalled” for years in banning the chemical and accused the agency of “utter failure” in responding to objections over Pruitt’s decisions to allow continued use of the pesticide.
“The time has come to put a stop to this patent evasion,” Rakoff wrote at the time.
The Department of Justice later asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to reconsider the opinion. A panel of 11 judges reheard oral arguments earlier this year. Last month, the court gave the EPA three months to justify the agricultural use of chlorpyrifos.
EPA spokesman Michael Abboud said in a phone interview that the agency “is currently reevaluating chlorpyrifos” as part of a regular pesticide review process mandated by Congress.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/05/08/california-ban-controversial-pesticide-citing-effect-child-brain-development/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1063cdf97ee6
-
Calif. Moves to Ban Chlorpyrifos
May 9, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California will seek to ban the controversial pesticide chlorpyrifos, citing evidence that even minimal exposure damages children's brains.
The Golden State will seek to cancel registration of chlorpyrifos, a move that triggers hearings before an administrative law judge. The process could take as long as two years, but, if successful, would bar use of the pesticide in the state.
That would have wide-reaching effects, as California produces half of all the nuts, fruits and vegetables used across the nation. Chlorpyrifos is used on crops that include alfalfa, almonds, cotton, grapes, walnuts and sweet potatoes.
California also announced it will spend $5.7 million to develop "safer, more sustainable alternatives" to chlorpyrifos. California's EPA and its Department of Food and Agriculture will convene a working group to identify, evaluate and recommend options for pest control on food crops.
"We are sending a message that we can reach this balance between worker and community health and a thriving agricultural sector, and that's the path that we're going down," California EPA Secretary Jared Blumenfeld said in an interview.
Blumenfeld, a former U.S. EPA official appointed to the California post this year, said he and new Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) made eliminating the pesticide a priority.
"Literally the first week in office [Newsom] wanted us to do comprehensive review of the legal and scientific status of where we are with chlorpyrifos," Blumenfeld said. "That helped us move toward today's cancellation notice."
It takes place as the federal EPA attempts a far softer stance on chlorpyrifos. The Trump administration halted the Obama EPA's plan to ban the pesticide nationwide. Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California, citing health concerns, ordered EPA to reverse that decision and effectively block use of chlorpyrifos. The Trump administration appealed the ruling (Greenwire, Feb. 7).
Last month, the appellate court gave EPA 90 days to respond to those objecting to continued federal approval of chlorpyrifos. It ordered EPA to finish its review of comments filed by environmentalists, farmworkers' groups and others (Greenwire, April 19).
The Trump administration's move added to California's push to cancel chlorpyrifos, Blumenfeld said. He said he hoped California's research on the pesticide and its plan for cancellation would show "federal EPA that there is a clear, indisputable scientific and legal basis for taking action. We hope that they follow suit, and it prompts them to cancel chlorpyrifos, too. But we weren't waiting for that to happen."
California follows Hawaii and New York in seeking elimination of chlorpyrifos. The Aloha State's ban took effect this year. New York passed a measure earlier this month that the governor needs to sign to become law, environmental groups said.Studies showed dangers
California's EPA acted after asking the state's independent Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants to evaluate chlorpyrifos. That panel found the pesticide "causes serious health effects in children and other sensitive populations" even at low levels of exposure. Effects include "impaired brain and neurological development," the agency said.
The state in April formally listed chlorpyrifos as a "toxic air contaminant," or pollutant that "may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness," or that poses a current or potential hazard to human health. That listing required California's Department of Pesticide Regulation to develop control measures to protect those exposed to the pesticide.
The state, however, found no such measures could be developed. There's no level of chlorpyrifos that's harm-free, it said.
"With the new animal studies and the new science that we were able to analyze, it became clear that we couldn't really mitigate the impact of chlorpyrifos," Blumenfeld said. "We saw severe impacts at low dosage, and with that low dosage when you extrapolate up as to what the practical mitigation measures would be, they don't really exist."
One chlorpyrifos manufacturer, Corteva Agriscience, has argued it's a needed tool for farmers and that regulatory agencies in 79 countries have reviewed the science and continued to approve its use (Greenwire, April 18).
Groups that opposed the California cancellation will have the ability to file objections with the administrative law judge appointed to the case.
Renee Pinel, president and CEO of Western Plant Health Association, a trade group for pesticide and fertilizer manufacturers, said the association was "reviewing response options."
"Chlorpyrifos has gone through the most rigorous review process ever undertaken involving a pesticide, using the most conservative proposed risk scenarios," Pinel said in a statement. Those demonstrated that when used with appropriate mitigations, it could be used safely, she said, "so we are opposed to the proposed cancellation."
California Farm Bureau Federation President Jamie Johansson said in a statement that "once again, farmers find themselves caught in the middle of a fight among activist groups, federal and state agencies."
"Agricultural pests and crop diseases pose a real threat to the food we grow," he added. "Farmers need effective, realistic alternatives to fight those pests and diseases, while assuring the safety of people and rural communities. Successful public health outcomes depend on successful pest management."
Johansson said cancellation of the pesticide could make food more expensive and California-grown food less plentiful.
California as it studies other alternatives, he said, "must commit to follow where the research leads. Protecting our food supply, rural economy and the many jobs that depend on California agriculture will require state agencies to be open-minded and realistic in evaluating ways to fight pests and plant diseases."
Others praised the state's action.
"This is a historic victory for California's agricultural communities and for children nationwide," said Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The science clearly shows that chlorpyrifos is too dangerous to use in our fields. Since California uses more chlorpyrifos than any other state, this ban will not only protect kids who live here, but kids who eat the fruits and veggies grown here."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/09/stories/1060303001
-
Blood Levels of Oxybenzone From Sunscreen Exceed US FDA Threshold
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Blood levels of active ingredients in sunscreen exceed a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) threshold for potentially waiving some toxicology studies, according to a "preliminary" study conducted by researchers at the federal body.
FDA guidance states that sunscreen active ingredients with systemic absorption greater than 0.5 ng/mL, or with safety concerns, should undergo non-clinical toxicology assessment, including systemic carcinogenicity and additional developmental and reproductive studies.
The FDA sunscreen study was set up to look into systemic exposure to four active ingredients: avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene and ecamsule. It involved 24 healthy volunteers who remained in the clinic while applying commercially available sunscreen, four times a day, to 75% of their skin, for four days.
Blood levels of all four substances exceeded the 0.5 ng/ml threshold. Oxybenzone levels were above 169 ng/ml, while avobenzone levels ranged from 1.8 to 4 ng/ml. Levels of oxybenzone were evident on day one and increased from day one to day four, suggesting accumulation.
The FDA researchers acknowledge their study's limitations, including the fact that tests were conducted indoors with no exposure to heat or sunlight. The study also failed to look at the maximum blood concentration after a single sunscreen application. This will be investigated in a second phase. New tests will also look at systemic exposure to additional commonly used sunscreen ingredients, including octinoxate, homosalate, and octisalate.
Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama), the FDA researchers stress that the results do not indicate that individuals should refrain from using sunscreen. But they point out that oxybenzone (also known as benzophenone) has already been found in human breast milk, amniotic fluid, urine and blood, while some studies have suggested it may affect endocrine activity.
In an accompanying Jama editorial, two US dermatologists say that the study raises an urgent question about absorption in infants and children, who have different ratios of body surface area to overall size and whose skin may absorb substances at different rates. They also suggest that "testing under actual use conditions will be paramount, as most users apply less sunscreen than the recommended amount, often without reapplication".
