Preview Newsletter

ACC AM aug 13

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Polyurethane Innovation Award Finalists Announced
Aug 12, 2015 | Plastics Today

Dow Chemical, Honeywell and Novomer made the final cut for the 2015 Polyurethane Innovation Award program, organized by the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (Washington, DC; CPI). The winner will be announced at the Polyurethanes Technical Conference in Orlando, FL, on Oct. 5 to 7, following a vote by judges and ...
(ACC Mentioned) For Recycling And Recovery: North American Plastics Alliance Celebrates 4th Anniversary
Aug 13, 2015 | Recycling Portal

The North American Plastics Alliance (NAPA), a group comprised of North America’s four leading plastics industry associations, celebrated its four-year anniversary Thursday. The Alliance was formed in 2011 when the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Canadian Plastics Industry Association...
(ACC Mentioned) Resin Sales Climb For First Half Of 2015
Aug 12, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito

Commodity resins rang up solid sales growth in the U.S. and Canada in the first half of 2015. At resin distributor Osterman & Co. Inc. of Cheshire, Conn., President John Dwyer said that growth at the firm’s customers “has tracked with or outperformed” the ACC numbers so far in 2015.
(ACC Mentioned) Dow Corning GmbH obtains ISO 50001 Energy Management certificate
Aug 13, 2015 | Glass on Web

Dow Corning’s site in Wiesbaden recently received the ISO 50001 Energy Management System (EnMS) standard, demonstrating completion of an energy use baseline and commitment to continuously improving its energy efficiency. This globally accepted framework allows Dow Corning, amongst others, to further improve energy...

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Industry, SBA Urge EPA To Reconsider, Narrow TSCA Nano Reporting Rule
Aug 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds

Industry and federal advocates for small businesses are urging EPA to reconsider aspects of its pending Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) data collection rule for nanoscale materials, with industry groups reiterating calls for EPA to re-propose the rule, and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) arguing the plan is overly burdensome.
EPA Clarifying New Chemicals Electronic Filing Rule
Aug 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The Environmental Protection Agency will hold three webinars to help chemical manufacturers and importers understand their obligations for filing new chemical notices and related materials under a direct final rule the agency issued in July. The EPA's webinars will be held Aug. 26, Sept. 16...
ECHA Calls for Comments on REACH Authorizations
Aug 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner

The European Chemicals Agency Aug. 12 opened a series of consultations on applications by companies for authorizations to continue to use hazardous substances that are slated for phase out in the European Union under the bloc's REACH regulation.

Chemical Security News

Colorado Mining Spill Halts EPA Work at Similar Sites
Aug 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz

The Environmental Protection Agency's regional offices will immediately halt field investigations at mines with tailings facilities while the cause of a 3-million-gallon release of toxic mine waste in southwest Colorado is examined, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said.
EPA Halts Mine Investigations In Wake Of Colorado Spill
Aug 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has ordered the agency to halt all field investigation work at mines and tailings facilities, except for cases of “imminent risk,” pending an investigation of its accidental release of 3 million gallons of polluted water from an abandoned mine in Colorado.
EPA Plans Probes Into Colo. Mine Waste Spill
Aug 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning both an internal and outside investigation into how agency contractors caused a spill of 3 million gallons of mine waste in Colorado. The agency hopes to figure out the root cause of the spill into the Animas River near Silverton last week, how to...
EPA Faces Expanded Oversight, Lawsuit Threat Over Spill
Aug 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin

As U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy visits the site of the Gold King mine wastewater accident today, both state and federal officials vowed to scrutinize the agency's response to the accident, including a potential lawsuit from Colorado's attorney general.

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) Petrochemical Boom Could Slow If Low Oil Prices Persist, Report Says
Aug 12, 2015 | The Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum and Collin Eaton

A drawn-out recovery for oil prices could stall the petrochemical boom in the Houston area and along the Gulf Coast, according to a new report released late Wednesday by the IHS consulting group. The bountiful ethane that comes from natural gas liquids will become more scarce if low prices stymie...
Pennsylvania Issues Final Draft Rule on Oil, Gas Wells
Aug 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued its most recent draft of a final rulemaking for oil and gas wells Aug. 12, deleting provisions on noise control and centralized wastewater storage tanks and promising to begin a new round of rulemaking immediately.
Report Details Scores Of Chemicals In California Fracturing
Aug 12, 2015 | The Houston Chronicle
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy

A vast array of ingredients make up the chemical cocktails that energy companies pump into wells to stimulate oil and gas production, according to a report released Wednesday. The analysis by the Environmental Working Group, based on data from California wells, shines a spotlight on the ...
California Hydraulic Fracturing Update
Aug 12, 2015 | Oil & Gas Financial Journal
By Heather Palmer and Michael Weller

Over the past few years, California has taken strides to update the state’s oil and gas regulatory program to keep pace with new technological advances in resource extraction, such as hydraulic fracturing. One significant milestone was the passage of SB 4 in September 2013, a bill that demonstrated how California would be taking...
Obama Keystone Decision Caught in Undertow of Canadian Election
Aug 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nicole Gaouette

Canada's election in October has become yet another event shaping the seven-year saga of the Keystone XL pipeline, one that may lead the Obama administration to delay announcing a decision to approve or reject the $8 billion project. Putting a decision on hold would give the U.S. and Canada a chance to reset a strained relationship...
Canadian Election Could Upend Energy Relationship With U.S.
Aug 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor

Keystone XL will not be on the ballot when Canadians choose a new leader this fall, but the election still could upend the United States’ energy relationship with its northern neighbor. A defeat for Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper in October could usher in tougher...
Spill Swamps Clean Power Plan Rollout -- Crisis Manager
Aug 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick

U.S. EPA's accidental spill of mining waste into a Colorado river is stealing the spotlight the agency had reserved for its Clean Power Plan rollout. The incident hijacked a Washington, D.C., press conference yesterday meant to be focused on the power rules, where ...
Republicans Call McCarthy's Answers 'False And Misleading'
Aug 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka

Several Republican members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee have accused U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy of giving "false and misleading" responses at a recent hearing on the agency's scientific practices. In the letter obtained by E&ENews PM...
EPA's Colorado Spill Could Boost Push For Broad Mining Policy Revisions
Aug 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan

EPA's accidental release of 3 million gallons of contaminated mine wastewater from a Colorado mine during a cleanup operation could boost a push for broad revisions to federal mining policies including calls for EPA Superfund financial assurance rules for mining and changes to Good Samaritan law, environmentalists say.
Methane and CO2: Why Climate Action Means Addressing Both
Aug 12, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ilissa Ocko

Climate change was the last thing on my mind that day when, as a 15-year-old, I was trying to impress a boyfriend with my rollerblading skills – from the top of a steep hill. Before I knew it, I was flying uncontrollably toward traffic with only one thought in my head: “I need to slow down and change course. Or this won’t end well.”
184 Power Plants Received Mercury Rule Extension
Aug 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

State air agencies provided 184 power plants an extension of up to one year for compliance with the mercury and air toxics standards, according to an updated survey released by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. Power plants were required to come into compliance with the MATS rule (RIN 2060-AP52; RIN 2060-AR31) by April 16...
Report Warns New Ozone Standard Would Hurt Colo. Economy
Aug 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka

Foes of U.S. EPA's proposal to tighten the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone this week have turned their attention on Colorado. Today, the Center for Regulatory Solutions released a report warning that a lower limit would spur a host of negative effects, from worse traffic jams to job losses...
18 More States Jump Into Clean Air Act Legal Challenge
Aug 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén

At least 18 more states have filed lawsuits over EPA’s recent decision requiring states to alter their Clean Air Act plans regarding startup, shutdown and malfunction situations. EPA said in May that several dozen states must remove so-called “affirmative defense” provisions from their plans. Previously, those provisions largely...
States Challenge Air Pollution ‘Loophole’ Rule
Aug 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

Seventeen states filed a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) crackdown on air pollution from power plants during exceptional periods. Led by Florida, the states said that the EPA improperly shifted the federal-state balance that the Clean Air Act...
EPA Continues With Washington Toxics Rule But Hopes For State Action
Aug 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Amanda Palleschi

EPA is continuing to develop federal revisions to Washington state's human health water quality criteria for toxics, after Gov. Jay Inslee (D) withdrew a controversial state proposal to update the criteria, but the agency still prefers that the state finalize new criteria before the federal effort is complete.

Full Text of Stories Below

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Polyurethane Innovation Award Finalists Announced

Aug 12, 2015 | Plastics Today

Dow Chemical, Honeywell and Novomer made the final cut for the 2015 Polyurethane Innovation Award program, organized by the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (Washington, DC; CPI). The winner will be announced at the Polyurethanes Technical Conference in Orlando, FL, on Oct. 5 to 7, following a vote by judges and conference attendees.
The finalists were recognized for the following innovations: Vorastar 7000 spray elastomer from Dow Chemical (Midland, MI). Representing a novel class of hydrophobic, alcohol-terminated polymer resins that can be formulated as spray-applied polyurea coatings, Vorastar 7000 can provide protection to infrastructure in the oil and gas, petrochemical and chemical industries.Solstice Liquid Blowing Agent (LBA) from Honeywell (Morristown, NJ) is a polyurethane foam blowing agent used in insulation applications in trucks, containers and ships used to transport cold cargo.Converge Polyol RF-x polyisocyanurate rigid (PIR) foam from Novomer (Waltham, MA) is described as an optimized material that allows foam manufacturers to process PIRs using traditional equipment and processing techniques while benefiting from properties derived from polypropylene carbonate polyols.
Since its inception in 2005, the Polyurethane Innovation Award has highlighted the role that innovation plays in the polyurethanes industry and recognized companies and individuals whose vision and perseverance bring new products, technologies and initiatives to the marketplace. The award is presented annually at CPI's Polyurethanes Technical Conference, which is the premier event for industry expertise, professional networking and regulatory issues.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) For Recycling And Recovery: North American Plastics Alliance Celebrates 4th Anniversary