Alexandra Kowcz, chief scientist at the Personal Care Products Council, also stressed that "it’s important for consumers to know that for the purpose of this study, the levels of sunscreens used may not be reflective of how people use sunscreen products in the real world".
"The study also looked at sunscreen presence in plasma – and as FDA’s own note on the study reiterated, the mere presence of a chemical or chemicals does not suggest a safety issue," she added.
The FDA recently extended the comment deadline on its proposed rule to put in place a final monograph for non-prescription, over-the-counter sunscreen products. The proposal, issued in February, outlines the conditions under which a product is designated as ‘generally recognised as safe and effective’ (Grase) and can therefore be brought to market without undergoing the new drug application process. Only two substances – zinc oxide and titanium dioxide – have been proposed to be recognised as Grase. These were not included in the clinical study.
Meanwhile, The City Commission of Key West, Florida, recently voted to ban the sale of sunscreen products containing oxybenzone or octinoxate. The ban, which will come into effect on 1 January 2021, is intended to protect the coral reefs off the coast of the beach destination.
It follows similar actions in Hawaii and Palau in recent months.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77375/blood-levels-of-oxybenzone-from-sunscreen-exceed-us-fda-threshold
-
The Growing Impact (and Threat) of Green Chemistry Laws
May 9, 2019 | Manufacturing.net
By Dennis Raglin
Picture the domino falling. Washington State is poised to enact a set of “green chemistry” regulations similar to California’s. These types of regulations go well beyond federal chemical laws like Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and well beyond more modest chemical laws that exist today in many states governing things like children’s products or product packaging.
Green chemistry regulations give unelected state agencies broad authority over how you make, and whether you can sell, consumer products, while curtailing your ability to challenge the decisions. With Washington State’s jumping into this green chemistry regulatory pond with California, we can expect ripples nationwide that could swamp your bottom line.
The Washington State Legislation
The Washington State Legislature recently passed a bill the governor is expected to sign called “The Pollution Prevention for Our Future Act” (SB 51350). The law would require the state environmental agency to define and regulate “priority chemicals” and “priority” consumer products. The agency would be required to prioritize its initial efforts on a broad array of products containing phthalates, flame retardants, phenolic compounds, PCBs and PFSAs. The stated goal of the legislation is to reduce long-term risk to human health and the environment.
Who can argue with protecting human health? No one, but the devil here is in the details. The law would allow the agency to choose the priority chemicals it can regulate from several places, including lists by other states (California’s Proposition 65, for example), or from decisions made by foreign “authoritative” bodies in Europe. There is no requirement that U.S. government agencies like EPA, USDA or FDA agree that a chemical is hazardous for it to be included on these chemical lists and thus regulated.
In addition, the legislation vests broad power in the agency to enforce compliance, including restriction or prohibition of chemicals on the priority list if it determines that “feasible and available” safer alternative chemicals exist by which to make the targeted product. Such a prohibition brings with it the risk that certain products will be banned from sale in the state or prohibitively expensive to reformulate.
The legislation passed over the opposition of several business groups. The problem is the inherent presumption that a product is hazardous simply by containing one of the chemicals on the list—and what is a “feasible and available” alternative chemical? Talk about devils and details.
Washington Follows California’s Aggressive Green Chemistry Regulations
Washington’s legislation is similar to California’s first-in-the-nation far-reaching green chemistry consumer products regulations. The 2008 California Safer Consumer Products vests in a state agency the extreme, yet unexercised, power to restrict or ban the sale of certain products altogether if it determines there are safer, feasible chemical options available. A company or industry facing regulation of a “priority product” containing the offending chemical can only appeal the decision to the agency (who obviously made the decision).
To date, the agency has identified two priority products for enforcement—spray polyurethane Containing Unreacted Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanates and paint and varnish strippers and surface cleaners containing Methylene Chloride. Companies making these products and selling them in California will need to submit alternative analyses showing whether the products can be made with safer chemicals. The agency will then make the decision whether reformulation is required. The agency is just getting started. It has confirmed it will now determine which additional chemical-product combinations to regulate from a wide variety of categories, including beauty and personal care products, cleaning products, household furnishings, building and construction material, office supplies, food packaging, and lead-acid batteries.
In other words, anything! So far it has identified a diverse collection of new priority products targeted for regulation including nail products containing toluene, Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) in carpets and rugs, laundry detergents containing Surfactants nonylphenol ethoxylates and paint and varnish strippers and graffiti removers containing N-methylpyrrolidone (MNP). This is only the beginning and these regulations will continue to ensnare more products.
What's Next and What Can You Do?
Over half the states have some form of chemical regulation of consumer products in place. The green chemistry regulations are a whole new ballgame and go far beyond these. They empower unelected state agencies to, in effect, have a veto over how you make, and whether you can sell, a product depending on what chemicals are used to make it. As with chemical regulations over the last several years, states follow each other and the laws multiply. We saw it with regulation on children’s products and with BPA. We recently saw it with Proposition 65 where the New York’s governor proposed a similar toxics warning law. We can now expect to see it with these green chemistry regulations.
Setting aside the issue of whether these laws make us safer, what can you do to protect your business and get ahead of this curve? First, if you are not already, you need to be monitoring—or consult with a source knowledgeable and monitoring—chemical laws specific to your products at the international, federal and state levels and figure out what compliance with each requires. The growing patchwork of regulations creates a potential minefield for the unwary.
Second, what is in your products? These regulations drafted by bureaucrats assume this is an easy question. Most companies, however, source numerous chemicals and components from suppliers far and wide, domestic and foreign. Knowing the chemicals and their composition a particular vendor and its supplier use in a specific product may be difficult if not impossible.
And, either way it will add cost. Many companies, with mixed results, have been grappling with this issue to comply with Proposition 65. However, it is making this effort to understanding this that will allow you to evaluate whether your product contains any “chemicals of concern” now or in the future and, ultimately, allow you (and your industry) to address and rebut the “safer” alternative chemicals question.
https://www.manufacturing.net/article/2019/05/growing-impact-and-threat-green-chemistry-laws
-
Internal Documents Show 3M Hid PFAs Dangers for Decades
May 9, 2019 | Detroit Free Press
By Keith Matheny
A 3M environmental specialist, in a scathing resignation letter, accused company officials of being "unethical" and more "concerned with markets, legal defensibility and image over environmental safety" when it came to PFAS, the emerging contaminant causing a potential crisis throughout Michigan and the country.
PFOS, one of 3M's chief PFAS products, "is the most insidious pollutant since PCB," Richard Purdy stated in his March 28, 1999, resignation letter, referring to a compound used in 3M's ScotchGard stain-protection product line, among other uses.
"It is probably more damaging than PCB because it does not degrade, whereas PCB does; it is more toxic to wildlife," he stated, adding that PFOS's end point in the environment appeared to be plants and animals, not soil and sediment like PCB.
"I have worked within the system to learn more about this chemical and to make the company aware of the dangers associated with its continued use," Purdy stated in the letter, saying he was resigning effective April 6, 1999. "But I have continually met roadblocks, delays, and indecision. For weeks on end, I have received assurances that my samples would be analyzed soon — never to see results. There are always excuses and little is accomplished."