Aug 13, 2015 | Recycling Portal

The North American Plastics Alliance (NAPA), a group comprised of North America’s four leading plastics industry associations, celebrated its four-year anniversary Thursday. The Alliance was formed in 2011 when the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) and SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association joined forces to more effectively coordinate the organizations’ shared priorities of promoting the plastics industry, advocating on its behalf and moving the entire industry forward through product stewardship programs and other efforts designed to facilitate plastics recycling and energy recovery.
In March 2015, the Alliance welcomed its newest member, the Asociación Nacional de Industrias del Plástico, AC (ANIPAC), bringing the Alliance’s membership to four and increasing its ability to advocate on behalf of plastics throughout the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) region.
To tackle some of the most pressing issues
“During the past four years, NAPA has established a strong track record of collaborating to tackle some of the plastics industry’s most pressing issues through the combined efforts of our organizations. We have become more efficient and effective in delivering value to our members, and in raising the profile and reputation of the entire plastics industry,” said William R. Carteaux, SPI president and CEO. “NAPA’s continued success is proof that the issues our industry faces will not be solved alone, and that the plastics industry has the greatest impact when it speaks with one resounding voice.”
“NAPA’s greatest success has been in working together on shared advocacy challenges, developing solutions to improve recycling and recovery of used plastics, and in keeping plastic out of our oceans,” said Steve Russell, vice president of the Plastics Division of ACC. “Together our organizations have been able to leverage our respective skills and resources to achieve more than would have been possible working alone.”
Better value to every plastics company
“Not only do plastics manufacturers located throughout North America face many of the same challenges, but the organizations that represent these companies, like CPIA, SPI, ANIPAC and ACC, face their own issues every day in providing value to their members,” said Carol Hochu, president and CEO of CPIA. “Through NAPA we’ve been able to strengthen each of our organizations, resulting in better service, better products and better value to every plastics company that is taking advantage of the outstanding offerings put forth by membership in a NAPA-aligned trade association.”
NAPA’s newest member, Martha G. Alva, CEO of ANIPAC, the voice of the plastics industry in Mexico, said: “As of March 2015, ANIPAC is formally part of NAPA. This venture will be of great value as the Mexican association will be able to exchange experience and knowledge with its equivalents in Canada and USA. The new channel of communication will allow the development of joint solutions to common issues and the design of better strategies to strengthen the plastic industry in North America.”
Concentration on four specific areas
NAPA concentrates its efforts in four specific areas: Outreach — to promote better understanding of plastics’ economic, social and environmental contributions;Advocacy — to encourage public policy that supports the growth of the plastics industry and to defend against specific product attacks by proving factual information while fostering innovation;Energy recovery and recycling — to facilitate increased recycling and recovery of plastics’ stored energy content; andPellet containment — to extend wide-scale adoption of Operations Clean Sweep throughout North America and beyond.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Resin Sales Climb For First Half Of 2015

Aug 12, 2015 | Plastics News

By Frank Esposito

Commodity resins rang up solid sales growth in the U.S. and Canada in the first half of 2015.
At resin distributor Osterman & Co. Inc. of Cheshire, Conn., President John Dwyer said that growth at the firm’s customers “has tracked with or outperformed” the ACC numbers so far in 2015.
“The second quarter [of 2015] was better for the U.S. economy overall and for plastics as well,” he added. “We were surprised to see negative [U.S. economic] numbers in the first quarter. It felt like 4 percent growth for us.
“And it was more than just customers restocking,” Dwyer said. “A lot of them had projects in the pipeline.”
Sales of high density polyethylene, linear low density PE and polypropylene led the way in the first half, each with growth of more than 6 percent vs. the first half of 2014, according to the American Chemistry Council in Washington.
HDPE sales grew 7.1 percent to 9.4 billion pounds, with LLDPE up 6.1 percent to 7.3 billion pounds and PP increasing 6.3 percent to 8.6 billion pounds. The HDPE and LLDPE totals are for the U.S. and Canada, while the PP number also includes Mexico.
Regional sales of low density PE edged up 1.5 percent to 3.5 billion pounds, while sales of solid polystyrene and PVC eked out small gains. Solid PS sales were up 0.4 percent to 2.24 billion pounds, as PVC sales grew 0.1 percent to 7.3 billion pounds.
Domestic market sales of PP and LLDPE each grew 6 to 7 percent in the first half. Sales of HDPE and LDPE were up 3 to 4 percent domestically for the six-month period, while domestic sales of PVC were flat.
In the export market, sales of HDPE soared 29 percent, while LLDPE sales were up 3 percent and PVC sales ticked up 0.3 percent. Sales of PP and LDPE didn’t fare as well in the export field, with each falling 5-6 percent for the half.
Resin makers sold more HDPE, LDPE, PP and solid PS to third-party distributors in the first half vs. the year-ago period. Distributors bought 36 percent more HDPE for the half, and 3 to 15 percent more each of LDPE, solid PS and PP. The solid PS total includes sales to resellers. LLDPE sales to distributors lagged the field, falling 13 percent.
Resellers also bought more HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE and PP in the first half, with HDPE leading the way with a 36 percent gain. Sales of LDPE, LLDPE and PP to distributors jumped 3 to 11 percent. PVC was the only area without reseller sales growth, as it reported flat sales.
North American resin distribution leader Nexeo Solutions has seen similar first-half growth patterns, commercial vice president Vaughn Deasy said. PE sales growth at Nexeo “has slightly exceeded industry growth, largely as a result of increased focus on selling volume polymers,” he explained. “Our polypropylene growth has been more restricted.”
Nexeo — based in The Woodlands, Texas — ranks as the largest distributor of PP in the U.S. Deasy added that all PP suppliers in the region remain sold out and on some form of sales control, and many suppliers of that material have battled production problems so far in 2015.
Among individual markets, Deasy said that Nexeo’s dedicated efforts to focus on health care and automotive “continue to pay dividends, with those segments delivering above average growth.” He added that the firm’s expansion into Mexico with substantially expanded resources “is positioning Nexeo well, with excellent growth associated with migration of manufacturing south of the border.”
Resin distributor Osterman & Co. is looking for growth in Mexico, too. Osterman recently formed a joint venture with Mexican PE distributor Industrial Mafra SA de CV. The JV will operate as Osterman Plastics de Mexico S de RL and is expected to help both firms grow their presence in the Mexican market.
The formation of the JV is Osterman’s third move into Latin America in the last six years. In 2009, the firm founded its Latin American Polymers unit, followed by its 2013 purchase of resin distributor Quimtec LP of San Jose, Costa Rica.
In addition to Nexeo’s Mexican efforts, the Osterman-Industrial Mafra JV is the second Mexican transaction made this year by a U.S.-based resin distributor. In May, M. Holland Co. of Northbrook, Ill., formed a partnership with Mexican distributor Grupo Solquim SA de CV.
Top growth end markets for HDPE in the first half included retail bags (up 4.6 percent) and household chemical bottles (up 5 percent). Regional LDPE market growth was led by sales into non-food packaging film, which were up 8.4 percent.
For LLDPE, sales into food packaging film were up 7 percent, and sales into trash and can liners were up 13.2 percent. Top growth sectors for PP in the first half were injection molded housewares (up 18.7 percent), injection molded cups and containers (up 16 percent) and thermoformed packaging sheet (up 17 percent).
The fastest-growing first-half end market for solid PS was food packaging/food service, where sales grew 3.1 percent, For PVC, first-half sales into siding and related uses led the way with growth of 10.1 percent.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Dow Corning GmbH obtains ISO 50001 Energy Management certificate

Aug 13, 2015 | Glass on Web

Dow Corning’s site in Wiesbaden recently received the ISO 50001 Energy Management System (EnMS) standard, demonstrating completion of an energy use baseline and commitment to continuously improving its energy efficiency. This globally accepted framework allows Dow Corning, amongst others, to further improve energy performance, reduce operation costs, gain additional market competitiveness and, most importantly, protect the planet by reducing its carbon footprint.
Dow Corning had to develop a number of policies, procedures and protocols in relation to energy management to comply with ISO 50001 EnMS’s requirements and achieve certification to ISO 50001. These included energy KPIs, objectives, targets and action plans, communication and training processes, energy performance monitoring, energy operational control and emergency procedures.

This new certificate, obtained for the first time by a site within Dow Corning, adds to the list of ISO standards which Dow Corning GmbH retained after an extensive audit by BSI. These include ISO 14001 (Environmental Management, certified since 1997), ISO 9001 (Quality Management Systems, certified since 1991) and ISO/TS 16949 (Automotive Quality Management, certified since 1998).
“Obtaining the ISO 50001 certification in addition to maintaining all our current certifications is a great achievement,” said Karl Koob, manager of Dow Corning’s site in Wiesbaden. “It is an international recognition of our commitment to integrate energy management in our overall operations. Our sustainability efforts in terms of material supply, energy reduction and waste control already align with the goals of many of our customers, but I believe ISO 50001 will become a supply chain requirement for all customers in the future. Gaining this certification now puts us one step ahead,” added Karl.
Environmental performance is a key component of Dow Corning’s core value of sustainability. To deliver on this value, the corporation has developed an integrated Operational Excellence Management System. The system is built around the principles of Responsible Care®, the chemical industry’s voluntary global initiative for continuous improvement in environmental, health, safety and security (EHSS) performance. To measure and communicate performance of our operations, Dow Corning established specific goals. In the energy field, the corporation’s goal is to achieve a 45 percent reduction in energy intensity by 2021 versus a baseline of the average of 1998-2001.
About Dow Corning
Dow Corning (dowcorning.com) provides performance-enhancing solutions to serve the diverse needs of more than 25,000 customers worldwide. A global leader in silicones, silicon-based technology and innovation, Dow Corning offers more than 7,000 products and services via the company’s Dow Corning® and XIAMETER® brands. Dow Corning is equally owned by The Dow Chemical Company and Corning, Incorporated. More than half of Dow Corning’s annual sales are outside the United States. Dow Corning’s global operations adhere to the American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care® initiative, a stringent set of standards designed to advance the safe and secure management of chemical products and processes.
Follow Dow Corning on Twitter: twitter.com/dowcorning
Visit Dow Corning’s YouTube channel: youtube.com/dowcorningcorp
About ISO International Standards
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) is an independent, non-governmental membership organization and the world's largest developer of voluntary International Standards. ISO is a network of national standards bodies of 162 countries, with a Central Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland. ISO International Standards give world-class specifications for products, services and systems, to ensure quality, safety and efficiency. They are instrumental in facilitating international trade. ISO has published more than 19 500 International Standards covering almost every industry, from technology, to food safety, to agriculture and healthcare.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Industry, SBA Urge EPA To Reconsider, Narrow TSCA Nano Reporting Rule