Purdy's explosive resignation letter is just one of a large cache of internal 3M memos and documents obtained by the Free Press through public records law from the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. Then-Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson obtained the internal documents from the Minnesota-based company after suing 3M in 2010 over its environmental contamination in the state. The company settled the suit last year for $850 million.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — PFAS — is the biggest emerging contaminant problem in Michigan. The nonstick compounds were used for decades, from the 1950s to the 2000s, in aqueous firefighting foam, industrial processes and a host of popular consumer products: Teflon nonstick pots and pans, ScotchGard stain protectants on carpets and upholstery; Gore-Tex water-resistant shoes and clothing, and more.
But the same qualities that made PFAS compounds so useful also makes them almost indestructible in the environment, giving them the ominous nickname "the forever chemicals."
Two of the most common and most studied PFAS compounds, known as PFOS and PFOA, have been linked to cancer; conditions affecting the liver, thyroid and pancreas; ulcerative colitis; hormone and immune system interference; high cholesterol; pre-eclampsia in pregnant women, and negative effects on growth, learning and behavior in infants and children.
PFAS can now be found in the blood of nearly 99% of Americans. It has even been found in polar bears in the Arctic Circle, as the chemicals have worked their way up the food chain from fish and seals.
Some 46 sites in Michigan are known to have groundwater with PFAS levels above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's lifetime health advisory guideline of 70 parts per trillion, a level above which a person consuming the water for a lifetime might expect health problems. And state officials have identified more than 11,000 sites in Michigan where PFAS was used and contamination may be an issue.
And it's not just the Great Lake State's problem. In a new study, citing updated federal government data, the Washington-based nonprofit Environmental Working Group identified 610 sites in 43 U.S. states or territories known contaminated with PFAS, including drinking water systems serving 19 million people.
More:
PFAS contamination: Michigan's biggest environmental crisis in 40 years
Castellanos, 24 Tigers minor leaguers exposed to harmful PFAS chemicals in past
PFAS in Michigan: What to know about contaminant, exposure risk, drinking water concerns
The documents obtained from the Minnesota Attorney General's office outline 3M's own research showing its PFAS compounds were not breaking down in the environment, were having negative health effects in laboratory rats and other animals — and that the blood of employees, and the public, had become contaminated with the compounds.
As these revelations occurred within the company, 3M continued to sell PFAS compounds for use in products worldwide: in ScotchGard stain protection, Teflon coating on cookware and other products, Gore-Tex water resistant shoes and clothing, sandwich wrapping paper and microwave popcorn bags, aqueous firefighting foam and other industrial uses.
For generations, 3M kept much of what it knew to itself, not informing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — or the public — until the late 1990s, when the EPA began taking notice of the rising research outside of 3M showing PFAS's persistence in the environment. The company in 2000 announced an agreement with the EPA to voluntarily phase out its use of PFOS by 2003. It also halted its manufacture of another popular PFAS compound, PFOA, in 2000, but other manufacturers, including DuPont in its Teflon products, continued utilizing PFOA until a subsequent agreement with the EPA to phase out its use by 2015.
Nicholas Coulson, an environmental class-action attorney from Detroit, is using the 3M internal documents from Minnesota in his own lawsuit. Coulson represents current and former residents of the city of Parchment, in Kalamazoo County, in a lawsuit against 3M and Georgia-Pacific, final owner of a long-standing paper mill in the city that made food-wrap paper coated with 3M's PFAS. The mill left a toxic mess in its nearby landfill, and PFAS compounds leached from it into Parchment's municipal water supply. Thousands in the city have been exposed to high levels of the compounds in their drinking water for an unknown number of years.
"What we’re alleging that 3M did is really a crime against humanity," Coulson said.
"It’s an absolute outrage that, in the name of profit, for decades they suppressed this information, and they continued to pump these chemicals out in incredible quantities into the natural environment," Coulson said. "And the terrible result of that is that some communities, like Parchment, have had to bear the brunt of it."
Some 46 Michigan locations have PFAS compounds in groundwater that exceed the EPA's 70 parts-per-trillion health advisory level. The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy has estimated PFAS could be found at more than 11,300 sites in Michigan — fire stations, municipal airports, military sites, refineries and bulk petroleum stations, wastewater treatment plants, old landfills, and various industrial sites.
Seventeen rivers, lakes, streams and ponds throughout Michigan have "do not eat" fish advisories, or limitations on consumption of fish, because of PFOS contamination, including Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair and portions of the Au Sable, Huron, Flint, Saginaw and St. Joseph rivers.
Letter cites delays, unkept promises
Purdy, in his resignation letter to 3M, listed repeated instances when his urgency on PFOS was met with delays and unkept promises that the company would conduct further, clarifying studies. He referenced an "8e report" 3M had made to the EPA in May 1998. Under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 8e, a chemical manufacturer who discovers its chemical poses "a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment shall immediately inform the (EPA) Administrator of such information."
"There is tremendous concern within EPA, the country, and the world about persistent bioaccumulative chemicals such as PFOS," Purdy stated in the letter.
"Just before that submission we found PFOS in the blood of eaglets — eaglets still young enough that their only food consisted of fish caught in remote lakes by their parents. This finding indicates a widespread environmental contamination and food chain transfer and probable bioaccumulation and bio-magnification. This is a very significant finding that the 8e reporting rule was created to collect.
"3M chose to report simply that PFOS had been found in the blood of animals, which is true but omits the most significant information."
Purdy later in his resignation letter added that "3M waited too long to tell customers about the widespread dispersal of PFOS in people and the environment."
"3M continues to make and sell these chemicals, though the company knows of an ecological risk assessment I did that indicates there is a better than 100% probability that perfluorooctansulfonate (PFOS) is biomagnifying in the food chain and harming sea mammals. This chemical is more stable than many rocks. ...
"3M told those of us working on the fluorochemical project not to write down our thoughts or have email discussions on issues because of how our speculations could be viewed in a legal discovery process. This has stymied intellectual development on the issue, and stifled discussion on the serious ethical implications of decisions."
Purdy concluded his resignation letter with this paragraph:
"I have worked to the best of my ability within the system to see that the right actions are taken on behalf of the environment. At almost every step, I have been assured that action will be taken — yet I see slow or no results. I am told the company is concerned, but their actions speak to different concerns than mine. I can no longer participate in the process that 3M has established for the management of PFOS and precursors. For me it is unethical to be concerned with markets, legal defensibility and image over environmental safety."
Free Press attempts to reach Purdy for comment were unsuccessful.
Company's deception spanned decades
Dr. William Guy, at the University of Florida College of Medicine, was puzzled.
It was 1975, and he and colleagues at other universities had discovered unusual levels of fluorine in human blood — blood bank contributions from donors in both Texas and New York had it in sample after sample. It couldn’t be explained by naturally occurring fluorine, or by the fluoridation of water.
Guy reached out to 3M, maker of fluorinated compounds that had become ubiquitous in waterproofing, stain-guarding and nonstick consumer products, to see what the company thought.
In a confidential, internal company message between 3M officials, one, G.H. Crawford, suggested to “plead ignorance,” and wondered whether they could spin it as a helpful health benefit.
“On the positive side — if it is confirmed to our satisfaction that everybody is going around with fluorocarbon surfactants in their bloodstreams with no apparent ill effects, are there some medical possibilities that would bear looking into?,” such as whether the slippery substances improved arterial sclerosis or kidney blockage, he asked.
Crawford further suggested conducting animal studies along those lines that could later prove useful “from a defensive point of view.”\
The internal company documents show that as evidence mounted of PFAS compounds persisting in the environment and causing health problems in animal studies, company officials took no action to inform the EPA or the public:A document showed PFAS compounds were found to cause toxicity in lab rats all the way back in a company study in 1950.Studies of fish, rats and monkeys indicating health concerns dated to the mid-1970s. Later, company officials found PFAS compounds in their employees' blood, and a tie to increased testicular cancer.A 1978 study showed one of 3M’s commonly used PFAS compounds “was found to be completely resistant to biodegradation.”
It wasn’t until the late 1990s that 3M shared those concerns with the EPA. The EPA in 2006 cited 3M for 244 violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act, accusing 3M of failing to notify the agency about new chemicals and of late reporting of "substantial risk information." 3M’s fine was $1.52 million — about 0.3% of its annual sales revenues from PFAS compounds.
"3M had really, really sufficient notice to know that, one, these things don’t go away, they build up and build up and build up, both in the environment and the body, and two, that they cause really harmful effects," Coulson said.
"3M continued to make and sell (PFAS) for all of these purposes, while ignoring — or even actively suppressing — the risks."
3M responded to Free Press requests for an interview with an emailed statement: "3M has dedicated substantial time and resources to researching PFAS and, to that end, we have invested more than $600 million on research, technology, and clean-up efforts related to PFAS. As a responsible steward of our community, we have a record of sharing information we learn with government regulators, the scientific community, as well as local and federal officials.
"The small set of documents from the Minnesota litigation portrays an incomplete and misleading story that distorts the full record regarding 3M’s actions with respect to PFOA and PFOS, as well as who we are as a company. 3M acted responsibly in connection with products containing PFAS and we will vigorously defend our environmental stewardship."Though 3M's 2000 agreement with the EPA to phase out PFOS meant the loss of its popular ScotchGard products — a $300 million a year revenue-maker — that still represented only 2% of the chemical giant's total sales. The company in the fourth quarter of 2018 reported $7.9 billion in sales, its products include Scotch tape and Post-It Notes.
Study after study signaled toxicity
A confidential 3M interoffice memo dated May 10, 1978, described a meeting that occurred two days earlier, in which company officials discussed the results of studies in which laboratory rats were exposed to three different PFAS compounds over 90 days.
"Results indicate that FC-95, FM-3422 and FC-143 are toxic," the memo states.
But then company officials decided not to report the finding to the EPA.
"After a review of the data and a review of the March 16, 1978, EPA guidelines for reporting substantial risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act, it was decided that the toxicity of FC-95, FM-3422 and FC-143 does not constitute a substantial risk and should not be reported at this time," the memo states.
Other 3M documents show FC-95 and FC-143 were PFOA-containing industrial surfactants sold by the company under the Fluorad brand. How the third compound was sold and used is unclear.
A year later, in a 3M memo dated July 6, 1979, an employee named M.T. Case sounded an alarm to colleagues.
"I believe it is paramount to begin now an assessment of the potential (if any) of long term (carcinogenic) effects for these compounds, which are known to persist for a long time in the body and thereby give long-term chronic exposure," he stated.
In a 2005 study, Marvin T. Case was listed as being with 3M's medical department in Corporate Toxicology and Regulatory Services.
In 1981, citing internal research showing PFAS compounds were causing birth defects in rats, 3M moved 25 female employees "of childbearing potential" off production lines at its Decatur, Alabama, plant "as a precautionary measure."
Another document describes a crisis between 3M and one of its principal clients, DuPont, which used 3M's PFOA in the manufacturing of DuPont's Teflon products, including nonstick cookware.
DuPont was worried that because of internal research findings of increased incidences of tumors in rats fed the PFAS compound F-143 — PFOA — over 24 months, "they may be obliged under their policy to call FC-143 a carcinogen in animals."
Though a 3M researcher identified as "Dr. King" acknowledged "the increased incidence of mammary and testicular tumors under these particular experimental conditions," he maintained his conclusion that "FC-143 is not considered to be carcinogenic."
A large-scale health study of people exposed to PFOA from long-term releases from a DuPont Teflon factory in West Virginia, done as part of a $671 million lawsuit settlement between DuPont and spin-off company Chemours and thousands of class-action litigants, concluded in 2012 "that there is a probable link between exposure to C8 (also known as PFOA) and testicular cancer and kidney cancer."
Another, undated, document, "Draft Memorandum on Fluorochemicals in Human Blood," described how 3M employees were documented to have PFOS, a PFAS compound, in their blood serum — even employees who were not exposed to the compound on the job. Company researchers then examined blood from 21 different U.S. blood banks, including one in Grand Rapids, and again found PFOS.
The researchers then expanded the scope, looking at blood samples taken earlier in the 1990s, and in the '80s, '70s, '60s, from places such as Sweden and the rural provinces of China. The compounds showed up in the blood again and again. The only sample groups to come up with no detection of PFOS: 10 vials of blood taken from U.S. military recruits during the Korean War era, from 1948 to 1951.
"Organic fluorine has been noted in human serum since the late 1960s. We have now identified PFOS as a part of this organic fluorine fraction," the memo states.
"PFOS related materials were not produced commercially prior to 1948, and only in small quantities for several years thereafter. It is not surprising that samples from 1948 to 1951 show undetectable levels. There was clearly an increase 20 years later."
Despite these revelations, 3M pressed on with its production and sale of PFAS compounds.
In a March 29, 2008, slideshow presentation, John Butenhoff of 3M's medical division outlined the value in the company continuing to study the toxicological effects of its legacy fluorochemicals One of the bullet items was "Defensive Barriers to Litigation."
Jennifer Field, a professor of environmental and molecular toxicology at Oregon State University, served on the science advisory board for former Gov. Rick Snyder's Michigan PFAS Action Response Team. She has been a leading researcher on PFAS since the late 1990s, as 3M revealed much more of its findings on the compounds' environmental persistence and health effects to the EPA, and agreed to phase out PFOS and PFOA.
Field noted that much of her research is funded by taxpayers, through the federal or state governments.
"We have to spend a lot of taxpayer dollars to learn what a chemical company knows," she said.
Questions about toxic firefighting foam
One of 3M's popular uses of PFAS compounds was Light Water, an aqueous firefighting foam, or AFFF. It is use of that product that has led to PFAS groundwater contamination at hundreds of military installations across the U.S., and perhaps thousands of other locations — fire stations, municipal airports, even the locations of long-ago fires where the foam was used only once.
In the 3M internal documents is a June 3, 1988, letter to a 3M official from Boots & Coots Fire & Protective Equipment Inc., based in Oakland, California. Officials blasted the company after learning what they'd been told for years in 3M literature and manufacturer presentations — that firefighting foam breaks down in nature — wasn't true.
A Sacramento fire protection unit had learned 3M's fire foam wasn't biodegradable in a phone call with a "'PhD scientist chemist' by the name of Eric Reimer (his last name is actually Reiner) at the 3M company," Boots & Coots executives Jim Devonshire and Bill Walton stated in the letter.
After this information was revealed, the Sacramento District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers then required Boots & Coots employees filling a foam tank to wear protective gear, as the firefighting foam was now considered "a dangerous, harmful liquid," the men stated.
"This statement was based upon information given by Eric (Reiner) and data sheets supplied by the 3M Company to the Corps of Engineers."
The men asked 3M for "a full and complete disclosure of the toxic, chemical and biodegradability effects of the 3M AFFF concentrates."
In an email to 3M colleagues that Dec. 30, Reiner, who worked in the company's Environmental Engineering and Pollution Control division, sounded further alarms on the company's firefighting foam.