Aug 13, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Dave Reynolds

Industry and federal advocates for small businesses are urging EPA to reconsider aspects of its pending Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) data collection rule for nanoscale materials, with industry groups reiterating calls for EPA to re-propose the rule, and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) arguing the plan is overly burdensome.
"Small businesses are concerned that the rule will impose unnecessary and unjustified burdens on them and that alternatives exist that will reduce the economic impact of the rule on small entities while still accomplishing the agency's objective," the SBA's Office of Advocacy says in Aug. 5 comments on the proposed rule. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 183858)
EPA took comment through Aug. 6 on its proposed TSCA section 8(a) reporting and record-keeping rule that would require manufacturers, processors and importers to submit data once to the agency. The rule would also require companies that intend to manufacture a substance that would have been subject to the one-off rule but do not until after after the effective date of the regulation to report to EPA at least 135 days before commencing manufacturing.
EPA issued the proposal April 6 after years of wrangling with the nano industry and White House officials over the scope of the rule. Most recently, industry groups faulted the proposal in a June public meeting. There, the chemical industry association American Chemistry Council's (ACC) representatives urged EPA to withdraw and re-propose the rule, arguing it lacked clarity and scientific backing.
A broad swath of industry groups, including auto manufacturers and semiconductor producers, are backing prior industry arguments in their written comments. They argue that finalizing the proposal could stifle innovation or that EPA lacks authority for some provisions.
"The expansive scope of reporting requirements for commercially available nanoscale substances would unduly burden industry, especially processors, and will put formulated products containing nano-scale substances at a competitive disadvantage," the Consumer Specialty Products Association's comments say.
Although not calling for withdrawal of the rule, SBA's Office of Advocacy is faulting EPA's economic analysis supporting the proposal and calling for changes. The agency wants EPA to broaden a small business exemption, better account for burdens of the rule on processors of nanomaterials, and to issue guidance clarifying an exemption for firms engaged in research and development.
Meanwhile, advocacy groups, including the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are seeking to strengthen the proposal and calling for additional regulation of nanomaterials, saying reporting alone is insufficient to reduce potential risks to human health and the environment.
"It is imperative that EPA take action now under TSCA rather than relying on a flawed presumption of safety until nanoscale materials have already caused damage to human health or the environment," the groups say. "The scientific evidence indicates nanoscale materials require regulation on their production, distribution, and use."
Federal agencies, including EPA, have long struggled with how to assess and regulate nanomaterials since their unique, technology-advancing properties may also present health and safety risks. EPA has said data collected under the proposed reporting rule will guide its future policies on the substances, including potential regulation of some nanomaterials found to pose risks to human health or the environment
While industry groups are seeking to narrow or postpone a final rule by calling for withdrawal of the current plan, some states have sought stronger measures that would either subject nanomaterials to premanufacture scrutiny -- even if the macrosize material is already on the TSCA inventory and therefore exempt from such scrutiny -- or enable regulators to address risks posed by certain nanomaterials.
The California Department of Public Health has urged EPA to define all nanomaterials as new chemicals, subjecting them to premanufacture scrutiny, while the Washington Department of Ecology, in separate comments, has said a safety determination on nanomaterials' potential risks is needed to ensure regulation can be implemented when needed.
By contrast, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers, Inc. in joint comments question whether TSCA's definition of a chemical substance clearly grants EPA authority to require reporting on nanoscale versions of bulk substances since their molecular structure is not specific to the nanoscale.
"EPA should reconsider the extent to which it has authority under section 8(a) to require reporting of information related to nanoscale forms of chemical substances which also exist at the macroscale," the automakers say.
In comments posted to a public website in early August, industry groups urge EPA to better clarify which substances are covered by the proposed reporting requirement, expand categories of exemptions, and reduce or eliminate the 135 day notification requirement.
Groups including ACC, the Nanomanufacturing Association, and the Chemical Users Coalition, in separate comments urge EPA to follow a phased or multi-step approach. The groups recommend that EPA first seek reporting from manufacturers and importers of nanomaterials, and from processors later, if necessary, to fill data gaps. Part of the reason, industry officials say, is that processors of nanomaterials do not always know when they receive nanomaterials from suppliers, and that information from manufacturers and importers would likely meet the agency's goals.
ACC and the Nanomanufacturing Association also reiterate calls for EPA to better coordinate with Canadian regulators, which have proposed exemptions from reporting for additional types of nanomaterials.
ACC says industry "is extremely concerned that if the U.S. and Canadian approaches are not more closely aligned, the comparability of information and ability to move forward in a coordinated manner would be at risk and that the reporting burden on industry could be extremely high."
Other groups, including The Nanotechnology Coalition, a trade association affiliated with the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates as well as the American Coatings Association (ACA), argue that EPA should base reporting requirements on a substance's potential hazard rather than on physical factors.
"EPA should not require reporting of an entire class of chemicals," ACA says. Rather, "EPA should first evaluate the necessary hazard information, health effects and data, and then tailor reporting requirements towards those chemicals that may present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment."
Environmental groups, meanwhile, are urging EPA to strengthen reporting requirements and arguing that reporting alone is insufficient and that further rules are needed. In joint comments, CFS, CBD and Institute on Agriculture and Trade Policy argue that to fully implement TSCA, EPA should issue a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) and a test rule for nanomaterials, as well as section 6 rules restricting certain substances when necessary.
The SNUR would allow EPA to review and potentially restrict future new uses of nanomaterials before those uses begin, while a test rule would determine whether substances pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Also, TSCA section 6 allows EPA to limit use of certain substances to address risks.
The advocates also back California state regulators' call to define all nanomaterials as new chemical substances, subjecting them to premanufacture scrutiny. And they urge EPA to eliminate exemptions for certain types of nanomaterials from the reporting rule and to narrow the exclusion for small businesses.
Additionally, the groups say EPA should eliminate a "unique and novel" criteria for identifying reportable substances, calling it vague, and say EPA should provide guidance to help companies determine what substances require reporting under the final rule. The groups also seek restrictions on businesses' claims of confidentiality, and say EPA should publicize locations where workers are exposed to nanomaterials, and include information collected under the rule in a publicly accessible database.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Clarifying New Chemicals Electronic Filing Rule

Aug 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The Environmental Protection Agency will hold three webinars to help chemical manufacturers and importers understand their obligations for filing new chemical notices and related materials under a direct final rule the agency issued in July.
The EPA's webinars will be held Aug. 26, Sept. 16 and Sept. 30, the agency announced Aug. 12.
The final rule (RIN 2070-AJ98), published July 20, revised the software companies must use to file new chemical notices, called premanufacture notices (PMNs). The rule also expanded the types of new chemical documents that manufacturers and importers must file electronically (80 Fed. Reg. 42,739; (138 DEN A-3, 7/20/15).
The rule, issued under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, will affect the procedures chemical manufacturers and importers use to submit hundreds of documents to the EPA annually.
The regulation will be effective Jan. 19, 2016, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by Aug. 19.
If it does receive adverse comment or notice that a party intends to file adverse comment, the agency would withdraw the final rule and republish it as a proposed regulation.
Each of EPA's webinars will focus on a different issue. Specifically on:
• Aug. 26, it will discuss the process companies must use to register with the agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX) to submit TSCA section 5 Notices and supporting documents electronically;
• Sept. 16, it will discuss the PMN form and related support form and joint submissions; and
• Sept. 30, it will discuss filing notices of commencements, biotechnology information; bona fides and other documents.

Return to headline | Return to top
ECHA Calls for Comments on REACH Authorizations

Aug 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Gardner

The European Chemicals Agency Aug. 12 opened a series of consultations on applications by companies for authorizations to continue to use hazardous substances that are slated for phase out in the European Union under the bloc's REACH regulation.
The consultations cover chromium trioxide, sodium chromate and sodium dichromate, which cannot be used without authorization in the EU after Sept. 21, 2017, and 1,2-dichloroethane, which cannot be used without authorization after Nov. 22, 2017.
The authorizations sought for chromium trioxide cover six uses, including chrome plating, aeronautics and aerospace applications, and treating steel in a range of industrial sectors.
For sodium chromate, sodium dichromate and 1,2-dichloroethane, one authorization is sought in each case, respectively, for use as an anticorrosion agent, for the separation of minerals in the processing of sulfide ores, and in the manufacture of pharmaceutical ingredients.
ECHA said information should be submitted through Oct. 7 on possible less hazardous alternatives to the substances in the processes for which authorizations are being sought.
Authorization Process
ECHA's Risk Assessment Committee and Socio-Economic Analysis Committee will take the responses to the consultations into account when preparing opinions on the authorization applications.
The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, finalizes authorizations based on the committees' opinions.
Authorizations are granted if it can be demonstrated that substances can be used safely, or if there is a strong socioeconomic argument in favor of continued use of the substance and there are no available substitutes.
Currently, 31 substances are listed in Annex XIV of REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals), known as the authorization list, meaning decisions have been taken to phase them out from use in the EU without use-specific authorizations.
According to the ECHA website, as at Aug. 12, companies had filed 32 applications for authorizations covering 65 specified uses of Annex XIV substances and the commission had issued six final authorization decisions.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Colorado Mining Spill Halts EPA Work at Similar Sites

Aug 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Tripp Baltz

The Environmental Protection Agency's regional offices will immediately halt field investigations at mines with tailings facilities while the cause of a 3-million-gallon release of toxic mine waste in southwest Colorado is examined, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said.
“While we continue to investigate the root causes of last week's release of mining waste at the Gold King Mine in Colorado, we are instructing our Regions to immediately cease any field investigation work at mines including tailings facilities, unless there is imminent risk in a specific case,” McCarthy said Aug. 12 at a briefing in Durango, Colo.
Meanwhile, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said drinking water treatment facilities in Durango can begin using water from the Animas River, which was affected by the spill.
McCarthy said the agency is initiating an independent assessment by a “sister federal agency” or other external entity to examine the factors that led to the incident. The spill occurred Aug. 5 when EPA contractors investigating contamination leaking from the mine excavated loose material that had collapsed into a cave entry at the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colo. (153 DEN A-3, 8/10/15).
The material gave way, opening the adit—a mine tunnel—and spilling more than 3 million gallons of toxic waste and sludge into Upper Cement Creek.
Upper Cement Creek is a tributary of the Animas River, which flows through Durango and southwest Colorado into New Mexico and the San Juan River. The San Juan merges with the Colorado at Lake Powell in Utah.
Command Center Set Up
Officials from three EPA regions, two Indian tribes and various state agencies are addressing the incident, and EPA has set up a command center in Durango where field workers are analyzing water samples, shutting access to public drinking water systems and supplying water bottles to people whose wells have been affected. The agency has also set up a website with information about the spill.
Based on the outcome from the independent assessment, the EPA will determine “what actions may be necessary to avoid similar incidents at other sites,” McCarthy said.
She said while EPA investigators are standing down on existing field investigations and assessments at other mines, the agency is also instructing its regional offices to identify existing sites with similarities to the Gold King Mine and to identify any immediate threats and consider appropriate response actions.
Using Animas River Water
Durango's public water utility can begin collecting and treating water from the Animas River for distribution to its customers, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said Aug. 12.
“We are working with affected systems to increase sampling and monitoring,” Larry Wolk, state health department director and chief medical officer, said in a statement. “Water quality could change due to storms or other conditions, and we will respond quickly to any potential issues.”
Wolk added that all private water systems in the area were affected by the spill.
The department recommends testing private drinking water wells located within one mile of the Animas River as a precaution.
“However, we have no indication that the aquifer accessed by private wells has been contaminated,” Wolk said. “Residents should not take their own samples; technicians will be sent to sample the water from homes. The state health department is available to help residents understand test results.”

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Halts Mine Investigations In Wake Of Colorado Spill

Aug 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Alex Guillén

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has ordered the agency to halt all field investigation work at mines and tailings facilities, except for cases of “imminent risk,” pending an investigation of its accidental release of 3 million gallons of polluted water from an abandoned mine in Colorado.

“We are in the process of initiating an independent assessment by a sister federal agency or another external entity to examine the factors that led to last week’s incident,” McCarthy wrote in her order to regional officials. “Based on the outcome from that assessment, we will determine what actions may be necessary to avoid similar incidents at other sites.”

Separately, House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz today asked EPA's inspector general to investigate the Animas River spill.

"The EPA should be held to the same benchmark that applies to those it regulates,” wrote Chaffetz and Reps. Cynthia Lummis and Ken Buck. “Accordingly, we request that you investigate this incident and its ensuing management by EPA and provide recommendations to the agency to ensure any mistakes will not be repeated in the future."