"I don’t think it is in 3M’s long-term interest to perpetuate the myth that these fluorochemical surfactants are biodegradable," Reiner stated. "It is probable that this misconception will eventually be discovered, and when that happens, 3M will likely be embarrassed, and we and our customers may be fined and forced to immediately withdraw products from the market."
A response from Don Ricker in 3M's Specialty Chemical Division stated that any additional experiments on the biodegradability of the firefighting foam needed to have samples submitted through him.
"BY MEANS OF THIS MEMO I AM NOTIFYING E. REINER THAT MIKE KILLIAN, JON CHASMAN ARE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOR THE SURFACTANT LINE OF PRODUCTS," Ricker's email states.
The pressure to phase out PFAS
By the late 1990s, as scientific knowledge continued to expand on PFAS compounds' persistence, and under intensifying pressure from the EPA, 3M officials prepared to announce they would voluntarily phase out and find substitutes for PFOS and their lucrative ScotchGard stain protectant lines. The company would also largely stop manufacturing PFOA compounds, but sold the rights to DuPont to continue using it in the making of its Teflon products. DuPont would continue to use PFOA until 2015.
In a Feb. 26, 1998, document entitled "FDA Communications Plan," 3M officials discussed their rollout of information to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the EPA. The document illustrates what federal officials hadn't yet been told about what 3M knew.
"Intent to have orderly exit from the market," is one of the bullet points in the plan.
"Disclose metabolism study and general finding of PFOS in sera," or human blood.
"Provide summary of existing tox testing and planned tox testing."
"Provide summary of 3M plant worker studies"
"Address pending microwave popcorn petition."
This was an apparent reference to a late-1990s petition to the FDA by 3M to allow PFOS as a grease-resistant component of microwave popcorn bags. It was not until 2011 that the FDA worked out with chemical manufacturers a voluntary phase-out of PFOA in food contact paper.
Later in the document, they discuss when to do their "8e disclosure" to the EPA, the requirement under the Toxic Substances Control Act to report serious environmental or health problems associated with one of their chemicals "immediately."
"TSCA 8(e) submission completed. Describes only metabolism study and finding of FC (fluorocarbons) in sera (human blood)," the plan states.
"Plan:
- File 8(e) on or before 3/6/98
- Call EPA in advance of submission
- Arrange meeting for full disclosure — late March, early April."Under a heading, "Issues associated with 8e filing," 3M officials listed, "Public disclosure (environmental activist, regulatory newsletters)."
In Michigan, angry residents wonder
Sandy Wynn-Stelt learned in 2017 that the well water in her home in Belmont contained up to 76,000 parts per trillion of PFAS compounds, emanating in groundwater from an old Wolverine World Wide shoe and leather company landfill across the street. The EPA has a health advisory limit for PFOS and PFOA in water of 70 parts per trillion.
3M provided Wolverine's ScotchGard waterproofing chemicals.
Wynn-Stelt lost her husband to liver cancer in 2016, and has PFAS compounds in her blood at 750 times the level of the average American.
She reflected on the proof that 3M knew about the persistence and harms of PFAS for years before it made that information available to regulators and the public.
"None of us would raise our kids to be that way," she said. "If you make something, and it turns out that it’s dangerous, then I think you have a responsibility to own that, and to do what you can to protect people from that."
In the Kent County city of Rockford, Jill Osbeck also learned her home's well water has PFAS compounds at levels hundreds of times higher than the EPA guidelines, also from a Wolverine World Wide landfill groundwater plume. She reacted with outrage when she learned of 3M's foreknowledge of problems associated with PFAS.
"Why would you put people’s lives at stake like that?" she said. "It’s incomprehensible to me that you would, for a dollar."
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/05/09/3-m-lawsuit-pfas-water-contamination-michigan/3291156002/
-
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
CLH consultations
Echa is requesting comments on the harmonised classification and labelling proposals for:
-2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol: the Netherlands is proposing a future entry in Annex VI of CLP of reproductive toxicity 1B, H360D;
-pyridine-2-thiol 1-oxide, sodium salt: Sweden is proposing a future entry of acute toxicity 4, H302, acute toxicity 4, H312, acute toxicity 3, H331, skin irritation 2, H315, eye irritation 2, H319, skin sensitisation 1, H317, Stot RE 1, H372, aquatic acute 1, H400, aquatic acute 1, aquatic chronic 2 H411, M-factor=100, Oral: ATE = 500 mg/kg bw Dermal: ATE = 1800 mg/kg bw Inhalation: ATE = 0.5 mg/L (dusts and mists). It is an active substance, mainly used in biocidal products as a preservative and disinfectant; and
-methyl methacrylate methyl 2-methylprop-2-enoate: France is proposing a future entry of flammable liquids 2, H225, skin irritation 2, H315, respiratory sensitisation 1, H334, skin sensitisation 1, H317 and Stot SE 3, H335.
The deadline for comments is 5 July.
New intentions and CLH proposals
The agency has received new CLH intentions for:
-4,4'-[2,2,2-trifluoro-1-(trifluoromethyl)ethylidene]diphenol from Sweden;
-hydrogen sulphide and benzyl alcohol from Germany; and
-1-phenylethan-1-one (1-phenylethylidene)hydrazone from France.
And CLH proposals for:
-barium diboron tetraoxide: Sweden proposes a future entry of acute toxicity 4, H302, acute toxocity 4, H332, and reproductive toxicity 1B, H360FD; and
-cumene: Denmark is proposing a future entry of flammable liquid 3, H226, carcinogenicity 2, H351, Stot SE 3, H335, aspiration toxicity1, H304, aquatic chronic 2, H411.
Testing proposals
Echa has received 16 new testing proposals for nine substances.
Conference on safer chemicals
It is the last opportunity to register for Echa's free conference on safer chemicals on 21-22 May in Helsinki.
The conference offers insight into current priorities in EU chemicals regulation with practical advice, discussion and networking.
It is also possible to take part online; with the livestream available on the agency's home page.
Poison centres training on 21 May is now full, but the first part of the day will be streamed live and the material available.
Helsinki Chemicals Forum
The 11th annual Helsinki Chemicals Forum will take place on 23 and 24 May. This independent forum aims to promote chemicals safety and management globally.
Topics and themes include: risk management options for chemicals of concern; grouping of chemical substances to avoid regrettable substitution; how to measure the performance of different chemical management systems; how to effectively stimulate the circularity of plastics; and quality of and access to data on chemicals.
Intention to restrict oxo-degradable plastics withdrawn
Echa has withdrawn its intention to investigate the need for a restriction on oxo-degradable plastics.
It follows a Commission request as a result of the adoption of new legislation that restricts the placing on the EU market of any product made from such plastics, two years after the directive enters into force.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76983/echa-round-up
-
Energy Department Won’t Deny Pending LNG Export Applications
May 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Energy Department doesn’t plan to deny any pending applications to export liquefied natural gas, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said.
“As long as I’m still secretary of energy, we will not,” Perry says in response to a question from House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) at a budget hearing.
The Energy Department is reviewing more than a dozen applications to export liquefied natural gas to countries that don’t have a free trade agreement with the U.S.
Pallone expressed concern about the impact of LNG exports on domestic supplies, pricing, and increased demand for pipeline infrastructure.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/energy-department-wont-deny-pending-lng-export-applications
-
D.C. Circuit Tosses Challenge to FERC Approval of New Market Project
May 9, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Gavin Bade and Ben Lefebvre
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today dismissed a lawsuit against Dominion Energy’s New Market Project, ruling an environmental group did not have standing to challenge FERC’s climate change policy for natural gas projects.
The decision leaves in place FERC's approval of compression stations that Dominion built in New York for its New Market pipeline, but the three-judge panel stopped before reaching the underlying question of whether the commission must take climate change into account.
Otsego 2000, an environmental group based in Cooperstown, N.Y., filed the challenge last year after FERC refused to rehear its approval of the New Market Project — an order in which the agency narrowed how it considers greenhouse gas emissions when approving new gas projects.
The group argued that FERC violated the National Environmental Protection Act by ignoring greenhouse gas emissions. And the group said that FERC was in effect creating a new policy for evaluating projects without first having held a mandatory public comment period.
But the D.C. Circuit panel did not rule on the merits of the suit filed by because the judges determined the group had not demonstrated it would be harmed by the decision.
“Otsego’s affidavits do not identify any injury other than the organization’s expenditure of time and money related to this litigation,” the judges wrote in their decision.
The compression stations are already in operation, a Dominion spokesperson said.
Otsego has a week to request a rehearing. An Otsego spokesperson was not immediately available.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/dc-circuit-tosses-challenge-to-ferc-approval-of-new-market-project-3226347
-
Mixed Bag of Comments for DOE Proposed Rule Change
May 9, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Philip Athey
The public comment period has ended for a Department of Energy rule that industry leaders welcome but critics worry is nothing more than an invitation by DOE to be sued.
The proposed rule would change how the department sets energy standards by adding steps to the process, creating an electric savings threshold and an increased reliance on industry-created tests (Energywire, Feb. 8).
Andrew deLaski, executive director at the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, is concerned changes to the process would require DOE to use tests created by industry to ensure products meet efficiency standards, comparing it to how Volkswagen "gamed the system" by cheating on emissions tests.
"This is making cheating legal," he said.
But GE Appliances' comment in the Federal Register said the proposed rule would "alleviate many unnecessary regulatory burdens on both the regulated community and the DOE."
The comment noted that when DOE changes the testing process, "internal and third party test programs must be modified; hundreds of relevant products must be analyzed for compliance; mature, reliable products must be removed from the market," adding to the final price consumers pay for a product.
Lauren Urbanek, senior policy advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, voiced her concern with the proposed energy-saving threshold of 0.5 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of energy over three decades, calling it "absolutely significant."
"DOE really has no justification for that number," she added.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, total energy consumption in 2017 in the U.S. came out to 97.7 quads.
Samsung, which in its comment in the Federal Register indicated it was generally in favor of the proposed changes, agreed the 0.5 quad threshold was "unnecessarily high and could hinder advancement of energy efficiency standards for newly covered products."
Both deLaski and Urbanek are also concerned with how additional steps will slow down a process that DOE has already missed 17 congressionally mandated deadlines on (see related story).
A comment co-signed by the attorneys general in 14 states, the District of Columbia and New York City called the proposed rule change "unlawful."
The top attorneys general brought up concerns that, if enacted, the proposed rule "would likely slow — and in some cases halt — energy efficiency rulemakings while exposing DOE to frequent litigation."
The comments indicate if DOE decides to implement the rule change, it would almost immediately be challenged in court, with deLaski adding the proposed rule is basically DOE saying "please sue me."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/09/stories/1060303509
-
Group Wants Inquiry Into N.C. Legislator's Links to Duke
May 9, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Emery P. Dalesio
A clean energy advocacy group wants an investigation into whether a longtime North Carolina legislator violated ethics laws by pushing legislation sought by Duke Energy Corp. while his law firm did legal work for a gas pipeline project.
The group NC WARN filed a complaint yesterday with the State Ethics Commission asking for an official look at the connections between the country's largest electricity company and state Sen. Dan Blue, a Raleigh Democrat.
NC WARN says Blue's law firm is collecting fees for suing dozens of landowners to make way for the proposed Atlantic Coast pipeline, a project partly owned by Duke Energy. The 605-mile natural gas pipeline would originate in West Virginia and run through Virginia and North Carolina, almost reaching the South Carolina border.
Blue is not personally representing the company, but he acknowledged in a statement his law firm represented the Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC in several eminent domain cases.
NC WARN said the extent and timing of Blue's legal work for the pipeline entity primarily owned by Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy and Virginia-based Dominion Energy should be investigated to see whether the Democrat and the power companies have further connections.
Blue also is sponsoring legislation that would let Duke Energy get multiyear rate increases at a time when it plans to pass along billions of dollars in construction on to consumers.
"The ethics issue is clear-cut: Sen. Blue can't serve the public interest when he's heavily paid to serve the diverging interests of Duke Energy," NC WARN Executive Director Jim Warren said in a statement.
Blue, a former state House speaker, has served in the General Assembly for 35 years. He rejected suggestions that his financial interests were connected to his support for changing way Duke Energy is regulated.
"I am confident in the position that I've taken. I haven't been influenced by anything that Duke has done," Blue told reporters. "One would be stupid to serve in this body and be compensated for taking some act as a result of what they did do."
A total of 88 complaints were either filed with the North Carolina State Ethics Commission in 2018 or were carried over and still pending last year, commission attorney Kathleen Edwards said.
Only nine were referred to legislative, judicial or other oversight bodies for further consideration of potential sanctions, she said. Nine cases remain pending, while the rest were dismissed because they weren't properly filed, didn't concern a person covered under state law or there was insufficient evidence of a violation, Edwards said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/09/stories/1060302749
-
As Washington State Bans Fracking, Sanders Calls for Nationwide Ban
May 9, 2019 | Truthout
By Jake Johnson
As Bernie Sanders called for a national ban on fracking due to the serious threat it poses to the climate, air quality, and water supply, Washington Governor and 2020 presidential candidate Jay Inslee won praise from environmental groups on Wednesday for signing into law a statewide ban on the destructive drilling practice.
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, celebrated Inslee’s move — which made Washington the fourth U.S. state to ban fracking — but urged him to join fellow 2020 contenders Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard in calling for a nationwide ban on the extractive technique.
“A clear majority of Americans want political leaders to take real action on climate change,” Hauter said in a statement. “Now would be the perfect opportunity for Inslee to join fellow candidates Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard in calling for a national ban on fracking, and for a halt to all new fossil fuel infrastructure everywhere.”
“We’re pleased that Governor Inslee has banned fracking in Washington,” added Hauter. “This is great news, but as a presidential candidate, in order to show real national leadership on climate and clean energy, Inslee must endorse a ban on fracking across the country.”
In a tweet on Tuesday, Sanders highlighted fracking’s poisonous impact on air and water quality as well as its contribution to the climate crisis before declaring, “We need to ban it nationwide.”
A national ban on fracking is one plank of Sanders’ sweeping climate agenda, which also calls for a Green New Deal, an end to oil exports, and a moratorium on all new fossil fuel infrastructure projects.
Sanders and Inslee in recent days have both issued calls for a presidential debate focused specifically on the climate crisis.
As Common Dreams reported last month, Inslee was the first 2020 candidate to call for a climate-focused debate.
“Each 2020 nominee needs to have a concrete plan to address climate change — and we deserve to hear those plans,” Inslee wrote in an email to supporters.
When Sanders was asked by youth activists if he supports a climate debate during his campaign stop in Iowa over the weekend, the senator answered in the affirmative.