A spokesman for EPA’s IG told POLITICO that the watchdog has received several requests to investigate the matter and is considering conducting a review.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Plans Probes Into Colo. Mine Waste Spill

Aug 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning both an internal and outside investigation into how agency contractors caused a spill of 3 million gallons of mine waste in Colorado.
The agency hopes to figure out the root cause of the spill into the Animas River near Silverton last week, how to prevent such accidents in the future and how to better respond, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Wednesday.“We are doing an internal EPA investigation, and we’re also going to seek independent review and investigation of what happened,” McCarthy told reporters in Durango, Colo., after visiting with EPA, local, state and tribal officials working to respond to the massive spill.
“Rest assured that we will learn lessons from this and we will move those lessons forward in the work moving ahead,” she said.
McCarthy said that the external probe, the details of which will be revealed later, will help the agency and the public feel more at ease about the findings.
“It is not a ‘trust me’ situation,” she said. “People know that EPA had an incident occur, they want to have fresh eyes that are independent of EPA on it, and I want those fresh eyes as much as you do.”
The House Oversight Committee is also asking the EPA’s inspector general to conduct its own probe.
In the meantime, McCarthy has instructed the entire agency to stop any assessment activities in abandoned mines, unless it presents imminent risk, in an effort to prevent additional spills.
McCarthy’s visit to Durango, which is on the Animas and the closest major city to the abandoned Gold King Mine, came after a week of anger and confusion among local and state officials toward the EPA.
McCarthy revealed at the Wednesday afternoon news conference that the EPA’s testing of the Animas River came to a similar conclusion as Tuesday's data from state scientists: the water had returned to pre-spill concentrations of metal and acidity.
But she cautioned that the EPA is not ready to declare that the river is safe.
“This is very good news. But I want to make sure you understand that there are additional steps that we want to take ... working with our counties and local communities, so that they can have a chance to review this data thoroughly,” she said.
Earlier Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) asked that the EPA’s inspector general conduct its own probe.
“An independent perspective is essential to investigating the cause of and response to this catastrophe,” Chaffetz wrote, adding that the EPA promised a thorough investigation of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 and that “the EPA should be held to the same benchmark that applies to those it regulates.”
Joining Chaffetz in his letter were Reps. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and Ken Buck (R-Colo.).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and other lawmakers have similarly pledged to hold the EPA’s feet to the fire for the incident.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Faces Expanded Oversight, Lawsuit Threat Over Spill

Aug 12, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Jennifer Yachnin

As U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy visits the site of the Gold King mine wastewater accident today, both state and federal officials vowed to scrutinize the agency's response to the accident, including a potential lawsuit from Colorado's attorney general.
McCarthy, who is touring Colorado and New Mexico, is slated to make public remarks this afternoon about the incident that has pumped more than 3 million gallons of wastewater containing arsenic and other heavy metals into the Animas River.
The accident was triggered last week by an EPA team investigating contamination at the mine, which is located in Colorado's southwestern corner.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said his panel will conduct "extensive oversight" into the accident when Congress reconvenes next month.
"EPA's grave blunder is posing a serious threat to both the environment and the economy in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona. Lands and projects managed by the Department of the Interior and Forest Service -- not to mention the tribal concerns -- within my committee's jurisdiction will be seriously and negatively impacted," Bishop said in a statement.
Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner (R) similarly called for oversight hearings yesterday (E&ENews PM, Aug. 11).
Bishop is also set to visit Lake Powell on Monday. Wastewater from the mine is expected to pour into the reservoir, located on the Utah-Arizona line and bound by the Glenn Canyon Dam, as early as today.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality began testing that water earlier this week and will continue to do so, although officials do not expect to find significant changes.
"We don't anticipate that there is going to be a significant impact to the Arizona side of Lake Powell," Arizona DEQ Water Quality Division Director Trevor Baggiore told USA Today.
But during a visit to Durango today to view the Animas River, Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R), the wife of Rep. Mike Coffman (R), told The Denver Post she is weighing a lawsuit against EPA over the spill.
"I would hope that it would not be necessary," Coffman said. "The statements by [McCarthy] indicate the EPA is accepting responsibility for the accident. The question is: What does that mean? What does accepting responsibility mean?"
California Sen. Barbara Boxer, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, released her own letter to McCarthy yesterday, urging EPA officials to commit to doing "whatever is necessary to mitigate the spill and its impact," as well as keeping local communities up to date on its actions.
"I know you agree that protecting the health of the families and children that are affected by this large release of contaminated wastewater must be the EPA's top priority," Boxer wrote.

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) Petrochemical Boom Could Slow If Low Oil Prices Persist, Report Says

Aug 12, 2015 | The Houston Chronicle

By Jordan Blum and Collin Eaton

A drawn-out recovery for oil prices could stall the petrochemical boom in the Houston area and along the Gulf Coast, according to a new report released late Wednesday by the IHS consulting group.
The bountiful ethane that comes from natural gas liquids will become more scarce if low prices stymie the U.S. shale surge, according to the report from IHS Chemical.
Some shale wells produce mostly natural gas, and oil wells often put it out as a byproduct.
The U.S. petrochemical industry uses natural gas-derived ethane to make ethylene, the main chemical building block for plastics. Tighter U.S. ethane supply over the next few years could give a competitive advantage to European and Asian petrochemical plants that rely on naphtha, a crude oil-based alternative to ethane that typically is more expensive. Under such market conditions, companies planning petrochemical plant expansions in the United States might "take a pause," said Don Bari, IHS Chemical's vice president of technology and analytics, who authored the report. Business Petrochemical boom could slow if low oil prices persist, report Touch-up artist masters Kickstarter campaign Capacity of Texas-Mexico pipeline could be bumped up Shrimpers decry low prices, damage caused by shrimp imports In brief: Kraft Heinz chops 2,500 jobs Fisker to revive electric auto brand
Largely because of cheap prices for U.S. natural gas feedstock, petrochemical heavyweights including Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., Exxon Mobil Chemical Co., LyondellBasell, Dow Chemical Co. and BASF have about $30 billion in construction projects ongoing in the Houston area. Chemical companies have committed more than $100 billion to expansion projects in the U.S. through 2023, according to the American Chemistry Council.
Many naphtha-based plants internationally were in dire straits for years and should see a resurgence if oil prices do not rebound, Bari said, in part because the oil market drives price-setting mechanisms for many chemicals, plastics and fibers. Long-term oversupply of crude oil could keep prices from recovering for a decade or so, according to IHS Chemical.
Oil markets quieted Wednesday after a price jump Monday followed by a sharp pullback Tuesday. U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude rose 22 cents to $43.30 in New York Mercantile Exchange trading - still near six-year lows. International benchmark Brent crude gained 48 cents to $49.66.
"Oil price volatility is creating a nightmare for companies planning investments," Bari said.
The U.S. petrochemical market should still remain strong in the coming years, he said, but other countries may fare better and offer increased global competition.
Overall, the winners would be European and Asian naphtha-based chemical producers, IHS Chemical reported.
"North America would be the losers in this equation," the report noted, "since the North American export position would be negatively impacted as its economic advantage shrinks."
The modest rise in oil prices Wednesday came as the U.S. government reported a decline in domestic oil inventories and the Paris-based International Energy Agency projected increased demand for crude,
The agency, a consortium of 29 oil-importing nations, said healthier economies could burn through crude faster than they have in five years as they take advantage of cheap prices. But the agency said the glut that has sent prices plunging over the past year will persist.
It projected that the world's daily oil demand is set to grow by 1.6 million barrels, an upward revision of 200,000 over its previous estimate, as crude supplies decline slowly.
"While a rebalancing has clearly begun, the process is likely to be prolonged as a supply overhand is expected to persist through 2016 – suggesting global inventories will pile up further," the agency said in its monthly oil market report.
Global oil production totals almost 100 million barrels a day, and the agency predicted the growth in that production will decline from last year's 2.4 million barrels to 1.1 million barrels this year. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is pumping more oil than it has in three years, but daily production dipped by 15,000 barrels last month to 31.79 million barrels, the International Energy Agency estimated. Saudi Arabia put out slightly less crude, while Iraq and Iran bolstered production.
OPEC has put 1.4 million additional barrels a day into the market since its November meeting last year, when it decided it would not lower production to support crude prices. But that production only accounts for half of the growth in global supplies this year.
While non-OPEC production has shrunk, it still was 1.2 million barrels a day higher last month than in July of 2014, because of previous investments by oil producers, the International Energy Agency said.
Its report followed China's second day of letting its currency, the yuan, decline in value before pumping it up against the dollar later in the day. The dollar declined, which typically gives crude a boost because it is priced in dollars and becomes more attractive to investors who use other currencies.
Also bullish for crude was a U.S. Energy Department report that inventories in the key oil storage hub of Cushing, Okla., fell by about 100,000 barrels to 57.1 million barrels.

Return to headline | Return to top
Pennsylvania Issues Final Draft Rule on Oil, Gas Wells

Aug 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Leslie A. Pappas

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued its most recent draft of a final rulemaking for oil and gas wells Aug. 12, deleting provisions on noise control and centralized wastewater storage tanks and promising to begin a new round of rulemaking immediately.
“This is not the end of the process of ensuring responsible drilling in Pennsylvania,” DEP Secretary John Quigley said during a webcast on the revised rules Aug. 12. “Given the time frame it takes to get a regulation enacted, it's clear to us that we need to begin immediately on developing the next set of regulatory proposals.”
The rulemaking on “Environmental Protection Performance Standards at Oil and Gas Well Sites,” also known as Chapters 78 and 78a, seeks to amend existing regulations for oil and gas wells to improve protection of water resources, better protect public health and safety, address landowner concerns, include greater consideration of public resources, and improve data management. The rules intend to balance the needs of industry, public health and the environment while enabling drilling to proceed, the DEP said.
Substantial Differences
The most recent revisions to Chapter 78, the part of the rule that covers conventional oil and gas drilling, will be discussed at the next meeting of the Conventional Oil and Gas Advisory Committee (COGAC) Aug. 27. Revisions to Chapter 78a, which covers unconventional natural gas drilling involving hydraulic fracturing, will be discussed by the Oil and Gas Technical Advisory Board on Sept. 2.
Scott Perry, deputy secretary of DEP's Office of Oil and Gas Management, noted that there are “substantial differences” between the rules for conventional oil and gas drilling in Chapter 78 and unconventional gas drilling in Chapter 78a.
For example, the revision eliminates the use of pits for storage at unconventional well sites because the size of the pits and the volume of materials stored proved to be “an environmentally unsound practice,” Perry said. Conventional well site operators will still be able to use pits because experience has shown that it can be done in a way that is environmentally sound, Perry said.
Significant Revisions
The most recent version of the rules also makes two “significant revisions” by eliminating sections on noise mitigation and centralized tank storage, according to Perry.
It became clear that finalizing a regulation on noise “at this point in time was premature,” because there were still many “technical issues and challenges” to be addressed, Perry said. The department will consider noise mitigation in future regulations, and in the meantime will act on a case-by-case basis, Perry said.
Among other changes, the draft revises definitions for a number of terms including “playground,” “oil and gas operations,” “other critical communities,” “containment system,” “threatened or endangered species” and “wellhead protection area.”
“Plugged wells” has been added to the list of wells that must be identified when reviewing an area for drilling and be addressed in monitoring plans.
And in terms of onsite processing, a new subsection will require operators processing fluids or drill cuttings on a well site to develop an action plan for monitoring and responding to radioactive materials that are produced, bringing operators in line with off-site waste treatment facilities, according to a summary of the draft changes.
March 2016 Deadline
The DEP hopes to submit a final version of the rule to Pennsylvania's Environmental Quality Board, an independent 20-member board that adopts all DEP regulations, by the end of 2015.
The DEP must submit a final version to the state's Independent Regulatory Review Commission , which reviews all proposed and final regulations from Pennsylvania state agencies, by March 2016 or the rulemaking process will start over.
Quigley called the recent draft a “culmination of one of the largest public participation efforts that the DEP has ever seen,” involving 12 public hearings and two public comment periods that generated nearly 30,000 comments. Efforts to revise the regulation began in 2011.
The department is already in the process of developing a list of items to include in the next regulatory package, and will be coming out with more detailed information about the package “probably in the fourth quarter of this year,” Quigley said.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}

Return to headline | Return to top
Report Details Scores Of Chemicals In California Fracturing

Aug 12, 2015 | The Houston Chronicle

By Jennifer A. Dlouhy

A vast array of ingredients make up the chemical cocktails that energy companies pump into wells to stimulate oil and gas production, according to a report released Wednesday.
The analysis by the Environmental Working Group, based on data from California wells, shines a spotlight on the makeup of the fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process, also known as fracking. The technology involves sending a mixture of sand or similar material, water and chemicals into wells to open the pores of dense underground rock formations, allowing oil and gas to flow out.
The compounds can be highly customized for different wells or geology, and oil field services companies consider some of the recipes proprietary. But in general, fracturing fluids used at each of 691 recent California oil wells contained more than a dozen distinct chemicals, according to the Environmental Working Group's analysis. That California total is higher than the average number of distinct chemicals pumped in individual fracturing jobs nationwide. Energy Great Lakes gas prices up after partial refinery shutdown Israel reaches deal on natural gas development Rescuers pull 2 bodies from lagoon in Nigerian chopper crash Kankakee County OKs special use permit for wind farm Deutsche Bank employees charged in emissions trading case Tenn. lawmakers speak out against gas tax amid Haslam tour
All told, 197 unique chemicals were used at those California oil wells from December 2013 to February 2015, including 15 identified under a state law as known to cause of cancer or reproductive harm, EWG said.
Environmentalists have cited the chemical components of fracturing fluids in arguing that hydraulic fracturing poses a risk to drinking water and should be more closely regulated and independently monitored, if not banned outright.
"Fracking is inherently problematic because of the chemicals used in the fluid," said Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist with EWG who co-authored the report.
The group's report recommends that officials determine if less harmful alternatives can replace some of the more toxic chemicals used to fracture wells. The group also is pushing regulators to block companies from discharging drilling wastewater into potential sources of drinking or agricultural water.
'Tired talking points'
Oil and gas industry leaders insist that hydraulic fracturing is safe and does not threaten underground aquifers and other drinking water sources.
Steve Everley, a senior adviser for the industry-backed campaign Energy In Depth, called Wednesday's report "a repackaging of the tired talking points that anti-fracking groups have designed to sow doubt about the scientific consensus" around hydraulic fracturing.
"Countless studies have shown fracking does not pose a serious risk to groundwater," Everley said.
No cases found
The California Council on Science and Technology said in a report last month that it found no documented instances of hydraulic fracturing directly causing groundwater contamination in the state.
And a five-year Environmental Protection Agency probe of hydraulic fracturing concluded earlier this year that while some water supplies have been contaminated, there is no evidence the process has caused "widespread systemic impacts on drinking water."
Hydraulic fracturing critics point to the risks of indirect contamination and disparate impacts that fall below the "widespread" and "systemic" threshold in the EPA study.
Potential problems?
The Environmental Working Group report describes a number of ways fracturing fluids can potentially contaminate drinking water, including through surface spills, failures of casing inside wells, improper handling of drilling waste, and possible migration of the fluids through newly opened channels underground.
The top two ingredients used in fractured California oil wells were quartz crystalline silica and diatomaceous earth; both are used as proppants that hold open fractures in rock so oil and gas can flow freely.
The third-most used ingredient in the fractured California oil wells was guar gum, a gelling agent that boosts the viscosity of water, allowing it to carry more proppant.
Ranking No. 4 was ammonium persulfate, which is used as a breaker, acting to lower the viscosity of a fracturing fluid before it flows back from a fractured formation. This allows a larger quantity of the fluid to escape the fracture, leaving a path for more oil and gas flow.

Return to headline | Return to top
California Hydraulic Fracturing Update

Aug 12, 2015 | Oil & Gas Financial Journal

By Heather Palmer and Michael Weller

Over the past few years, California has taken strides to update the state’s oil and gas regulatory program to keep pace with new technological advances in resource extraction, such as hydraulic fracturing. One significant milestone was the passage of SB 4 in September 2013, a bill that demonstrated how California would be taking a different approach to hydraulic fracturing and unconventional shale gas development as compared to the approach taken by the State of New York.

(Shutterstock/Popartic)

While New York has opted for an outright ban on hydraulic fracturing in the state, California’s SB 4 established interim regulations and laid out plans for a thorough scientific and environmental review of hydraulic fracturing, leading up to the promulgation of permanent regulations, which went into effect on July 1, 2015.
SB 4 also required the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to develop and adopt “model criteria” for monitoring groundwater in areas where hydraulic fracturing is used. The SWRCB announced the Model Criteria for Groundwater Monitoring in Areas of Oil and Gas Well Stimulation (Model Criteria) on July 7, 2015.
SB 4 permanent regulations in effect July 1, 2015
In accordance with SB 4, the Department of Conservation (DOC) Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to provide the public with detailed information regarding any potential environmental impacts of well stimulation in the state, and the California Natural Resources Agency conducted a comprehensive independent scientific study on well stimulation treatments. While these studies were ongoing, SB 4 directed DOC to enact Emergency Regulations that allowed operators to use well stimulation treatments without obtaining a permit until the final regulations were developed.
On July 1, 2015, DOGGR certified the EIR titled “Analysis of Oil and Gas Well Stimulation Treatments in California.” The EIR serves as a “first tier” programmatic environmental review document that California agencies can rely on when evaluating oil and gas permits to drill. This is similar to the approach of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field offices in the context of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs).
The DOGGR provides in its Certification Statement that, “for the vast majority of applications for well stimulation treatment permits, DOGGR expects [the EIR] will simply function as a first tier data base on which DOGGR and other agencies can build in order to allow future publicly circulated CEQA documents to focus on site-specific issues.” DOGGR further notes that DOGGR “will work with lead agencies to ensure adequate mitigation for all impacts that can be seen as direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect effects of well stimulation treatment.” DOGGR has considered efficiency and cost as well, suggesting that oil and gas field operators in the “same established field” request a single-project authorization for multiple applications in order to streamline CEQA review.
The DOGGR concluded that seven mitigation measures discussed in the EIR should be applied without change throughout the state and, therefore, should be converted into formal regulations. The mitigation measures DOGGR plans to incorporate into formal regulations include: GW-1a (Use Alternative Water Sources to the Extent Feasible);GW-4b (Install a Well Seal across Protected Groundwater for New Wells Subject to Well Stimulation Treatments);SWR-1b (Surface Water Protection);GEO-1a (Avoid Active Faults if Necessary);GEO-1b (Implement an Appropriate Setback if Necessary);GEO-1e (Include an Earthquake Response Plan within the Spill Contingency Plan); andHAZ-1a (Ensure that Spill Contingency Plan Provides Adequate Protection Against Leaks or Discharges of Dangerous Fluids and Other Potentially Dangerous Materials).
DOGGR is soon expected to release the “Mitigation Policy Manual,” which will set out other mitigation measures that may be necessary for certain well stimulation treatment permits.
Several volumes of the independent scientific assessment of well stimulation, Well Stimulation in California – An Examination of Hydraulic Fracturing and Acid Stimulations in the Oil and Gas Industry (July 2015) were released to the public on July 9, 2015. The scientific assessment covers impacts of well stimulation on water resources, air quality and seismic impacts of well stimulation, and potential impacts of well stimulation on wildlife, vegetation and human health. DOGGR indicated in its Certification Statement that it would be reviewing the scientific assessment and may amend the Mitigation Policy Manual and/or “propose additional regulations” as warranted.
On July 1, 2015, DOGGR’s permanent regulations went into effect. Among other requirements, the permanent regulations require an operator to (1) submit a detailed application and obtain a permit prior to performing well stimulation treatment (e.g., hydraulic fracturing or acidizing); (2) within 60 days after cessation of the well stimulation treatment, disclose information including the chemicals used; (3) prepare a post-well stimulation treatment report; (4) adhere to new standards for the storage and handling of well stimulation treatment fluids and wastes (including a prohibition on pit storage); and (5) monitor the well prior to, during and after well stimulation, including an evaluation of seismic activity in the vicinity of hydraulic fracturing.
SWRCB model criteria
On July 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted water quality monitoring methods and requirements to be used in areas where hydraulic fracturing occurs. The Model Criteria sets out the process for how groundwater will be sampled and tested by oil and gas operators and designated contractors and how the State Water Board will perform regional monitoring. The “area-specific” requirements established in the Model Criteria are designed to “characterize baseline water quality conditions and detect potential impacts to beneficial use waters from well stimulation treatments.” The Model Criteria establishes that operators shall prepare groundwater monitoring plans with “site-specific information including geology, geophysics, hydrogeology, geochemistry, and current and past field operations.” Area-specific groundwater monitoring is required unless an operator receives approval from the State Water Board for an exclusion.
Generally, operators would be required to sample groundwater monitoring wells in accordance with the following area-specific requirements: Collect samples before well stimulation. Following well stimulation, area-specific groundwater monitoring wells shall be placed on a semi-annual monitoring schedule.The quarter selected for semi-annual sampling shall alternate each year. For example, the first year, the operator will collect samples during the first and third quarter; the following year, samples will be collected during the second and fourth quarters.All sampling work shall be collected under the oversight of a California Registered Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist.Sample for the “Required Analytes” as set forth in Table B1 of the Model Criteria (g., TDS, radionuclides, methane, BTEX, PAH, alcohols and glycols, biocides used during well stimulation and any tracers used during well stimulation).Submit a Groundwater Monitoring Report to the State Water Board.
With the promulgation of permanent regulations for well stimulation activities and the adoption of water quality monitoring requirements in California, oil and gas operators should carefully review their practices and procedures to ensure that exploration and production operations are being conducted in compliance with California law.