“The answer is yes,” Sanders said. “There are very few issues more important than the survival of our planet.”
https://truthout.org/articles/as-washington-state-bans-fracking-sanders-calls-for-nationwide-ban/
-
Hazmat Agency Seeks Lithium Battery Industry Expertise (1)
May 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A federal agency is seeking people with expertise in the transportation and lithium battery manufacturing industries to reduce the chance of batteries exploding or catching fire while in transit.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which oversees the transportation of lithium batteries, is forming an advisory committee. The committee is expected to advise the Department of Transportation on how to make people aware of safety requirements for lithium batteries and what policy positions to present at international forums, the department announced May 9.
PHMSA is creating the advisory committee as mandated by Congress under the Federal Aviation Administration’s 2018 reauthorization.
The ubiquitous batteries—found in cellphones, laptops, power drills, and other portable technology—are regulated as a hazardous material. Though they have relatively long lives compared to other types of batteries, the metals and chemicals they contain can pose a fire, shock, heat, or explosion risk.
“While the likelihood of a fire involving a shipment of lithium batteries in air transport is low, the consequences of such an incident would be catastrophic,” the agency said in its March 6 rule on transporting lithium batteries by air.
If lithium batteries are damaged or defective, they create risks not only for electronics manufacturers, but also for shipping companies, recyclers, and disposal companies.
The agency identified 13 air transportation incidents between 2010 and 2016 involving lithium batteries and smoke, fire, heat, or explosions, according to the rule.
The committee is expected to submit a report to Congress and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao within 180 days about industry best practices and international regulations for transporting lithium batteries.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/hazmat-agency-seeks-lithium-battery-industry-expertise
-
House Spending Bill Would Bar Paris Withdrawal
May 9, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Anthony Adragna
A House spending bill released today would bar the U.S. from leaving the Paris climate accord and again permit federal contributions to the Green Climate Fund.
Democrats also included language in the fiscal year 2020 House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations subcommittee bill aimed at blocking the sale of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.
The bill does not include a policy rider from this year's appropriations law that bars the U.S. from contributing to the Green Climate Fund, which provides funding for developing nations to adapt to climate change. The U.S. committed to providing $3 billion to the fund but stopped payments to it under the Trump administration.
The language barring the U.S. from leaving the landmark 2015 climate accord follows passage of similar legislation, H.R. 9 (116), in the House last week. Senate Republicans and the White House are likely to resist the Paris and GCF-related provisions.
WHAT'S NEXT: The bill will be considered in subcommittee Friday at 8 a.m.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/house-spending-bill-would-bar-paris-withdrawal-3225963
-
House Democrats Try to Resume U.S. Backing of Green Climate Fund
May 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
House Democrats are taking the first steps toward resurrecting U.S. backing of a United Nations fund that helps developing nations cut their greenhouse gas emissions and address climate impacts.
President Donald Trump has zeroed out funding for the Green Climate Fund, a top climate effort under the Obama administration.
The fiscal year 2020 State Department and foreign operations spending bill unveiled May 9 would remove what has been a blanket prohibition on such funding under previous spending measures moved by Republicans whose control of the House ended in January.
The Green Climate Fund has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
The draft bill now in the House Appropriations Committee ends the prohibition and instead includes language “with permissive authority,” according to a committee summary, paving the way for climate fund backers in the House as well as the Senate to push for funding.
The actual language in the House bill that opens the door for resuming U.S. support states that funding “may be made available for a contribution, grant, or any other payment for the Paris Agreement.”
The House spending bill also would bar the Trump administration from using funding to continue the U.S. withdrawal from the the Paris climate accord, which the president first announced in June 2017.
First Markup May 10
Democrats’ proposal “rejects the Administration’s unacceptable, irresponsible” budget request for State Department and foreign operations funding, and “reaffirms strong support” for climate change, multilateral assistance, and other priorities, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said in a statement.
The House funding measure is slated to make its first stop at the Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, which has scheduled a May 10 markup and also is chaired by Lowey.
Ultimately the spending measure will need to be marked up in the full House Appropriations Committee and reconciled with whatever funding language comes out of the Republican-controlled Senate, where resurrecting contributions to the Green Climate Fund spending remains an uphill battle.
The launch of the climate fund was one of several proposals richer industrialized nations put on the table in the run-up to the 2015 Paris Agreement to get developing nations to join the climate accord.President Barack Obama in 2014 pledged $3 billion over four years toward the fund, but the program received only one-third of that amount before Trump took office due to congressional opposition, mostly from Republicans.
That setback aside, the Green Climate Fund has lived on with backing from other nations, including Germany and Norway, which have both recently pledged they will double their contributions to the green fund.
The fund has financed a total of 102 projects contributing a total of $5 billion in funding from pledges that have totaled more than $10 billion, mostly from developed nations.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-democrats-try-to-resume-u-s-backing-of-green-climate-fund
-
Democrats Revive Paris Agreement, Green Climate Fund
May 9, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
House Democrats are looking to revive an idea from the climate proposal that passed the House last week in their State Department spending bill, offering a look at how they will attempt to tackle climate change in the appropriations process.
The House's draft fiscal 2020 State and Foreign Operations funding bill unveiled today would ban funds for withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, mirroring the top-line language of H.R. 9, the Democratic climate bill that Senate Republican leaders have vowed to reject.
The bill would also lift the funding prohibition for the U.N. Green Climate Fund, long a target for Republicans wary of international climate efforts.
The measure highlights how Democrats, with no power to force their agenda through the Senate, are looking to address climate change in smaller ways and needle Republican leaders on their policy priorities through the appropriations process.
Senate Democrats, too, have said they want to prioritize the Green Climate Fund, as well as funding boosts for the Department of Energy's research offices (E&E Daily, May 8).
The U.S. has stopped paying into the Green Climate Fund, which helps developing countries with climate adaptation, since President Trump announced in 2017 the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement and has provided just $1 billion of the $3 billion commitment made under President Obama.
Congressional Republicans in previous years repeatedly singled out the U.N. program with a funding prohibition, over Democratic objections.
While the new House draft is silent on the Green Climate Fund, it would remove the prohibition and allow money to "be made available for a contribution, grant, or any other payment for the Paris Agreement."
Other Republican policy riders are gone too, including a measure from the last few spending bills that overrides Obama-era restrictions on investments in coal-fired power plants abroad by the Overseas Private Investment Corp., the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the World Bank.
"It rejects the Administration's unacceptable, irresponsible FY2020 requests and reaffirms strong support for reproductive health, climate change, and multilateral assistance," Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said in a statement.
Overall, the draft would provide $56.4 billion, including $48.4 billion for the State Department and related agencies and $8 billion for overseas contingency operations.
The total is $2.2 billion more than fiscal 2019 enacted levels, and nearly $14 billion more than the president's fiscal 2020 budget request.
The Trump White House has asked every year for steep cuts at the State Department, which lawmakers have roundly rejected on a bipartisan basis.
The House mark this year also includes a $179 million carve out for State Department renewable energy programs and $177 million for adaptation.
Biodiversity programs would get $295 million, while wildlife tracking programs would be provided $100.7 million, both $10 million boosts over fiscal 2019 levels and significantly higher than the president's budget request.
The World Bank's Global Environmental Facility would get $139.6 million, even with the enacted fiscal 2019 spending bill.
The House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee is set to mark up the bill tomorrow.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/09/stories/1060303365
-
In Trump vs. California, the State Is Winning Nearly All Its Environmental Cases
May 9, 2019 | Governing
By Anna M. Phillips
More than two years into the Trump presidency, California has embraced its role as chief antagonist -- already suing the administration more times than Texas took President Obama to court during eight years in office.