Return to headline | Return to top
Obama Keystone Decision Caught in Undertow of Canadian Election

Aug 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Nicole Gaouette

Canada's election in October has become yet another event shaping the seven-year saga of the Keystone XL pipeline, one that may lead the Obama administration to delay announcing a decision to approve or reject the $8 billion project.
Putting a decision on hold would give the U.S. and Canada a chance to reset a strained relationship, said David Wilkins, a former U.S. ambassador to Canada. On the other hand, a decision in the midst of Canada's 11-week election campaign could be seen as political interference.
“If the decision is made now, one would have to wonder why it would come during a declared election campaign for prime minister,” Wilkins said. As it is, the delayed decision “has had a negative effect on the relationship,” said Wilkins. “Canadians think they deserve to be treated better.”
TransCanada Corp.'s pipeline linking Alberta's oil fields to U.S. refineries in the Gulf of Mexico has become a potent symbol in environmentalists' fight against fossil fuels. It also has become a proxy for a U.S.-Canada relationship that's grown tense.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party has championed the pipeline proposed by TransCanada of Alberta, where Harper began his political career. But views in Canada are hardly monolithic.
Harper's main challenger in the Oct. 19 election, New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair, has spoken out against Keystone XL. Justin Trudeau of the Liberal Party supports the pipeline but criticizes Harper for letting the issue damage relations with President Barack Obama. The U.S. president has dismissed the benefits to U.S. consumers cited by pipeline advocates.
‘Big Reverberations.’
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) has said he's heard from credible sources he didn't identify that Obama will reject Keystone XL during this month's congressional recess. Doing so, however, would raise a divisive issue just as Obama is focusing on trying to win congressional support for the nuclear deal with Iran.
In Canadian politics, Keystone XL is “something that all of our political candidates are talking about; it's something that has really been dramatized for the last number of years, and so a decision from the U.S. at a key moment in the election would have very big reverberations,” said Erin Flanagan, an analyst at the Toronto branch of the Pembina Institute, a national energy policy group.
Impact on Trade
In addition to its political impact, some U.S. officials acknowledge, Obama's decision could affect the tenor of discussions on issues ranging from Canada's position on the Trans- Pacific Partnership trade agreement to the Canadian role in the fights against the Islamic State and Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists.
Canada is the U.S.'s largest trading partner, sharing $2 billion a day in trade, and the two neighbors cooperate so closely in so many areas that government bureaucrats deal directly with one another.
“Very few issues are elevated to the level of foreign policy or become an issue that rises to public attention,” said Laura Dawson, director of the Canada Institute at the Wilson Center, a policy group in Washington.
Keystone XL, though, has become, “the big gorilla” in the relationship, said Wilkins, a lawyer who has represented the Alberta government and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Tensions over it have been compounded by recent disagreements about country-of-origin food labeling, funding for a bridge connecting Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit and a nine- month delay in posting a new U.S. ambassador in Ottawa.
‘Bigger Issue.’
Keystone XL “became a much bigger issue than one expected,” driven in part by “pronouncements by the prime minister himself about the importance of the pipeline,” said Deanna Horton, a visiting senior fellow at the University of Toronto and a former Canadian diplomat.
TransCanada applied for a presidential permit in 2008 to build the 1,700-mile (2,700-kilometer) crude oil pipeline. It was rejected in February 2012, and the Calgary-based company applied again in May of that year. The U.S. State Department reviews the applications because the pipeline would cross an international border. The secretary of state makes a recommendation to the president, whose final decision rests on whether the project is in the national interest.
U.S. Ambassador Bruce Heyman has gotten the cold shoulder from Harper's government, with Conservative Party ministers refusing to see him, the Globe and Mail has reported. Stephen Posivak, a spokesman at the U.S. embassy in Ottawa, declined to comment on the report.
Repair Relations
The Canadian election may offer an opportunity to repair relations, regardless of whether Harper's Conservatives or the opposition, divided between Mulcair's front-running New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Liberal Party, wins the most seats in Parliament.
“Whoever wins, this will help set the reset button,” Dawson of the Wilson Center said. “If it's Harper, this will give him an opportunity to step back from some of the rhetoric,” and it would give the NDP and Liberal parties “a clean slate on which to draw.”
An NDP win would give Obama a chance to negotiate with Mulcair for a more ambitious Canadian environmental policy, which would fit with both the NDP platform and Obama's agenda.
Climate Change
Canada has no federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from the Alberta tar sands where Keystone XL would start. Fuels derived from tar sands produce more greenhouse gas than conventional forms of gasoline and heating oil.
According to the Pembina Institute, Alberta emits more greenhouse gases than Ontario and Quebec combined, which house 60 percent of Canada's population.
“Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest,” Obama said at Georgetown University in 2013. “And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”
Obama declared this month that climate change is “one of the key challenges of our lifetimes,” one that “no single country” can tackle.
The State Department, though, concluded in an environmental report last year that Keystone XL was unlikely to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, in part because the oil sands would be developed and the oil transported even without the pipeline.

Return to headline | Return to top
Canadian Election Could Upend Energy Relationship With U.S.

Aug 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Elana Schor

Keystone XL will not be on the ballot when Canadians choose a new leader this fall, but the election still could upend the United States’ energy relationship with its northern neighbor.
A defeat for Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper in October could usher in tougher limits on the carbon footprint of Canada’s emissions-heavy oil sands, the fuel source that ensures the nation’s role as the No. 1 supplier of oil to the United States. It would also give President Barack Obama a more forceful partner in negotiations for a tough international climate deal at the end of this year.
Harper’s three reelection foes lambaste his relentless pro-Keystone advocacy, and his moves to ease environmental rules as a drag on Canada’s economy and its international reputation. His leading challenger comes from the same New Democratic Party that unseated Harper’s conservatives earlier this year in Alberta and proceeded to crack down on the oil sands industry that is central to the province’s economy.
NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, who holds a slight lead over Harper in recent polls, has said Canadian regulators should consider emissions impacts before approving pipelines or other oil infrastructure. He has promised to “get us on track to deal with the very real issue of climate change” ahead of the United Nations negotiations in Paris.
The question is how far Mulcair can go in reining in Canada’s oil industry without disrupting the economic boost provided by the country’s energy exports when low prices, and Keystone’s long-in-limbo status, are already causing hand-wringing.
“Canada does have this resource and people in the world need it,” David Biette, senior adviser to the Wilson Center think tank’s Canada Institute, said in an interview. “It’s a question of at what price and on what route.”
Canada’s independent National Energy Board has already approved Keystone XL, but Obama’s recent negative comments about the pipeline have given sponsor TransCanada ample reason to expect a rejection of the permit it needs to cross the U.S. border.
Mulcair would have greater sway over two oil transportation projects that have not yet been approved: TransCanada’s $12 billion Energy East pipeline to Canada’s Atlantic coast and an expansion of Kinder Morgan’s westbound Trans Mountain pipeline. The opposition leader has criticized Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and Keystone but has not staked out clear positions on Energy East or Trans Mountain, both of which could ship fuel to ports that serve coastal U.S. destinations.
Thursday’s debate among the four Canadian party leaders featured the kind of lengthy, in-depth discussion of climate and energy policy that was completely absent from the debate among U.S. Republican presidential candidates the same night. Even as he criticized Harper’s environmental record, Mulcair referred to the Energy East project as one that “could be a win-win-win” by creating Canadian jobs while giving the nation’s oil companies a higher price for their fuel.
Along with Harper and Mulcair, two other candidates are seeking the premiership: Liberal Justin Trudeau, who aligns with Mulcair’s vow to reform the current oil infrastructure review process but remains pro-Keystone, and Green Elizabeth May, who is against the entire passel of pipeline proposals.
Mulcair’s lack of a firm yes or no stance on Energy East is causing him headaches on the campaign trail this week. Protesters interrupted an appearance to promote the NDP leader’s autobiography on Monday, pressing him to commit to a rejection of the TransCanada project if it is found to significantly contribute to climate change. Mulcair assented and later posed for a photo with the demonstrators, CBC reported.
Beyond its record-setting price tag, Energy East carries outsize significance for greens in part because its application with Canada’s National Energy Board is still waiting on an update later this year to account for a scrapped marine terminal in Quebec. Greens say that leaves room for Mulcair, if his party prevails in October, to subject TransCanada’s massive project to a potentially more stringent environmental review process than the NEB gave to Keystone and other pipelines.
Environmentalists also will try to force Mulcair to reconcile any moves that could expand oil sands development with the goals of a United Nations emissions-cutting deal that he endorsed in strong terms on Thursday.
“I would love nothing more than” to attend U.N. climate talks in Paris in December as Canada’s new leader, Mulcair said at the debate, and “get us on track to deal with the very real issue of climate change.”
Greenpeace Canada’s Keith Stewart said the Canadian system would give Mulcair broad leeway to implement climate-focused reforms to infrastructure reviews without passing new legislation through Parliament, where his party is not expected to hold a majority of seats even if an NDP plurality pushes him to victory.
Should Mulcair prevail, Stewart said, his New Democrats “can now tell the [National] Energy Board, ‘This is how you have to determine what’s in the national interest.’”
Even so, the timing of Canadian elections so soon before the Paris talks means that Mulcair would have little time to craft a detailed realignment of a national climate policy that Harper has largely ignored, said Divya Reddy, director of global energy and natural resources at Eurasia Group consulting firm.
Rachel Notley, the NDP’s new premier in Alberta, took her own steps to get tougher on the oil sands in June by doubling per-ton carbon intensity fees over the next two years. But the Obama administration is looking for stronger commitments on a national level from Canada, which drew jeers from climate advocates for promising the U.N. it would cut greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 without new regulations on the oil sands.
Still, Reddy added, “If Mulcair were to promote something with more teeth on the federal level, as well as include emissions from the [oil sands] sector as part of a national agenda, that could at the margins be helpful in terms of advancing” both future pipeline projects and a new Canadian climate policy beyond Paris.
And that prospect of Mulcair pressing ahead with some new oil-sands transportation plans would create new challenges for the green campaign against the heavy resource that has paid such dividends on Keystone. Harper’s pursuit of the industry-friendly status quo makes him a potent enemy for activists, but Mulcair would be a harder target — and Stewart acknowledged that the New Democratic leader “can’t just write off Alberta” by taking a hard line against the oil sands.
“Shoving down the oil sands is so anti-Alberta that it’s not good for” Canadian national unity, Biette of the Wilson Center said.
While Canada’s climate future commands significant airtime during its election season, Keystone is increasingly viewed as a permanent casualty thanks to the increasingly critical tone that Obama has taken on the $8 billion pipeline since last year. Obama’s dedication to the EPA emissions regulations released last week are only intensifying the perception on both sides of the border that a rejection of the long-stalled pipeline is imminent.
“If the president wants to build on the moment from the Clean Power Plan and show seriousness before Paris, rejecting Keystone would be the right thing to do,” 350.org co-founder Jamie Henn said in an interview.
The State Department, despite rampant speculation that an announcement on the pipeline would come quickly on the heels of the EPA regulations, continues to review whether the Canada-to-Texas project is in the national interest, with no firm time frame for an official recommendation to Obama. Environmentalists, however, are already thinking about the type of denial they want to see from the president — which looks a lot like the campaign-trail rhetoric of Mulcair.
“The real win would be a climate test applied to all future infrastructure projects,” Henn said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Spill Swamps Clean Power Plan Rollout -- Crisis Manager

Aug 12, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Jean Chemnick

U.S. EPA's accidental spill of mining waste into a Colorado river is stealing the spotlight the agency had reserved for its Clean Power Plan rollout.
The incident hijacked a Washington, D.C., press conference yesterday meant to be focused on the power rules, where EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy faced questions only on the spill. And today she traveled to Colorado and New Mexico to view its effects.
Asked when McCarthy's promotion of the Clean Power Plan would resume, an agency spokeswoman said: "We don't have details to share at this time. Our focus is on the Gold King mine response."
While the two events are in no way connected, the release of 3 million gallons of wastewater containing arsenic and other contaminants into rivers out West won't help EPA sell its power rules to fresh audiences, said Ernest DelBuono, who heads the crisis communications practice at the PR firm LEVICK in D.C.
"Any organization that's looking to persuade people to come to their way of thinking, this doesn't help them, it doesn't give people more confidence in what they're doing," he said. "How can they talk about clean air when they're cleaning up a spill that they caused?"
He added, "No matter how hard they may try to pivot back to the clean air message while this spill is going on and the cleanup is going on, it's almost impossible for them to do that in any public forum."
There is an opportunity cost associated with spending this time -- the week after release of the power rules -- on another topic, DelBuono said. The agency would have preferred to focus on drumming up support for the rules, which President Obama will tout at a clean energy conference in Nevada later this month and then during a visit to the Alaskan Arctic.
But DelBuono said the event was unlikely to change any minds among the rule's chief supporters or detractors. The latter would cite the event as further proof of EPA's incompetence, while the former would excuse it as an accident that has no relation to EPA's other work.
An energy lobbyist said in an email last night that the accident seemed to have cut into EPA's "Clean Power Plan victory lap around the country."
"One day you're saving the environment, the next day destroying it," he quipped.
But Daniel Weiss of the League of Conservation Voters dismissed the idea that discussion of the spill and the rule belonged in the same story. The spill was a result of efforts to clean up toxic substances left by a private mining firm, he noted.
"To the extent that the public is paying attention at all, seeing this horrible spill will have little impact on public support for the Clean Power Plan," he said. Asked whether it will cast doubt on the agency's credibility even though the events are not connected, Weiss said, "I don't think that's how people think."

Return to headline | Return to top
Republicans Call McCarthy's Answers 'False And Misleading'

Aug 12, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Amanda Peterka

Several Republican members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee have accused U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy of giving "false and misleading" responses at a recent hearing on the agency's scientific practices.
In the letter obtained by E&ENews PM, the members warned they may take further "investigative action" should McCarthy not respond with clarifications.
At the July 9 hearing in question, GOP members of the committee grilled the EPA administrator about the science behind high-profile environmental regulations, including the Clean Power Plan, EPA's proposed update to the national ozone standard and the Waters of the U.S. rule (Greenwire, July 9).
"The Committee has found several instances where your responses to questions posed by Members were false and misleading. Prior to further investigative action by the Committee, we want to invite you to reflect on your testimony and provide further details," the members wrote yesterday. "Should it be necessary to clarify or amend your testimony, then we request you do so as quickly as possible."
Science Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) led the letter. EPA said it would review and respond to it.
The letter takes issue with four statements by McCarthy in response to questions from GOP members at the hearing.
In the first case, the members charge that McCarthy stated that certain information about the Waters of the U.S. rule was available in the federal docket that was not actually publicly available. Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) had asked McCarthy about information on how EPA developed a 4,000-foot high-tide limit within the final rule.
The letter also charges that McCarthy was "misleading" about how difficult it would be for states to deal with background concentrations under the agency's proposal to set a more stringent ozone limit.
GOP members also accused EPA of engaging in "doublespeak" about whether ozone causes asthma. They said McCarthy's statement at the hearing that ozone does not cause asthma but rather exacerbates conditions for people who already have asthma contradicted past assertions by the agency.
Finally, the letter takes issue with a statement by McCarthy that the agency has never withheld transportation-related funds from areas for noncompliance with a National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The letter says McCarthy ignored, among other instances, a case in which Atlanta saw transportation funds cut for a "conformity lapse" in the late 1990s when its transportation planning did not mesh with air standards.
"Providing false or misleading testimony to Congress is a serious matter," the members wrote, warning that the law says witnesses could be subject to criminal liability.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA's Colorado Spill Could Boost Push For Broad Mining Policy Revisions

Aug 12, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Suzanne Yohannan

EPA's accidental release of 3 million gallons of contaminated mine wastewater from a Colorado mine during a cleanup operation could boost a push for broad revisions to federal mining policies including calls for EPA Superfund financial assurance rules for mining and changes to Good Samaritan law, environmentalists say.
The Aug. 5 spill of wastewater containing several heavy metals has already prompted legal threats which could, if pursued, result in a precedent-setting court ruling on whether EPA is liable for the spill under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as the Superfund law. Attorneys say that CERCLA includes broad protections against liability for EPA when it performs a site cleanup.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in an Aug. 12 statement said as a result of the spill she has ordered all agency regional offices to “immediately cease” all field investigations at mining sites unless imminent risk is present until the agency can assess the root causes of the spill at the Gold King Mine in Colorado. The spill was the result of an accidental release triggered by an EPA cleanup team's work at the mine, located in the state's San Juan County.
The release has flowed into the Animas River through southwestern Colorado into New Mexico and the Navajo Nation, triggering states of emergency in both states and a threat of legal action from the Navajo Nation.
It has triggered high-level attention, with daily press briefings from three EPA regional administrators and an Aug. 12 visit to Colorado and New Mexico by McCarthy to inspect response efforts, including water quality sampling and validation of water quality data. Colorado's Department of Public Health and Environment on Aug. 12 told the city of Durango, CO, that drinking water treatment facilities can begin to use the Animas River to collect and treat water for customers, and said that regarding private water systems, not all wells are affected by the spill.
McCarthy in her Aug. 12 statement said, “We are in the process of initiating an independent assessment by a sister federal agency or another external entity to examine the factors that led to last week’s incident. Based on the results of that study, she said, “we will determine what actions may be necessary to avoid similar incidents at other sites.”
Further, she has told regions to identify sites similar to the Gold King Mine, “and to identify any immediate threats and consider appropriate response actions” while it plans its cleanup work at the mine.
EPA's eventual short- and long-term cleanup strategies could also set a precedent for responding to future, similar spills -- but the accident is also prompting renewed calls for other mining policy reforms.
Financial Assurance
Environmentalists point to the spill as highlighting the need for regulatory or legislative measures affecting mine cleanups in order to better protect against adverse environmental impacts.
For instance, a spokeswoman for Earthworks, an environmental group that has sued EPA for failing to issue bond rules under CERCLA for the mining sector, says the spill “highlights the need for CERCLA financial assurance regulations” as it underscores “the severity of environmental impacts that can occur if a mine site is allowed to fester because financial assurance isn’t available or adequate for cleanup.” She says this is particularly the case for mines with long-lasting water treatment requirements from acid mine drainage.
Earthworks is one of several environmental groups that sued EPA arguing the agency is long past due in developing CERCLA financial assurance rules to require owners of hazardous waste facilities to prove they have sufficient funds to pay for cleanup, accidental releases and post-closure care should any of those measures be needed.
The petitioners are working to reach agreement with EPA on a schedule for the agency’s issuance of such rules governing the hardrock mining industry after a federal appellate court ruled in May that EPA should update and expedite its schedule for issuing the rules and submit a joint plan with the petitioners to the court. EPA in recent months has said it plans to issue a draft version of the hardrock mining rules next August.
Mining Laws
Environmentalists say the mine spill also should prompt reforms to outdated mining laws. While the spill “is tragic,” Earthworks’ Pete Dronkers says in an Aug. 11 blog post on the group's website, “the focus should be less on the crew that accidentally triggered the release, and more on the broader story of entire regions throughout the country, facing immense cleanup challenges from mines of the past.”
He says given the tens of thousands of abandoned mines and inactive mines that leak -- impacting water quality -- now is the time to urge “elected officials and regulators to create the framework needed to address the broader problems.” Specifically, the 1872 mining law does not require companies to pay any royalty payments to the federal government, and allows new mega-mines to be built with perpetual mine drainage, he says.
Reforming the law is overdue, he says. “By placing a federal prohibition on new mines that we know will pollute forever we will make sure that no mine gets built that can’t clean up after itself. And by making mining companies help pay to correct past mistakes, we can make sure agencies and citizen groups have the money they need to do remediation projects properly and holistically, not pinching pennies and cutting corners because of federal budget cuts,” he adds.
While mining reform legislation has been introduced in recent years, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have differed over key details, particularly over first-time royalty fees to pay for an abandoned mine cleanup fund.
Good Samaritan
The spill also underscores the need to revisit Good Samaritan legislation, says a source with the San Juan Citizens Alliance, which has long advocated for addressing acid mine drainage along the Animas River.
While EPA has sought to promote “Good Samaritan” cleanups of mine sites through guidance aimed at reducing Clean Water Act (CWA) liability for innocent groups that voluntarily clean up abandoned hardrock mines, some groups have advocated for additional liability protections under the law to prompt such cleanups.
Voluntary parties -- known as Good Samaritans -- have been reluctant to clean up abandoned mines because of concerns that courts will hold them liable under CERCLA and the CWA for remaining contamination. Legislation attempting such changes has not passed, however. Environmental groups have not universally embraced Good Samaritan legislation, fearing it will give mining companies unanticipated loopholes to exploit, the citizens' alliance source says.
EPA estimates there are about 500,000 abandoned mines, which could cost more than $35 billion to clean up. Historic mines have polluted the headwaters of 40 percent of the watersheds in the West.
The spill also underscores that stakeholders in downstream communities across a watershed -- not just those closest to a mining site -- should be given weight by EPA when considering stakeholder input into a cleanup, the source says. The Silverton, CO, community -- surrounding the mine -- had resisted a Superfund listing designation for the site, the source says, but notes that community was the least affected by the spill compared to downstream communities. The site is not listed on Superfund’s National Priorities List, but rather was part of an EPA response action.
Lawmakers' Scrutiny
Meanwhile, top lawmakers on the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee indicated this week they are closely monitoring EPA’s cleanup of the Animas River spill, with EPW Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-OK) saying in a statement he will work within his committee “to ensure the EPA is held accountable to this grave incident.”
EPW ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in an Aug. 11 letter to McCarthy called on EPA to ensure timely information be provided to communities on the spill and urged the agency “to take steps to ensure that a similar incident does not happen in the future,” as well as asking EPA to brief her office.
In the House, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) on Aug. 12 announced his plan to visit Lake Powell, a reservoir on the Colorado River on the border of Utah and Arizona. “EPA’s grave blunder is posing a serious threat to both the environment and the economy in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona. Lands and projects managed by the Department of the Interior and Forest Service - not to mention the tribal concerns -- within my Committee’s jurisdiction will be seriously and negatively impacted. In the coming weeks and months, the Committee will be conducting extensive oversight over the causes and the short-term and long-term effects of this serious situation,” Bishop said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Methane and CO2: Why Climate Action Means Addressing Both

Aug 12, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Ilissa Ocko

Climate change was the last thing on my mind that day when, as a 15-year-old, I was trying to impress a boyfriend with my rollerblading skills – from the top of a steep hill. Before I knew it, I was flying uncontrollably toward traffic with only one thought in my head: “I need to slow down and change course. Or this won’t end well.”
The same urgent mantra is needed for our planet today. We must reduce pollution to slow the rate of global warming – while at the same time limiting maximum warming to change our projected course.
To do so, nations must tackle both short-lived and long-lived climate pollutants – strategically. We need a two-pronged strategy to stay safe, just like I did at 15 when I survived that rollerblading incident. All emissions are not equal
The way we think and talk about the long and short-term impacts of various greenhouse gases is critical for making smart policy decisions on climate change. The decision today is not, as some suggest, which pollutant to cut first, but how and when to cut both.
The rate of climate change is controlled by short-lived climate pollutants, such as methane. Like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane is a gas that warms the Earth by trapping heat. Methane is 84 times more powerful than CO2 over the first two decades following their release.
But that number changes depending on how far out you look. Key: Warming potential over time
Comparing emissions of greenhouse gases with vastly different impacts and lifetimes requires a metric that depends on a timeframe. Scientists typically measure the global warming potential of gases over two time periods: 100 years and 20 years.
While methane is 84 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 over the first 20 years after they are both emitted, it’s “only” 28 times more effective over 100 years. At that point, what’s left of the methane that caused that initial, intense warming is gone.
By contrast, carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere much longer, some of it for thousands of years after being released. That means CO2 has a greater warming potential over time.
So when discussing what actions to take to slow climate change we must think about these gases’ potency in both timeframes, and guide our policies accordingly.
Addressing methane leaks from the natural gas sector today and reducing emissions from power plants over the next decade to help states adapt is therefore a prudent strategy. Our best chance: Tackle CO2 and methane
Since the Industrial Revolution, methane in the atmosphere has increased by a whopping 150 percent. All-in-all, about one-quarter of today’s warming is attributed to human emissions of methane. CO2 accounts for about half.
Reducing CO will limit the overall warming impact the planet will experience for generations to come. This will have a profound impact on limiting sea level rise and other
Reducing warming caused by methane during our lifetime will also reduce the likelihood of extreme weather events and species extinctions.
Overall, it is scientifically clear that a combination of emissions reductions – such as curbing CO2 from coal-fired power plants and methane from oil and gas activities – is our best chance of stabilizing the climate in the long-term while still reducing warming immediately.

Return to headline | Return to top
184 Power Plants Received Mercury Rule Extension

Aug 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

State air agencies provided 184 power plants an extension of up to one year for compliance with the mercury and air toxics standards, according to an updated survey released by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. Power plants were required to come into compliance with the MATS rule (RIN 2060-AP52; RIN 2060-AR31) by April 16, but the rule allowed permitting authorities to grant extensions on a case-by-case basis. The updated survey, released Aug. 11, found that all but five of the 189 reported extension requests were granted. Of those five extensions, four were denied due to incomplete information, and one was accommodated through a permit waiver. The mercury and air toxics standards are still in effect despite a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that the EPA was required to consider cost when it decided it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate mercury emissions (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 80 ERC 1577, 2015 BL 207163 (U.S. 2015). The EPA told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Aug. 10 that the agency intends to address that Supreme Court decision by spring 2016 (White Stallion Energy Ctr. LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1100, opposition filed, 8/10/15; 154 DEN A-4, 8/11/15). The updated survey is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=pamo-9zbrqz.

Return to headline | Return to top
Report Warns New Ozone Standard Would Hurt Colo. Economy

Aug 12, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Amanda Peterka

Foes of U.S. EPA's proposal to tighten the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone this week have turned their attention on Colorado.
Today, the Center for Regulatory Solutions released a report warning that a lower limit would spur a host of negative effects, from worse traffic jams to job losses, throughout the Mountain State. In the wake of the report's release, state and national business groups called on EPA to retain the existing standard, which was set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration.
Earlier this week, the National Association of Manufacturers launched a television ad in Colorado with a similar message.
Ground-level ozone is a key component of smog that's formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight.
In November, EPA proposed to tighten the national limit from 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 ppb, based on a review of public health data. Exposure to ozone has been linked with reduced lung function and exacerbation of asthma, among other negative health effects.
The Colorado initiative this week is part of a broader industry campaign against the proposal. Industry groups have argued that a lower limit would impose big economic costs across the country with little to no benefits.
The report today by the Center for Regulatory Solutions, a project housed within the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, said at least 15 counties in Colorado would be named out of compliance with EPA's range for a new standard. Those counties account for nearly 90 percent of Colorado's economy.
Under the Clean Air Act, states with "nonattainment" areas would be required to develop and put in place pollution control plans to lower ozone levels.
EPA's proposed range would "impose new and damaging regulatory restrictions" in the state, including permitting and transportation planning requirements, Karen Kerrigan, president and CEO of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, said today. The center has previously issued a report on alleged effects of the proposal on Illinois, President Obama's home state (Greenwire, July 13).
Along with warning of potential high costs, the report argued that opposition to the proposal was bipartisan in Colorado, citing several Democratic state lawmakers who want to see EPA retain the existing standard.
Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry President Chuck Berry today framed EPA's proposal as a "one-size-fits-all standard" that didn't take into account Colorado's specific economic circumstances.
"We believe that our air quality should be determined by the state and local officials who really understand the Colorado economy," he said, adding "who really understand the benefits for Colorado citizens that our business community brings to our state."
Under the Clean Air Act and affirmed by the Supreme Court, however, EPA is required to consider only public health -- and not potential costs -- when setting a new ozone standard. The agency is also required by law to review the standard every five years.
In this current review, EPA determined that the 75 ppb standard was no longer adequate to protect the public as the Clean Air Act requires against negative health effects.
Public health advocates have called on EPA to lower the limit to no higher than 60 ppb and this week upped their efforts in support of a tighter standard. Yesterday, 12 public health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Lung Association and American Thoracic Society, sent a letter to Obama calling for a "truly protective ozone limit."
"We ask you to direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to put in place an ozone standard that fully protects the millions of Americans still at risk from dangerous levels of ozone pollution," the groups wrote.
The public health advocates dismissed recent industry ad campaigns against a tighter standard as "scaremongering tactics."
"America need not choose between protecting our health and economic progress," they wrote. "The benefits of cleaning up air pollution have proven time and time again to far outweigh the costs."

Return to headline | Return to top
18 More States Jump Into Clean Air Act Legal Challenge

Aug 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Alex Guillén

At least 18 more states have filed lawsuits over EPA’s recent decision requiring states to alter their Clean Air Act plans regarding startup, shutdown and malfunction situations.

EPA said in May that several dozen states must remove so-called “affirmative defense” provisions from their plans. Previously, those provisions largely shielded facilities like refineries and power plants from lawsuits over excess emissions of conventional pollutants such as sulfur dioxide during SSM periods.

On Tuesday, 17 states filed a lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking review of EPA’s decision. Those states are Florida, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, Kentucky and North Carolina.

Tennessee on Tuesday also filed its own separate lawsuit.

Texas first sued over the rule last month in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A litany of companies and organizations have also sued over the rule in the D.C. Circuit in recent weeks. They include the SSM Litigation Group, a coalition that includes the American Petroleum Institute, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the National Association of Manufacturers; the Southeastern Legal Foundation; Walter Coke, Inc.; Luminant; the Utility Air Regulatory Group; Southern Company Services and other power providers; and the Georgia Coalition for Sound Environmental Policy.

The suits likely will be condensed into one challenge.

Return to headline | Return to top
States Challenge Air Pollution ‘Loophole’ Rule

Aug 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

Seventeen states filed a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) crackdown on air pollution from power plants during exceptional periods.
Led by Florida, the states said that the EPA improperly shifted the federal-state balance that the Clean Air Act sets with the EPA’s rule for startup, shutdown and malfunction pollution.“We will not step aside while the EPA, through heavy-handed federal overreach, threatens to upend a system that the EPA has approved multiple times and has provided a consistent, reliable framework to safely provide electricity to millions of Floridians across the state,” Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement, adding that the rule is likely to increase utility bills in Florida.
In May, the EPA made final a rule that tells states to stop allowing power plants and other air pollution sources to exceed emissions limits during exceptional times like startup, shutdown or malfunctions, when it is usually harder to control emissions.
The mandate to 36 states came after environmental groups complained that the Clean Air Act does not allow such exemptions, and called them “loopholes.”
But the 17 states filing a lawsuit Tuesday said that the EPA is unfairly reversing years of decisions approving state oversight of those plants.
“Besides the clear violation of state’s rights enumerated in the Clean Air Act, the final rule also stands to stall or reverse progress the plaintiffs have made in improving the quality of the air in their state,” Bondi’s office said.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Continues With Washington Toxics Rule But Hopes For State Action

Aug 12, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Amanda Palleschi

EPA is continuing to develop federal revisions to Washington state's human health water quality criteria for toxics, after Gov. Jay Inslee (D) withdrew a controversial state proposal to update the criteria, but the agency still prefers that the state finalize new criteria before the federal effort is complete.
Inslee late last month withdrew the state's draft proposed revisions to water quality standards, which the state's Department of Ecology formally proposed in January, after the state legislature failed to act on a legislative package that was intended to control toxic releases in concert with the new criteria. The legislation passed the state's Democratic-controlled House but was not taken up by the Republican-led Senate.
"Without this legislation we lack the necessary broad approach to protecting our water in a way that advanced human, environmental and economic health," Inslee said in a July 31 statement accompanying his decision."The lack of legislative action is disappointing and forces us to reassess our approach."
The regulatory proposal was controversial because while it would have raised the state's default calculation for human consumption of fish that may be exposed to toxics, it would have also reduced the cancer risk calculation -- an approach that repeatedly drew strong criticism from EPA.
EPA had set an Aug. 3 deadline for the state to finalize the new criteria or the agency would move forward with a federal proposal. But agency officials told Washington officials last year and again in May that while EPA had initiated a federal rulemaking process to amend Washington's existing human health criteria in the National Toxics Rule, the agency would prefer for the state to "finalize a scientifically defensible rule that protects the health of Washington's citizens."
And if Washington submits a final rule to EPA for review before completion of the federal proposal, EPA would act on the state's submittal.
A spokesman for EPA Region 10 says the agency still prefers the state's development process of the criteria.
"We believe it's important to have human health criteria in place that are protective for everybody in Washington, including high consumers of fish such as members of tribal communities," the spokesman told Inside EPA.
"In terms of who writes the standards, EPA continues to prefer and support Washington's development of revised water quality standards that we can approve. In the meantime, we are proceeding consistent with our commitment to work on a federal proposal for Washington, but will pause that work to review and act upon a state submittal, should we receive one,” according to the spokesman.
The withdrawn proposal would have raised the state's fish consumption rate from 6.5 grams per day (g/day) to 175 g/day in order to protect Native American and subsistence fishers. Inslee had also initially proposed reducing the cancer risk rate to 10^-5 because using the 10^-6 cancer rate would have created "extremely tough standards, resulting in an unacceptable level of uncertainty for businesses and local government with little corresponding benefit for human health.
Environmentalists' Opposition
But environmentalists and EPA strongly opposed the change to the cancer rate. For example, in a March 23 letter from EPA Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran to the Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program's Cheryl Niemi, McLerran says that the state's proposed cancer risk level did not fully reflect best available science or certain EPA policies, guidance and legal requirements.
Industry groups also opposed the proposed changes but argued they would be too stringent. Boeing, one the state's largest employers, argued in March 23 comments that using a fish consumption rate of 175 g/day "is wholly unjustified and out of step with the rate used by the [EPA] and virtually every other state in the nation," asserting that contrary to the state's claims, "only a very small number of individuals, if any, consume fish at this rate throughout their lifetime."
And the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, representing publicly owned treatment works, suggested that EPA's objection to the state's draft cancer risk levels oversteps the agency's authority under the Clean Water Act to oversee states' development of such standards.
Meanwhile, some industry groups are criticizing Inslee's announcement to hold off on moving forward with his original proposal. The American Forest & Paper Association, in an Aug. 3 statement, said it supported the initial draft rule.
"We are disappointed Governor Inslee has withdrawn his proposal as a result of heavy-handed intervention from EPA," the group writes. "We hope Governor Inslee will develop a new rule rather than allow EPA to take over the process for the state." Inslee, in his July 31 statement said he was directing the Department of Ecology to "reassess" the rule after the legislative component failed to gain traction, and they could rewrite the rule prior to submitting it to EPA "or look for other ways to enhance clean water and reduce toxics."

Return to headline | Return to top

Full Text of Stories Below

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Add recipients

Suggested