It's having an effect.
California's lawsuits have targeted the administration's policies on immigration, healthcare and education. But nowhere has the legal battle had a greater impact than on Trump's agenda of dismantling Obama-era environmental and public health regulations.
In its rush to delay, repeal and rewrite rules it considers unduly burdensome to industry, the administration has experienced significant setbacks in court. Federal judges have sided with California and environmental groups in cases concerning air pollution, pesticides and the royalties that the government receives from companies that extract oil, gas and coal from public land.
California says it has filed 49 lawsuits against the administration over a variety of issues. Of those, at least 24 are challenges to policies put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency, Interior Department and other agencies responsible for setting energy and fuel efficiency standards for products such as ceiling fans and cars.
The state has prevailed so far in 15 of the environmental regulatory suits it filed or joined. That includes 10 that have been decided and five instances in which the Trump administration backed down before a judge could make a decision, clearing the way for regulations in areas such as worker safety and polluting diesel-engine trucks that the administration had previously contested.
The state's tally also includes one case in which the outcome was mixed. A federal judge ruled that the administration had to consider damage to the environment before lifting an Obama-era moratorium on coal sales on public land. But the court did not go as far as California had wanted by halting sales entirely.
The Trump administration is appealing several of those decisions. The other nine of the state's environmental cases are still pending.
The administration's early losses stem from a variety of problems, including moving too quickly to change regulations, ignoring procedural rules and failing to present evidence to support its position, according to California officials and legal experts.
"When you've got these environmental rules, so much of it is underpinned by the science," California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said in an interview. "And it so often is the case that the Trump administration can't produce the science."
Becerra said he has noticed the administration is slowing the pace of its rollbacks amid the state and environmental groups' repeated legal successes.
"Like any fighter, you get to the point where you become punch drunk from all the blows," he said. "We've had a great number of victories in our environmental lawsuits against the Trump administration, and after a while when you get punched so much and the blows land, you do slow down."
Legal experts said they couldn't recall agencies under any recent president having such a low success rate in court. An analysis of litigation over the administration's regulatory rollbacks done by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law found that judges have ruled against it in 37 out of 39 cases.
"Every administration has its ups and downs in the courts," said Sean Hecht, an expert on environmental law at UCLA's School of Law. "Still, it's safe to say, the Trump administration has done particularly badly."
The Justice Department, which is tasked with defending Trump's deregulatory push in court, disputed California's characterization of the legal battle. In a statement, it noted that it has bested California twice in court.
Both cases involved lawsuits filed by the federal government. One successfully challenged a state law giving the California State Lands Commission the first right of refusal when Washington decides to sell federal land. Another case involved the federal government's ability to recover damages from a wildfire that tore through a national forest.
"Isolating issues involving losses, some of which are at the district court level and many of which involved cases that later choices of the administration mooted out, does not begin to tell the whole story," wrote Assistant Atty. Gen. Jeffrey Bossert Clark.
A common problem judges have cited is that agencies under the Trump administration have violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which was first enacted in 1946.
"They do have the sloppiness and the bad lawyering. The failure to follow simple rules," said Bethany Davis Noll, litigation director for the Institute for Policy Integrity. But Noll said agencies' repeated violations of procedural rules only partially explain the losses.
As the administration moved past its initial strategy of delaying the implementation of Obama administration policies and into the next phase of attempting to overhaul them, it has run into a different obstacle: It is legally required to provide reasons for changing course.
"They have this big substantive problem where the rules are justified and they aren't giving us a good reason for abandoning them," Noll said. "An agency that wants to turn its back on that has a really tough job."
In late March, a federal judge in Northern California struck down the administration's repeal of a rule aimed at increasing oil and gas companies' royalty payments. Called the valuation rule, it was an Obama administration initiative aimed at changing how companies value sales of fossil fuels extracted from federal and tribal land.
The "repeal of the Valuation Rule was effectuated in a wholly improper manner," wrote U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown in a decision finding that the Interior Department had failed to justify the policy change.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco in April threw up a new roadblock to the administration's plans to reverse an Obama-era decision to ban chlorpyrifos, a popular pesticide suspected of harming infants' brain development. The court gave the EPA 90 days to act on environmentalists' demands for a complete prohibition.
On Monday, a California federal judge declared that Trump's EPA had violated the Clean Air Act by failing to enforce rules limiting methane emissions from landfills and ordered the agency to comply with its "long-overdue" duties.
And there's promise of more: Becerra has threatened to sue if the president goes forward with plans to take away the state's unique authority to set its own, stricter air pollution standards for vehicles -- something the state has been empowered to do since the enactment of the Clean Air Act in 1970.
Hit with defeat after defeat in the courts, the administration has responded by delaying some of its plans.
Interior Department Secretary David Bernhardt told the Wall Street Journal last month that a judge's recent decision blocking offshore drilling in the Arctic had caused him to pause a controversial plan to open most of the United States' coastal waters to oil and gas exploration.
The EPA, which had planned to release its final proposal to freeze Obama-era vehicle fuel economy standards in March, has postponed that announcement until later this year. And though the administration has proposed scaling back regulations under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Power Plan, it has yet to finalize any of these changes.
Agencies have blamed some of the delays on lost work time during the partial government shutdown. But Noll said she suspects they are struggling to come up with justifications that can survive a legal challenge.
Many of the cases California and other states have brought against the administration are only beginning to make their way through the courts, and environmentalists' victories could be reversed on appeal. Republicans have confirmed dozens of Trump-appointed judges to federal appeals courts who might be more supportive of the administration's positions.
Becerra said that regardless of who sits on the bench, California will continue to challenge Trump's policies. "We are on them immediately," he said.
https://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/tns-trump-v-california-environmental-cases.html
-
Ewire: LCV Seeks to Intensify Focus on Climate in 2020
May 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
One top environmental group is seeking to further increase attention on climate change in the Democratic presidential primary, urging all of the candidates seeking to take on President Donald Trump in 2020 to publicly embrace “an ambitious plan to address the climate crisis.”
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) says it is putting $2 million into the effort, which it dubbed “Change the Climate 2020,” in an attempt to add further momentum to a trend in which climate issues have received greater attention amid advocacy surrounding the Green New Deal.
Examples of the trend include far-reaching climate platforms floated by former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) -- both of whom have not historically focused on the issue -- as well as an ambitious and detailed plan by Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who is running a climate-centric campaign.
LCV says it will track and publicize relevant candidate policies, directly engage with campaigns, conduct polling of primary voters, and highlight stories of people affected by climate change, “especially the low-income communities and communities of color that bear a disproportionate burden of polluters' unchecked actions.”
The group says it has organizing staff on the ground in New Hampshire and Nevada and will soon launch a similar program in South Carolina -- all early Democratic primary states.
Meanwhile, Politico reports that LCV and other environmental groups are facing pressure to drop their prior support for Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) -- on of the few Republicans the group has consistently supported -- as Democrats try to take control of the Senate in 2020 and enact major climate legislation.
Campaign arms for LCV and the Environmental Defense Fund backed Collins' re-election in 2014, but LCV's Tiernan Sittenfeld told Politico that “some of Collins' recent votes have been extremely disappointing.”
While the moderate Republican has supported EPA's climate rules, environmentalists chafed at Collins' vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh -- whom many expect to be highly critical of environmental regulations -- as well as her support of Republicans' tax legislation that allowed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-lcv-seeks-intensify-focus-climate-2020
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested