Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Aug 20
-
(ACC Blog) On the Road With #ACCaugust – Updated 8/19/15
Aug 19, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
During the August recess, our state affairs and political mobilization teams will fan out across the country to create opportunities to further our industry’s advocacy goals in a grassroots initiative we’re calling #ACCaugust. Through plant tours, in-district meetings, and industry roundtable discussions, we will meet with Members... http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) Zacks Industry Outlook Highlights: PPG Industries, Albemarle, CF Industries, LyondellBasell Industries and Celanese
Aug 19, 2015 | Zacks
Today, Zacks Equity Research discusses the Chemicals (Part 2), including PPG Industries Inc. ( PPG ), Albemarle Corp. ( ALB ), CF Industries ( CF ), LyondellBasell Industries NV ( LYB ) and Celanese Corp. ( CE ). Industry: Chemicals (Part 2)... -
(ACC Mentioned) DuPont Safety Questioned After OSHA Fines, Deaths
Aug 20, 2015 | Delaware Online
By Jeff Mordock
DuPont has long been recognized as a safety leader within the chemical industry. Its people train other companies and industries in best practices for environmental and workplace safety. Now, the company is facing heavy criticism from employee unions and government agencies after a series of high-profile accidents and deaths at plants... -
(ACC Mentioned) BPA Linked To Behaviour Problems In New Statistics Canada Study
Aug 19, 2015 | CTV News
Canadian kids and teens with high levels of bisphenol A, or BPA, in their urine, are more likely to have behaviour problems, a new Statistics Canada study has found. And while the researchers say their study was not able to show that the BPA is responsible for the behaviour problems, they say further research is needed to better understand... -
What Will It Take For Brands To Deliver On The Promise Of Greener Chemicals?
Aug 19, 2015 | The Guardian
By Amy Westervelt
When Paul Anastas coined the term “green chemistry” back in 1991, he was a 28-year-old staff scientist at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where he was thought of as a little eccentric. By 1995, he had convinced then president Bill Clinton to launch the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge, and in 1998... -
Drinking Water Levels of PFOA Unsafe, Group Says
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Concentrations of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) found in water systems serving 6.5 million Americans are harmful even though they are below a federal advisory level, according to a report the Environmental Working Group will release Aug. 20. The group is publishing its report less than a month before DuPont... -
Allowing Arctic Drilling Assumes Worst Case Climate Scenario
Aug 19, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Hannah McKinnon
The Arctic has long been a symbol of a rapidly changing climate. Melting sea ice, collapsing ice shelves and polar bears in peril have become universal symbols of the dramatic impacts of climate change at the ends of the earth. But the connection between the Arctic and climate change goes much further, with companies like Royal Dutch Shell... -
Feds Lower Projections For Crude Oil Prices
Aug 19, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Federal energy analysts predict average crude oil prices will hover around the $50-per-barrel mark through next year, lower than previously thought. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) said on Wednesday that West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude prices, the benchmark for American crude, will average $49 per barrel this year... -
12 Senators Seek SEC Review of Offshore Drilling Risk Disclosures
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Twelve senators opposed to offshore oil and gas drilling sent a letter Aug. 18 to the Securities and Exchange Commission asking the agency to review the risk disclosures of companies engaged in drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. The senators, including 11 Democrats and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), were following... -
Fracking Ban Cases Sent to Colorado Supreme Court
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Colorado Court of Appeals has sent challenges by the oil and gas industry of two local government hydraulic fracturing bans directly to the state Supreme Court for review (Colo. Oil and Gas Ass'n v. Longmont, Colo. Ct. App., No. 14CA1759, order on motion for determination of jurisdiction8/17/15; Colo. Oil... -
The EPA Goes Halfway on Methane Emissions
Aug 19, 2015 | Bloomberg View
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed new restrictions on methane emissions are a reasonable imposition on the oil and gas industry. Whether they're adequate to help fight climate change is another question, and the answer depends on what the government does next. -
Obama's New Methane Rules Underestimate the Threat
Aug 19, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Jesse Coleman
As promised earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency has released methane pollution standards for the oil and gas industry. While regulation of methane is a necessity, these rules are much too weak to accomplish the administration's goals of meaningful greenhouse gas reduction. -
Scope Of Draft EPA Emissions Guide For Drilling Hinges On Ozone NAAQS
Aug 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The full scope of EPA's draft guide for reducing ozone-forming emissions from existing oil and gas drilling hinges largely on whether the agency follows through on plans to tighten its ozone air standard, as the guide only applies in areas not meeting the limit but such areas could vastly increase in number under a stricter ozone limit. -
Consolidation Denied in Clean Power Plan Lawsuits
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A federal appellate court denied an emergency motion from 15 states seeking to consolidate their legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan with other pending appeals (In re West Virginia, D.C. Cir. , No. 15-1277, per curiam order 8/19/15). -
D.C. Circuit Halts Power Plant Startup Lawsuits
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit halted a pair of lawsuits over power plant startup provisions included in the mercury and air toxics standards, pending a decision on whether those standards should remain in place (White Stallion Energy Ctr. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 13-1106, motion granted... -
Western Senators Demand Answers In IG Probe Of EPA Spill
Aug 19, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
The six senators from Colorado, New Mexico and Utah today sent a letter to U.S. EPA's internal watchdog seeking answers to more than a dozen questions related to the agency's Aug. 5 spill of millions of gallons of contaminated water from the Gold King mine in southwest Colorado. -
Colorado Mine Spill Seeps Into Presidential Race
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The spill of 3 million gallons of metals and sediment into Colorado's Animas River gushed into the presidential race conversation, as Republican contender Ben Carson toured the site and promised “a different kind” of Environmental Protection Agency if he becomes president. -
Court Won’t Combine Legal Challenges To EPA Carbon Rule
Aug 19, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A federal court today stymied an effort by opponents of EPA’s carbon regulations to have their lawsuit over the final rule heard by a panel of three Republican-appointed judges. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied... -
Eight Areas Should Get Ozone Extension, EPA Finds
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed to grant eight nonattainment areas, including the Washington, D.C., and Houston metropolitan areas, an additional year to meet the current national ambient air quality standards for ozone. The agency, in a proposed rule signed Aug. 19, said the eight areas met the qualifications for such... -
Judge Rejects Negligence Claims Against Norfolk, CSX
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. and CSX Transportation Inc. aren't liable for negligence in the derailment of a train carrying toxic cargo in Paulsboro, N.J., because neither company owned the train that derailed, employed the crew or operated the bridge the train was crossing when it derailed, the U.S. District Court for the District ...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Blog) On the Road With #ACCaugust – Updated 8/19/15
Aug 19, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
During the August recess, our state affairs and political mobilization teams will fan out across the country to create opportunities to further our industry’s advocacy goals in a grassroots initiative we’re calling #ACCaugust. Through plant tours, in-district meetings, and industry roundtable discussions, we will meet with Members of Congress to raise awareness of the vital importance of our industry and showcase the economic benefits of the business of chemistry where it matters the most—in their districts.
Take the #ACCaugust tour with us! Zoom in and out and pan around to see where we’ve been and where we’re going (don’t forget Alaska!):
-
Aug 19, 2015 | Zacks
Today, Zacks Equity Research discusses the Chemicals (Part 2), including PPG Industries Inc. ( PPG ), Albemarle Corp. ( ALB ), CF Industries ( CF ), LyondellBasell Industries NV ( LYB ) and Celanese Corp. ( CE ).
Industry: Chemicals (Part 2)
Link: http://www.zacks.com/commentary/53916/what39s-supporting-the-bullish-case-for-chemical-stocks
A gradually improving U.S. economy, sustained healthy momentum in the automotive space and gradually convalescing construction markets augur well for the chemical industry in the back half of 2015. Despite a few industry-related headwinds, weakness across agricultural and energy markets and slowdown in China, there are a number of reasons to be optimistic about the broader chemical industry for both the short and long haul, which we have highlighted below:
Shale Boom Driving Chemical Investments
The shale gas bounty in the U.S. has been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the country. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), abundant shale gas production is driving U.S. chemical exports. New methods of extraction such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) are boosting shale production, bringing down prices of ethane (derived from shale gas) in the process.
Leveraging the abundant natural gas supply, chemical makers are ratcheting up investment on shale gas-linked projects which is expected to beef up capacity. The shale revolution made the U.S. an attractive investment hotspot and incentivized a number of chemical companies to pump in billions of dollars for setting up facilities (crackers) to produce ethylene and propylene in a cost-effective way.
Per an ACC report, domestic chemical investment related to shale gas has reached as high as $145 billion, more than 60% of which are from firms outside the U.S. Already 238 projects -- many backed by the Federal government -- have been announced by chemical makers to take
advantage of ample natural gas supplies. Such investments are expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.
Automotive Continues to "Accelerate"
The automotive sector is witnessing significant momentum. This major chemical end-use market is enjoying the fruits of low gasoline prices. Global automotive sales are expected to remain on uptrend and hit 88.6 million units this year (up 2.4% from 2014), according to IHS Automotive.
The U.S. auto industry also remains on top gear with new car and light truck sales are expected to jump to 17.17 million units in 2015 from 16.4 million units in 2014 on the back of low gasoline prices and pent-up consumer demand, further reaching a record high of 17.46 million units in 2016, as per The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) estimates.
In particular, U.S. light vehicles (a key end-user market) sales are expected to increase this year, riding on improving employment rates and household income, lower fuel prices, attractive financing options and pent-up demand. The Auto industry in Asian countries, especially China, is also expected to thrive over the next several years. As such, chemical makers are expected to gain from higher demand from this important end-market.
Strategic Moves
Chemical companies continue to shift their focus on attractive, growth markets (driven by megatrends) in an effort to cut their exposure on other businesses that are struggling with weak demand and input costs pressure. Moreover, cost-cutting measures -- including plant closures and headcount reduction -- and productivity improvement actions by chemical companies are expected to yield industry-wide margin improvements. Several chemical makers are also disposing non-core assets as they shift their focus on high-margin businesses.
M&A Heating Up
The chemical industry is also seeing a pick-up in consolidation activities, as witnessed last year. Chemical companies remain actively
focused on mergers and acquisitions to diversify and shore up growth in a still-challenging economic environment. These companies continue to explore growth opportunities in the fast-growing emerging markets, particularly in the lucrative regions of Asia-Pacific and Latin America.
PPG Industries Inc.'s ( PPG ) acquisition of Mexican paint company Comex, Albemarle Corp.'s ( ALB ) $6.2 billion buyout of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. and CF Industries' ( CF ) proposed acquisition of certain assets of Netherlands-based OCI N.V. for around $8 billion are among the major deals that have taken place in the chemical space in the recent past.
A Rebounding Construction Space
A recovery across housing and commercial construction -- major chemical end-markets -- has been another supporting factor for the chemical
industry recovery. After being hit hard in the recession, the construction industry is currently in the process of gradual healing.
The housing sector saw steady recovery in 2014 backed by stabilizing mortgage rates, improving job market and moderating home prices, and the momentum is expected to continue through 2015. While the U.S. housing market witnessed a slowdown at the beginning of 2015 due to another harsh winter, housing activity picked up steam in the crucial spring and summer months, assisted by an improving economy, encouraging job picture and rising consumer confidence.
The renewal of long-stalled construction projects and long awaited access to credit from lending institutions have helped invigorate the commercial construction sector. The US Architecture Billings Index (ABI), an indicator that offers a glimpse into the future of U.S. non-residential construction spending activity, climbed to 55.7 in June 2015 from 51.9 a month ago (a reading above 50 indicates an increase in billings).
Moreover, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) expects non-residential construction spending to go up nearly 8.9% in 2015 and
8.2% in 2016. This bodes well for demand for chemicals in the construction markets.
Wrapping Up
The chemical industry -- which had long been out of favor -- is finally looking up, making it an attractive investment proposition for 2015. As you can see from the above-stated factors, there are a few good reasons to be optimistic about the industry.
Chemical stocks that are well placed in the current operating backdrop include LyondellBasell Industries NV ( LYB ) and Celanese Corp. ( CE ).
-
(ACC Mentioned) DuPont Safety Questioned After OSHA Fines, Deaths
Aug 20, 2015 | Delaware Online
By Jeff Mordock
DuPont has long been recognized as a safety leader within the chemical industry. Its people train other companies and industries in best practices for environmental and workplace safety.
Now, the company is facing heavy criticism from employee unions and government agencies after a series of high-profile accidents and deaths at plants across the country.
Eight workplace fatalities since 2007, numerous lawsuits, multiple federal regulatory agency investigations and millions of dollars in Occupational Safety and Health Administration fines have some wondering if DuPont’s historically good safety record still exists.
In July, OSHA placed DuPont in a program for “severe” violators of workplace safety standards. Severe is the worst category, and companies are placed in it after repeatedly failing to address OSHA violations.
DuPont is the largest of the roughly 450 companies in the severe category. Smaller construction companies comprise the bulk of those businesses.
“That is really huge that DuPont got put into the severe violator program,” said Celeste Monforton, a former OSHA analyst and now a professor of occupational health at George Washington University. “The companies on that list are the worst of the worst.”
DuPont says the workplace deaths have overshadowed a still-strong safety record. Company representatives are quick to point out that DuPont’s workplace injury rate is below average for the chemical industry.
On July 1, DuPont spun off its high-performance chemical units into a new company called Chemours in part to absolve itself from environmental liabilities that could exceed $1 billion.
Even after spinning off Chemours, DuPont must still deal with OSHA and U.S. Chemical Safety Board violations or recommendations. All but one of the plants where worker deaths occurred are still operated by DuPont. Only the Belle, West Virginia, plant, where a worker was killed in 2010 is part of Chemours.
Video detailing a 2010 accident at DuPont in Buffalo
In 2013, DuPont received the Robert W. Campbell Award from the National Safety Council, a 100-year-old, nonprofit corporate safety advocacy group. The Campbell Award is presented annually to the safest company across multiple international business sectors.
Company spokesman Dan Turner said the chemical giant has learned from the incidents and is always working to improve safety. Turner said DuPont has partnered with other companies to reassess workplace safety practices since four workers were killed in 2014 by a gas leak at its La Porte, Texas, facility.
“We have a foundation of world-class safety practices, but consistent with best practices, this tragic incident prompted a hard and broad look at our safety management systems,” he said.
Employee unions have also joined the chorus of those criticizing DuPont. The United Steelworkers and International Chemical Workers Union Council, two unions representing DuPont workers, sent a letter this month to company Chief Executive Ellen Kullman threatening to pursue regulatory action against the company. The letter said union safety experts have been barred from reviewing plant conditions.
“We have a right under federal labor laws to see what the hazards are at these plants,” Michael Wright, director of Health Safety and Environment for USW, told The News Journal. “That’s part of representing our members.”
Former DuPont employee sentenced for trade secret theft
Wright said union experts were barred from investigating DuPont’s Niagara Falls plant. He said USW needed a court order from the National Labor Relations Board so inspectors could review the facility. By the time the inspectors finally toured the plant, it was more than a year after the original request, Wright said.
Turner did not respond directly to Wright’s allegation.
“DuPont has worked with local and national unions for many years with positive results and we will continue to engage in constructive dialogue with them at our individual sites,” he said.
‘Gone downhill’
Clay Dugas grew up admiring DuPont, one of the largest employers near the small Texas town where he was raised.
At one point in the 1980s, he recalled one of his neighbors – an employee at the company – injured himself while working on his roof. Even though the accident occurred during the neighbor’s off-work time, the company fired the man for practicing unsafe behavior, Dugas said.
Now an attorney in Beaumont, Texas, Dugas says he never imagined he’d one day file a negligence and wrongful death lawsuit against the company he knew as a hallmark for safety.
A contract worker was crushed by falling equipment at DuPont’s Sabine River Works plant in Orange, Texas, on July 24, 2007. Another was crushed by a rail car on Oct. 7, 2011. (Photo: U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY BOARD)
Dugas is representing the widow of Gilbert Tisnado, one of four DuPont employees killed last year in La Porte. Tisnado died trying to save three co-workers, according to an OSHA investigation.
“DuPont has exchanged being a safety leader to going to the back of the class,” Dugas said. “They’ve been put on OSHA’s severe violator list. That shows it’s a systemic problem and a changed safety culture.”
USW’s Wright agreed with Dugas.
“Historically, it is a company with a pretty good safety record,” he said. “We think they have gone downhill over the last few years. I don’t want to speculate on the causes.”
2 unions threaten action over DuPont safety record
Monforton wonders if DuPont’s reputation for stringent safety requirements was always illusory.
“The only reason we know what’s going at DuPont right now is because OSHA has been going into its plants,” she said. “OSHA doesn’t get into these facilities very often, and I wonder how often they had been to DuPont plants before the fatalities occurred.”
Parry Norling, a former health and safety director at DuPont, countered Monforton’s assertion. Norling retired in 1998 after 33 years with the company.
“Safety was very important because DuPont knew its ability to safely handle hazardous materials gave the company a competitive advantage,” he said. “DuPont really worked at safety.”
DuPont required employees to take safe driving courses, and desk pencils were banned because they could roll off and cause someone to trip, Norling recalled. He said he was able to save his young son’s life after the child swallowed a poisonous plant because of his DuPont training.
Chemical Safety Board Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso praised DuPont’s history of preventing workplace injuries. In written testimony submitted in December to a joint meeting of two U.S. Senate committees, Moure-Eraso said, “If it can happen at DuPont, I would submit it can happen anywhere.”
DuPont’s reputation for safety extends to a company unit, dubbed Sustainable Solutions, that trains other companies in workplace and environmental safety.
Sustainable Solutions has worked with more than 1,700 clients in 100 countries, according to Turner. Clients in the mining industry have seen their injury rates decline by as much as 60 percent over a two-year period, while an oil company client saw a 92 percent decrease in fatalities within two years after working with DSS, Turner said.
An employee at DuPont’s Belle, West Virginia, facility died after exposure to phosgene, a chemical used as a weapon in World War I, on Jan. 23, 2010. (Photo: U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY BOARD)
A blow to DuPont’s reputation could have a real impact on its bottom line. Sustainable Solutions generated $3.9 billion in 2014, according to the company’s annual report.
Monforton said that unit’s performance has helped DuPont avoid scrutiny about its own safety record.
“They are selling this safety program to other companies, but the emperor had no clothes,” she said. “It’s extremely disturbing.”
Turner did not respond directly to Monforton’s comment, but did emphasize the company cooperates and communicates with regulatory agencies.
Fatalities, lawsuits and investigations
Between 1995 and 2007, one DuPont employee died on the job, according to a review of OSHA documents. The worker, an employee of then-DuPont subsidiary ConocoPhillips, was killed after an oil refinery explosion in Westlake, Louisiana.
Since 2007, eight workers have died in five incidents at DuPont worksites:
• July 24, 2007: Contract worker Lonnie LaFleur was crushed by falling equipment at DuPont’s Sabine River Works plant in Orange, Texas.
• Jan. 23, 2010: An employee at DuPont’s Belle, West Virginia, facility died after exposure to phosgene, a chemical used as a weapon in World War I.
• Nov. 9, 2010: A worker at the Yerkes Plant in Tonawanda, New York, was killed when a 10,000-gallon slurry tank exploded.
• Oct. 7, 2011: A contract worker was crushed by a rail car at the Sabine River Works plant.
• Nov. 15, 2014: Four workers were killed by methyl mercaptan, a toxic gas used to make insecticides, released at DuPont’s LaPorte, Texas plant.
A 2011 video on three DuPont accidents in Belle, WV
“To some degree, bad luck happens,” said John Mendeloff, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, who has authored two books on workplace safety. “But DuPont has had several important disasters, and the investigations in those cases did seem to indicate failings in the safety management systems.”
Turner said DuPont is cooperating with both the OSHA and CSB investigations into the LaPorte incident.
“We will learn from this incident, share the critical lessons from it and do all that is necessary to ensure that such an event never happens again,” he said.
OSHA fines have increased in recent years, according to data on the agency’s website. DuPont paid $57,749 in fines to the regulatory agency between 2000 and 2006. Since 2007, OSHA has levied $640,861 in fines.
Thomas Fuller, director of the health sciences department at the University of Illinois, said OSHA does not punish companies for violations as sternly as other federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency. OSHA fined DuPont $372,000 for the LaPorte tragedy. DuPont, which is valued at $66.7 billion, is contesting those fines.
“Giving a million dollars to the widow of a dead worker is not a lot of money for DuPont,” he said. “When we start talking billions, then it will make a difference.”
DuPont paid $745 million in 2012 to settle a lawsuit filed by Koch Industries Inc. Koch acquired DuPont’s textiles and interiors business, now Invista, for $4.4 billion in 2012, but alleged in legal papers the 12 plants it assumed in the transaction suffered from safety and environmental issues. Benzene, a carcinogen, had leaked from one plant and in others it eroded chemical tanks, posing an explosion threat.
The lawsuit alleged DuPont assured Koch the plants were in compliance with environmental and safety standards. But once the transaction was complete, the EPA discovered 687 violations at the facilities. Koch claimed in court documents the cleanup cost $140 million and increased operating costs by more than $200 million.
A worker at the Yerkes Plant in Tonawanda, New York, was killed when a 10,000-gallon slurry tank exploded on Nov. 9, 2010. (Photo: U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY BOARD)
DuPont denied the allegations and countered it was not responsible for cleanup costs because Invista violated a contractual agreement to pay for environmental remediation.
A whistleblower who reported leaks of sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide – a carcinogenic – and sulfuric acid mist at the company’s Burnside plant in Darrow, Louisiana, filed a lawsuit against the company. Jeffrey Simoneaux alleged DuPont failed to report the leaks for three years.
Simoneaux said plant management retaliated against him for reporting the leaks to the EPA. He was told that he was warned by supervisors not to report the leaks in writing for fear it would create a legal record. Simoneaux also said he was admonished by his bosses for writing the leaks in a company logbook.
DuPont fined $99,000 for Texas gas leak
Earlier this year, a jury ruled the leaks did not pose a threat to the public and were not large enough to require being reported to the EPA. However, a federal judge vacated the jury’s decision. U.S. District Court Judge Shelly D. Dick ruled DuPont withheld crucial information about the leaks and workplace safety standards, calling the company’s actions “misconduct.”
DuPont has paid $17.2 million to fix damaged equipment at the Burnside plant.
Exceeding industry standards
DuPont officials insist company safety must be judged by the number of productive work days lost to injury. It’s a measurement that includes fatalities and is used by the Department of Labor to monitor safety across various employment sectors.
On average between 2007 and 2013, DuPont lost 0.2 days of productivity due to workplace injury. During the same period, the average chemical company lost just under a full work day, according to Bureau of Labor statistics.
DuPont has improved on that number. In 2007, when the Sabine River Works death occurred, the company lost roughly 0.26 days of productivity because of injury. Injuries cost DuPont 0.16 days of productivity in 2013, according to the most recently available Department of Labor statistics.
Del. SBA office sets record for federally backed loans
In 2014, roughly 65 percent of DuPont’s plants did not disclose a single reportable injury, according to data from the company. That number has improved since 2003, when just under 50 percent of the plants could claim zero reportable injuries. It peaked at just under 70 percent in 2009, before dropping to 60 percent 2010 and rising every year since.
“Safety is a core value and constant priority at DuPont,” Turner said.
Among its peers, DuPont’s safety record is favorable. The chemical industry measures safety through its recordable incident rates, a complicated calculation that tracks the number and severity of workplace injuries based on total hours worked. Based on data supplied to The News Journal by the American Chemistry Council and the companies listed, DuPont ranked second in fewest recordable incidents between 2007 and 2014.
Dow reported an average incident rate of 0.24 during the eight-year period. DuPont finished second at 0.75, followed by BASF at 0.77, Honeywell with 0.97 and 3M with 1.47.
Yet other companies recorded fewer fatalities. Neither BASF nor 3M recorded any employee or contractor deaths between 2007 and 2015. Honeywell reported one contractor fatality in 2009, and Dow had one employee die in 2012 and another in 2013.
Some say average incident rates are misleading for the chemical industry, where workers handle hazardous materials.
“Companies calculate that by reporting every tiny injury,” Mendeloff said. “But chemical plants with a lot of processes and safety do not have the potential for regular old accidents.”
Going forward
Turner said DuPont has taken steps to address the LaPorte incident. He said the company’s own investigative team is conducting a “systemic and rigorous” analysis of the leak that killed the four workers.
DuPont is assessing its process safety management system and redesigning its incident reporting system, he said.
The company’s reaction to prior incidents has earned praise from the Chemical Safety Board. CSB’s Moure-Eraso in 2013 commended DuPont’s improvements to its Yerkes plant following the 2010 fatality.
He also commended the company for implementing the same new procedures at all of its U.S. locations, saying he “was extremely pleased” with DuPont’s actions.
“The fact they [DuPont] have contested a very modest penalty in the investigation tells me they really don't get it. They have not recognized the severity of the problems.”John Mendeloff, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, who has written two books on workplace safety
Safety experts expressed concern over DuPont’s decision to contest the La Porte fines. Overall, less than 10 percent of the companies fined by OSHA challenge them, Mendlehoff said.
“To some degree, it seems DuPont is concerned about its reputation,” he said. “That implies that perhaps they are not facing up to the facts.”
Monforton said that shows DuPont is a long way from acknowledging its issues.
“The fact that they have contested a very modest penalty in the investigation tells me they really don’t get it,” Monforton said. “They have not recognized the severity of the problems.”
Fuller disagreed. He said the public relations value of being exonerated of any wrong is worth the legal costs.
“For these big companies, the OSHA fines don’t really mean anything,” he said. “It’s the public relations that makes a difference.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) BPA Linked To Behaviour Problems In New Statistics Canada Study
Aug 19, 2015 | CTV News
Canadian kids and teens with high levels of bisphenol A, or BPA, in their urine, are more likely to have behaviour problems, a new Statistics Canada study has found.
And while the researchers say their study was not able to show that the BPA is responsible for the behaviour problems, they say further research is needed to better understand the link.
BPA is a plastic ingredient commonly used as a resin on the interior of food cans, as well as in the production of plastic toys and dinnerware, dental composites, and other items.
BPA is a plastic ingredient commonly used as a resin on the interior of food cans.
It is rapidly broken down in the body and excreted in urine, which is why urine tests are considered the best way to measure recent exposure.
Using data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey, Statistics Canada researchers found that more than 90 per cent of the children and teens they tested had BPA in their urine. Previous studies in both Canada and the U.S. have found similar levels.
The researchers found that the higher the BPA concentration in the urine of boys, the higher their risk for behaviour problems. Among girls, high BPA concentration was linked to greater hyperactivity.
Kids and youth in low and lower-middle income households tended to have significantly higher BPA in their urine than those in higher-income households.
Kids exposed to second-hand smoke every day or almost every day also had higher BPA. So did younger children compared to those aged 15 to 17. But the BPA levels did not differ by ethnicity, the kids' gender or BMI, or the level of education in the household.
The researchers caution that the link they found between BPA and behaviour problems was "relatively weak." But they added that even a minor association could have public health implications and should be investigated further.
"A small effect at the population level can translate into a substantial number of children and youth at risk for behavioural difficulties," the authors write.
BPA has been linked to hormone disruption and brain development problems in several animal studies. Human studies have linked the chemical to cancer, miscarriage, and childhood obesity.
Concerns about the chemical prompted Canada to ban its use in baby bottles in 2008. The U.S. FDA followed suit in 2012.
But according to the head of the BPA Global Group, a division of the American Chemistry Council, the Statistics Canada study is no reason for concern.
"Parents can and should continue to confidently use products that depend on BPA," Steven G. Hentes said in a statement to CTV News.
Hentes cautioned that, as the study notes, other researchers have concluded that BPA is not harmful. He pointed out that the study's authors acknowledge the links between BPA and behavioural problems are "relatively weak."
"These results need to be put into context," Hentes said. "Health Canada continues to conclude that dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population."
Earlier this year, the European Food Safety Authority also concluded that BPA is safe for all age groups at current exposure levels. It found that people in Europe are exposed to BPA at much lower levels than their Tolerable Daily Intake limits.
The authors of this latest study says that while there is no evidence BPA is directly causing behaviour problems in children, further research is needed "to understand the mechanisms by which it may be related to behavioural outcomes."
Maggie MacDonald, the toxics program manager at Environmental Defence, it’s "disconcerting" to see this link between a common pollutant and behavioural troubles in young people.
She says it's clear to her that BPA should be fully banned.
"Taking BPA out of baby bottles and sippy cups was a good step, but it is not enough, because youth are being exposed to this chemical on a continuing basis in Canada," she told CTV News.
MacDonald notes BPA is still on "thermal" paper receipts, which most people touch every day, and should also be removed from can linings and other plastics.
She adds that it is not enough to ban BPA and then replace it with alternatives such as BPS or BPF (Bisphenol S and F).
Research by University of Calgary professor Deborah Kurrasch has found that both BPA and BPS can cause alterations in brain development in fish that can lead to hyperactivity.
"I hope that people take a look at this study and really, really understand that we need to ban this chemical. BPA is not safe and every day the evidence is growing," MacDonald said.
-
What Will It Take For Brands To Deliver On The Promise Of Greener Chemicals?
Aug 19, 2015 | The Guardian
By Amy Westervelt
When Paul Anastas coined the term “green chemistry” back in 1991, he was a 28-year-old staff scientist at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where he was thought of as a little eccentric. By 1995, he had convinced then president Bill Clinton to launch the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge, and in 1998, he and scientist John Warner co-authored a textbook on the subject that still stands as the field’s dominant primer.
In it, the two laid out 12 principles for the new field they were founding, including “prevention”, the idea that chemicals should be designed to avoid waste as much as possible from the outset; “safer chemicals”, which instructed that chemicals should be designed to be both effective and non-toxic; and “safer solvents and auxiliaries”, which indicated that auxiliary substances like solvents and separation agents should be avoided wherever possible and innocuous when used.
That momentum behind green chemistry in the 1990s has never waned, but it has never exactly exploded either. In a recent paper on barriers to adoption of green chemistry, sponsored by the Green Chemistry and Commerce group at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, industry expert Tess Fennelly pinpoints various obstacles that have kept green chemistry from entirely realizing its potential.
Among them are the entrenched and efficient chemical industry, complex product supply chains, the lack of a shared understanding of exactly what green chemistry means. Additional obstacles include: shifting and sometimes confusing regulations and concerns that switching to a chemical that seems greener may result in unforeseen performance, cost or health issues. Regulation and innovation
Still, there are reasons to believe that green chemistry may be ready for its closeup. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which governs whether and how chemicals are regulated in the US, is currently being revised for the first time since the 1970s. While proponents of stricter regulation fear the proposed updates to the legislation still fall short, no one disputes the fact that it would be better than what we have now, which is legislation that has made it virtually impossible for the EPA to regulate, much less ban, any chemical even in the face of overwhelming evidence (like asbestos, for example).
Despite the ongoing battle over federal regulation, other policy changes have brought green chemistry advancements over the years, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s move to ban phthalates in children’s toys; changes to various state fire codes that have enabled the phasing out of chemical flame retardants in furniture; and California’s Prop 65 legislation, which mandates warning labels on products containing a wide range of toxic chemicals, and its Safer Consumer Products Law, also known as the Green Chemistry Initiative, which aims to pinpoint high priority products for regulation and work with manufacturers to phase out chemicals of concern in those products.
Although the latter law has come under fire for a number of reasons – it has moved very slowly, it charges an already overtaxed and under-resourced Department of Toxic Substances Control with an enormous new task, and is extremely complex – if nothing else, it has helped to raise awareness among consumers and retailers, and spurred suppliers to look at alternatives.
In fact, all of these regulatory moves, along with the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (Reach) regulation, have spurred innovation in green chemistry.
According to a 2013 report by the nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel), patents in green chemistry tend to track with chemical regulation. Pointing to publicly available patent records, the report highlights a noticeable increase in the number of patents filed for phthalate alternatives both in 1999, shortly after Reach regulation began, and again in 2006, when four phthalates – BBP, DEHP, DBP, and DIBP – were added to the Reach Authorization list, which required them to be phased out entirely by February 2015.
“It creates a market for green chemistry,” says Ciel’s Baskut Tuncak, who authored the study. “And not just for small green chemistry companies, either. The big guys, like Dow and Exxon Mobil, filed more patents for alternatives to phthalates, for example, than anyone.” The market has spoken
In addition to regulatory drivers, green chemistry innovation has been spurred in recent years by both growing consumer awareness and the procurement policies of big retailers.
Whole Foods has long had a strict green chemistry standard in place when vetting products for the shelves of its “Whole Body” section. Chemist Bruce Akers says that for years, when a company has approached him wanting to work on a sustainable beauty product, the request has always been for “something designed according to the Whole Foods standard”.
Green chemistry really got aboost when Walmart and Target unveiled green chemistry purchasing policies a few weeks apart from each other in 2013. Bed, Bath and Beyond quickly followed suit, publishing a list of restricted substances it plans to phase out from products it carries. “BBB recommends that vendors exercise efforts to reduce or eliminate these substances of potential concern in their products,” the company wrote, cautioning that “vendors should avoid substituting substances on the RSL for another substance of equal or greater concern”.
All of which has helped consumer product companies change at a much faster rate than regulation alone could ever drive. Johnson & Johnson began phasing phthalates out of its products in the absence of US regulation of the chemicals because, as Susan Nettesheim, vice president of product stewardship and toxicology, said in the Ciel report, “there’s a very lively public discussion going on about the safety of ingredients in personal care products … It was really important that we had a voice in that … We want people to have complete peace of mind when they use our products.”
Meanwhile, SC Johnson has taken an industry-leading stance on ingredient transparency, becoming the first consumer product company to disclose fragrance ingredients in its products. Fragrance ingredients have long been protected under trade secret status, but public health advocates have been calling for more transparency for years. Giving consumers that transparency is key to the kind of company SC Johnson wants to be, according to CEO Fisk Johnson.
“If you want to earn trust and credibility, I believe you have to lay it all out for the scrutiny of the world, rather than keeping it secret,” Johnson told the Guardian via email. “People fear the worst in the absence of information.” Putting an end to Whac-a-Mole chemistry
The biggest step forward may come in a shift to how both chemists and regulators view chemicals: rather than looking at one chemical at a time, leaders in the field are beginning to look at chemicals from the molecular level and then telescope out to evaluate the safety of entire groups or families of chemicals. Anastas explained this approach in an interview as he was leaving his post as the EPA’s chief science advisor in 2012 to take on his current role as director of the Yale Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering.
“The important thing for anyone concerned about the environment is to understand that we’re not going to make the progress we want if we consider chemical by chemical,” Anastas told Environmental Health News at the time. “We have to have a better understanding of the nature of the hazard at the molecular level. Once we have that understanding, we can understand chemicals in terms of families and groups and the risk on humans and the environment.”
Green chemistry pioneer Arlene Blum, who runs the Green Science Policy Institute is focused on this approach as well. Blum – who is credited with getting flame retardant chemicals out of both children’s pajamas back in the 1970s and, more recently, furniture – has spent the last couple of years talking to regulators, policy makers, and the heads of assorted companies. The six chemicals of concern Blum has pinpointed are: highly fluorinated chemicals, used to provide water- or oil-resistant properties to cookware, outerwear, carpeting and food packagingantimicrobials, like triclosan, used in soaps, deodorants, socks and underwear to prevent microbial growthflame retardantsbisphenols and phthalates, used in plastics, pesticides, and flame retardants organic solvents, used in paints, coatings and dry cleaning chemicalsheavy metals, like lead, cadmium and mercury
“I believe green chemistry has helped to move us [beyond] petroleum-based chemistry, delivering both health and environmental benefits,” Blum says. “However, the rate of this transition needs to be increased.”
One way to do that, according to Blum, is to address the problem of “regrettable substitutions”, which happens when a chemical is banned or phased out and replaced with an equally problematic substance. Replacements are too often from the same chemical family and present similar properties and that cause similar harm but that have not been studied.
“Green chemistry and technology can, and should, help us avoid entire classes containing related chemicals of concern and transition to healthier new chemicals, materials, and strategies that achieve needed functions with a reduced potential for harm,” Blum says.
-
Drinking Water Levels of PFOA Unsafe, Group Says
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Concentrations of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) found in water systems serving 6.5 million Americans are harmful even though they are below a federal advisory level, according to a report the Environmental Working Group will release Aug. 20.
The group is publishing its report less than a month before DuPont faces a personal injury trial in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (In re E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., S.D. Ohio, No. 2:13-md-2433, 1/11/13).
The trial involves one of 3,500 lawsuits filed by people who claim to have developed various diseases as a result of drinking water that was contaminated by PFOA (128 DEN A-9, 7/6/15).
“PFOA contamination of drinking water is a much more serious treat to health than previously thought,” Bill Walker, investigations editor and co-author of the report, “Teflon Chemical Unsafe at Smallest Doses,” told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 19.
The Chemours Co., a recent spin off from DuPont, does not agree the study EWG used to reach its conclusions reviewed the most current available data, Janet Smith, the companies' spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA.
“We do not believe it includes data that supports an allegation that the interim health advisory level set by EPA in 2009 is far below what would be a safe dose,” she said.
PFOA Was Used as Processing Aid
Prior to efforts to phase it out, PFOA was used as a processing aid in making other chemicals called fluoropolymers, which have heat- and corrosion-resistance important to hundreds of manufacturing and industrial applications.
Although cookware with Teflon® brand coatings is the most recognized type of consumer product made with fluoropolymers, new forms of those polymers—made without PFOA—are essential to many industry segments, including the aerospace, automotive, building/construction, chemical processing, electronics, semiconductors and textile industries.
Report Not Triggered by Trial
Walker said EWG's report is neither designed to affect the outcomes of the personal injury trials nor could it because of conditions to which DuPont and plaintiffs already have agreed.
EWG's information should be useful to West Virginia and Ohio residents as they push DuPont to comply with medical monitoring and other requirements under a settlement in a 2005 class action lawsuit, Walker said (Leach v. DuPont, W.Va. Cir. Ct., No. 01-C-608, 2/28/05) (171 DEN A-5, 9/4/14).
Information in the report also should spur the Environmental Protection Agency to set an enforceable limit for PFOA in drinking water, he said.
EPA's Office of Water plans to complete this fall a draft assessment issued for PFOA and another perfluorinated chemical called perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), the agency said in response to e-mailed questions. The agency released a draft in 2014 that found both chemicals might cause cancer (41 DEN A-7, 3/3/14)
Chemicals Proposed for Contaminant List
Both PFOA and PFOS are listed on the EPA's third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL3) and proposed for listing in the CCL4, the agency said. The list names contaminants that aren't subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulation but which are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and which may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Walker said the EPA has to first decide if a water contaminant poses sufficient risk to regulate. Given the data the agency has been using, it could say no, he continued.
EWG's report acknowledges that the vast majority of drinking water samples reported to the EPA have no detectable PFOA.
Even where PFOA has been found, the concentrations were well below the advisory level of 0.4 parts per billion (ppb) that the EPA set in 2009, EWG said.
EPA Level Said to Be Too Low
The problem, the EWG report said, is “that EPA's health advisory level is hundreds or thousands of times too weak to fully protect human health.”
Walker said the environmental group used standard EPA methods to calculate safe drinking water levels combined with an approximate no-effects level calculated by two researchers in their multi-study analysis published in June 2015 in New Solutions, a scientific journal.
“Existing drinking water limits are based on less complete evidence that was available before 2008 and may be more than 100-fold too high,” Richard Clapp, of the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, and Phillippe Grandjean, of the Harvard School of Public Health, wrote in New Solutions.
Health Effects Indicated
The toxicology database is still far from over, but scientific studies published since the EPA set its interim advisory level combined with toxicity data that has emerged through court proceedings involving DuPont show that carcinogenicity and immunotoxicity appear to be relevant risks at prevalent exposure levels, Clapp and Grandjean wrote.
The researchers said an approximate level of 0.001 ppb or less of PFOA in water might better estimate a safe level than EPA's interim advisory did.
Walker said “we completed the math” and calculated that water concentrations would have to be 0.0003 ppb or less to be protective with an adequate margin of safety.
Concentrations of PFOA in 94 water systems in 27 states would exceed that level, EWG's report said.
Chemours Points to Reductions
The Chemours Co., which would be responsible for personal injury damages—if any were awarded—in the legal cases scheduled to begin Sept. 14, pointed to the 29,000 water monitoring results the EPA recently summarized. None found PFOA above safe levels, Smith told Bloomberg BNA.
Under a voluntary EPA Stewardship Program, DuPont eliminated use of PFOA in the manufacture of fluoropolymers as of the end of June 2013 and in perfluoroelastomers as of the end of December 2013, two years ahead of the EPA goal, Smith said (234 DEN A-1, 12/5/13).
As a result of such efforts, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has documented a 41 percent reduction in human blood levels of PFOA, Smith said, citing information the EPA disseminated in January.
-
Allowing Arctic Drilling Assumes Worst Case Climate Scenario
Aug 19, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Hannah McKinnon
The Arctic has long been a symbol of a rapidly changing climate. Melting sea ice, collapsing ice shelves and polar bears in peril have become universal symbols of the dramatic impacts of climate change at the ends of the earth.
But the connection between the Arctic and climate change goes much further, with companies like Royal Dutch Shell seeing rapidly melting sea ice as an invitation for more exploration and exploitation rather than a dire warning that we have gone too far.
And yet the Obama administration has just approved the final permit Shell needs to proceed with another season of exploratory drilling. How the administration squares this approval with its apparent commitment to climate action remains a mystery.
Arctic oil exploration is not just egregious in its irony, but it is also a telling signal of what Big Oil - and the governments that permit its operations - think about climate action. Shockingly, the basis for energy policy (including approval for Arctic drilling) in the U.S. is rooted in the assumption that next to nothing will be done to tackle the global climate crisis.
The Obama administration states that Arctic oil exploration, as well as the opening of the Atlantic outer continental shelf, is necessary to meet future U.S. energy needs in its ‘All of the Above’ energy policy document, published in May 2014.
But the forecast used to support this assertion is the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Reference Case, a business as usual scenario that assumes energy policy remains static and little meaningful climate action happens. In this forecast, U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions are 190% more than they would be in a climate ‘safe’ scenario, the same 2 degree scenario the administration is attempting to achieve through its climate policies. The Reference Case scenario is nothing short of a climate disaster and it is outrageous that it is still used as a basis for energy policy.
In a new report Oil Change International released along with Greenpeace last week, we confirm that U.S. offshore Arctic oil is only viable and ‘needed’ in a world headed for upwards of 5 degrees C of temperature rise – global warming that would change the face of the planet as we know it. This is the worst case scenario - where oil demand continues to grow and high prices endure for decades, and where the world has failed to tackle the climate crisis.
The Arctic affords us a stark view of the current chasm between climate and energy policy in the United States, but it is also an opportunity to connect the dots more clearly and convincingly than ever. People see the disconnect – Shell’s Arctic exploits this year have struck a chord with millions across the continent and the world who are demanding climate rhetoric match action and Arctic drilling be banned.
Arctic oil is incompatible with a safe global climate and ongoing exploration is a bet that we will fail to tackle climate change in a world where fully three-quarters of the fossil fuels we already have access to must stay in the ground.
Everyone else is connecting the dots - from scientists, to communities, to Kayaktivists - and it is time for the Administration to do the same and refocus energy policy and energy independence on clean, just and safe energy that won’t bring the global climate down with it.
-
Feds Lower Projections For Crude Oil Prices
Aug 19, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Federal energy analysts predict average crude oil prices will hover around the $50-per-barrel mark through next year, lower than previously thought.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) said on Wednesday that West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude prices, the benchmark for American crude, will average $49 per barrel this year and $54 per barrel in 2016. Those figures are respectively $6 per barrel and $8 per barrel lower than previous estimates. EIA said it changed its forecast because of a handful of factors, including the possibility that Iranian crude oil could enter the market after sanctions on the country are lifted.
The agency said it’s also concerned about slow economic growth in crude oil markets, growing supply and increasing oil inventory around the world.
But EIA notes its projection “remains subject to significant uncertainties: the pace and volume at which Iranian oil reenters the market, the strength of oil consumption growth and the responsiveness of non-OPEC production to low oil prices.”
Crude oil was trading around $40.60 on Wednesday. Experts said the price could eventually dip below $40, with analysts telling MarketWatch on Tuesday that they're concerned about high global supply levels and a dip in Chinese demand for oil.
Gasoline prices tend to follow the cost of Brent Crude oil, an international benchmark. EIA expects Brent price fluctuations to track alongside WTI through next year, keeping retail prices relatively low.
Even so, the administration said gasoline prices are “elevated” right now because of strong demand in the U.S. and overseas and oil refinery outages in California.
-
12 Senators Seek SEC Review of Offshore Drilling Risk Disclosures
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Twelve senators opposed to offshore oil and gas drilling sent a letter Aug. 18 to the Securities and Exchange Commission asking the agency to review the risk disclosures of companies engaged in drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.
The senators, including 11 Democrats and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), were following the lead of three House Democrats who sent a similar letter to the SEC July 24.
The three House members in turn were following the lead of the environmental activist group Oceana and the Abrams Environmental Law Clinic of the University of Chicago. The two organizations focused a petition to the SEC specifically on Royal Dutch Shell Plc concerning the company's Chukchi Sea exploration work.
The 12 senators told the SEC they worried that companies have failed to disclose vulnerabilities that pose “inherent risks to investors, the environment, and the climate stemming from offshore and Arctic drilling.”
“Therefore, we request that the SEC conduct a full review of the disclosures of companies currently drilling or planning to drill for oil offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans, and take necessary action to protect investors and maintain the integrity of the market,” the senators said.
‘Boilerplate' Disclosures Denounced
The senators started out their letter with a reference to “recent revelations” that Royal Dutch Shell “did not disclose risks inherent to its Arctic Ocean exploration program.”
The phrasing about “revelations” appeared to be a reference to the arguments made by Oceana and the Abrams Environmental Law Clinic in their April 27 petition to the SEC for an investigation of Shell disclosures on drilling in the Arctic offshore.
“Shell has not fully disclosed the potential risks from a catastrophic accident that could result from its activities in the region,” the two organizations said. “Notwithstanding this reality, Shell's annual reports provide only boilerplate generalities about the potential for such an accident and state that the company has a sufficient plan for response and clean-up.”
The 12 senators, led by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), cited Shell's Arctic drilling risks and said, “Despite these realities, Shell has provided investors with boilerplate generalities about the potential for an accident and insisted that the company has a sufficient plan for response and clean-up.”
Along with Cardin and Sanders, the letter was signed by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). The July letter from three House members was signed by Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.).
-
Fracking Ban Cases Sent to Colorado Supreme Court
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Colorado Court of Appeals has sent challenges by the oil and gas industry of two local government hydraulic fracturing bans directly to the state Supreme Court for review (Colo. Oil and Gas Ass'n v. Longmont, Colo. Ct. App., No. 14CA1759, order on motion for determination of jurisdiction8/17/15; Colo. Oil and Gas Ass'n v. Fort Collins, Colo. Ct. App., No. 14CA1991, order on motion for determination of jurisdiction, 8/17/15).
In a nine-page order , the state appellate court said Aug. 17 the Colorado Oil and Gas Association's lawsuits against fracking bans approved by Longmont and Fort Collins involve “an important state question which has not been, but should be, determined by the Supreme Court” of Colorado.
Longmont and Fort Collins appealed lower district court rulings that their citizen-approved bans on fracking and other drilling activity were preempted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act (10 DEN A-19, 1/15/15).
“These cases are the most publicized disputes between the state, industry, and anti-fracking advocates,” the appeals court order said. “They would appear to be the test cases for determining whether county and local governments may regulate or prohibit fracking and related activities.”
A final decision on the issue will “likely determine the fate of similar litigation and regulatory efforts” throughout the state, the order said.
Municipal bans in Colorado also have been approved by the city of Boulder, Boulder County, Broomfield and Lafayette.
-
The EPA Goes Halfway on Methane Emissions
Aug 19, 2015 | Bloomberg View
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed new restrictions on methane emissions are a reasonable imposition on the oil and gas industry. Whether they're adequate to help fight climate change is another question, and the answer depends on what the government does next.
Under the proposed rules, new or modified oil and gas wells would have to use pumps and compressors that better capture methane, and companies would have to work harder to find and fix leaks -- cutting the sector's methane emissions by 20 to 30 percent. That would be about halfway toward the Barack Obama administration's goal of pushing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry down 40 to 45 percent below their 2012 levels by 2025.
Fracking
Oil and gas producers counter that they're already reducing methane emissions, because it's in their own interest not to let the fuel escape into the air. But the financial and opportunity costs of stopping leaks can in fact exceed the benefits, so federal rules are needed. The rules are not onerous, in any case, as Colorado's experience with similar measures has demonstrated.
Hitting (or exceeding) the administration's 40- to 45-percent target is essential, because while methane makes up just 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, it traps heat in the atmosphere 28 to 36 times more effectively than carbon dioxide does. By some estimates, methane accounts for a quarter of the planetary warming already under way.
That's why, until methane emissions can be reduced, natural gas can't be the climate-change fighter it has the potential to be -- despite producing roughly half the carbon emissions that coal does.
The EPA has yet to explain what more it will do to reach its target once the new oil and gas rules are in place. One strategy would be to extend the new regulations to existing oil and gas wells.
Another would be to address methane emissions in agriculture, which are even greater than those in the natural gas and petroleum sector. Belching from cows and other livestock alone produces almost as much methane as oil and gas wells do.
The rules proposed this week are nonetheless an important step. Natural gas is central to the Obama administration's strategy for fighting climate change. But that depends on getting methane emissions under control.
-
Obama's New Methane Rules Underestimate the Threat
Aug 19, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Jesse Coleman
As promised earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency has released methane pollution standards for the oil and gas industry. While regulation of methane is a necessity, these rules are much too weak to accomplish the administration's goals of meaningful greenhouse gas reduction. Here is why:
Methane must be regulated, but the new rules underestimate its power.
Methane is 86-105 times as powerful as CO2 at disrupting the climate over a 20-year period. The EPA and many news organizations misreport the real power of methane by using old science since updated by the IPCC. Obama's new rules calculate that methane is 25 times more powerful than CO2 over a 100-year timeline. However, this ignores the fact that methane is most potent when it is first released. Scientists say that methane could push the climate over a "tipping point" in the next 18-25 years, causing runaway global warming, and making a 100-year timeline obsolete. In order to take the threat from methane seriously, we must join the IPCC and assess methane's threat on a time scale that makes sense in the context of avoiding catastrophic climate change.
The oil and gas industry, especially the frackers, are the largest industrial methane polluter.
It is undisputed that the oil and gas industry is the largest industrial emitter of methane. A recent study of the major gas producing shales found that the Barnett Shale around Dallas was leaking the equivalent of 16[1] coal plants worth of green house gases every year. Similar studies from Colorado found that highly fracked areas leaked more than 19 tons of methane an hour.
But we don't actually know how much the oil and gas industry is emitting.
The Obama administration's new rules are aimed at reducing methane 40- 45% from 2005 levels. Unfortunately, no one really knows how much methane the oil and gas industry pumped into the atmosphere in 2005. The EPA figures that the administration's rules rely on are based on numbers self reported by the industry. These numbers are almost certainly a fraction of actual total methane emissions. Recent studies that use planes to determine methane emissions from oil and gas operations have found much higher rates of pollution than the industry or the EPA will currently admit.
For example, a study released this August found that natural-gas gathering facilities, which collect methane from fracked wells, lose about 100 billion cubic feet of gas every year - eight times more than the EPA estimates.
A Stanford report concluded that there is already about 50 percent more methane in the atmosphere than previously estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The New York Times recently reported that the creator of the technology commonly used to measure methane emissions by the oil and gas industry thinks his invention is not accurate the way the industry and some research groups use it, and is missing a huge portion of the pollution actually released by the industry.
These rules won't cut enough methane.
These regulations are based on old science that misrepresents the impact of methane on the climate. The aim of the new rules is to reduce methane emissions 40-45% of an imaginary number - an underestimation of 2005 emissions. On top of that, they are only aimed at new sources, ignoring the nearly one million fracked wells and associated infrastructure that already exist in the United States. Real and meaningful reductions in methane must be made to reach the president's global warming goals, and they have to better than these.
-
Scope Of Draft EPA Emissions Guide For Drilling Hinges On Ozone NAAQS
Aug 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The full scope of EPA's draft guide for reducing ozone-forming emissions from existing oil and gas drilling hinges largely on whether the agency follows through on plans to tighten its ozone air standard, as the guide only applies in areas not meeting the limit but such areas could vastly increase in number under a stricter ozone limit.
Howard Feldman, the American Petroleum Institute's (API) senior director of regulatory scientific affairs, told reporters on an Aug. 18 call that a stricter ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) could mean the guide being “even more extensively applied” than under the current 75 parts per billion (ppb) limit.
EPA has proposed tightening the standard to a limit within the range of 65 and 70 ppb, but industry groups, GOP lawmakers and others have warned that such a move will impose massive costs and place many areas out of attainment with the NAAQS for the first time. Nonattainment areas must craft strict pollution controls on sources of ozone such as power plants or industrial facilities, and EPA's critics say the status drives away industry.
In response to a question on the potential impact of the drilling emissions guide on industry's operations, Feldman said, “It depends on what EPA does with the NAAQS, as to how onerous it will be.”
The guidance, known as control techniques guidelines (CTGs), does not directly impose binding regulations for sources of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs). But the CTGs provide recommendations for states to consider in determining reasonable available control technology (RACT) to cut emissions from certain sources. States may use different technologies or approaches than are outlined in the CTGs, but RACT is subject to EPA approval and a state must show its approach will ultimately achieve the required pollution reductions.
Under section 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, states would have to submit revisions to their state implementation plans for complying with the NAAQS to EPA for approval within two years of the agency finalizing the CTGs. The agency has not said when it intends to issue a final version of the guidelines.
EPA's draft CTG for the oil and gas industry would apply in areas out of attainment with the NAAQS and throughout the 11-state Ozone Transport Region in the Northeast that have struggled with high ozone levels. The region includes Washington, D.C., portions of Northern Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Ozone NAAQS
The agency is expected to soon send its final NAAQS rule for ozone to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB), the final step before publication of the rule in time to meet a court-mandated deadline of Oct. 1 for issuing a final decision on whether to revise the standard down to between 65-70 ppb.
Feldman told reporters during an event in Washington, D.C. that tightening the standard would impose massive costs by creating new nonattainment areas, and create a practical difficulty of meeting a standard that may approach uncontrollable background ozone levels, which neither states nor EPA can regulate.
“As a matter of public policy, it doesn't make sense to set standards where they can't be achieved,” Feldman said at that event. He said that although EPA's science advisers have twice backed a standard in the 60 ppb to 70 ppb range, the agency is not bound by the scientists' recommendations. Leaving the standard unchanged at 75 ppb would still be a “logical outgrowth” of the proposal, and hence legally defensible, he said.
Supporters of a stricter ozone standard have said that regulating VOCs from the drilling sector is one way to help drive down ozone levels. EPA released the CTGs for existing drilling sources Aug. 18 as part of a package of rules that also includes proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) that would impose first-time limits on the greenhouse gas methane from future and modified drilling sites.
While EPA is directly regulating methane for the first time in the NSPS, the agency is rejecting environmentalists' calls to regulate methane from existing sources under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
Environmentalists say that an existing source standard is necessary to curb methane from the sector's existing sources, because the CTGs would only apply in nonattainment areas and only apply to VOC controls.
During an Aug. 18 press call, EPA's acting air chief Janet McCabe declined to say whether the agency would pursue an existing source standard in the future, saying that “we're not ruling anything out,” but that for now EPA will focus on the proposed NSPS and the draft CTGs for existing drilling operations.
'Draconian' Standard
Echoing API's concerns about the potential impact of EPA tightening the ozone NAAQS on the CTG, Competitive Enterprise Institute's William Yeatman said in an Aug. 18 statement that the “draconian ozone standard” that the agency has proposed would subject “virtually the whole country to 'nonattainment' regulations like the Draft Control Techniques Guidelines that EPA proposed today.”
Yeatman also argued that the proposed guidelines would function as “de facto nation-wide greenhouse gas standards for existing oil and gas” if EPA finalizes the more conservative ozone NAAQS, because the RACT would curb methane along with VOCs, which the agency cites as a “co-benefit” of the CTG.
Moreover, Yeatman said, “The rules are non-binding in name only; if a state fails to follow them, and EPA objects, then that State is almost certain to lose, whether the challenge is administratively or in court.”
The CTGs would set RACT recommendations for storage tanks, pneumatic controllers, pneumatic pumps, centrifugal and reciprocating compressors, equipment leaks from natural gas processing plants and other equipment leaks. For example, EPA's draft RACT recommendation for storage vessels is a 95 percent reduction of VOCs from sources with a potential to emit greater than or equal to 6 tons per year annually.
For compressors, EPA is proposing to recommend that operators cut emissions by replacing reciprocating compressor rod packing after 26,000 hours of operation or 36 months since the most recent rod packing replacement, or alternatively route emissions through a closed vent systems under negative pressure.
But EPA acknowledges in a fact sheet accompanying the draft guidelines that “Many of the RACT recommended levels of control are similar to the VOC requirements under the 2012 NSPS and today’s proposal.”
For instance, the alternative option for compliance for reciprocating compressors stems from the 2012 NSPS rules, which targeted VOCs for some sources, and the Aug. 18 NSPS proposal to extend those rules to new sources, such as oil wells, and apply first time methane controls to a host of sources, including natural gas wells.
Industry's Concerns
But industry is likely to object to the inclusion of controls used in the 2012 NSPS rules, given that energy groups in recent meetings with EPA and OMB officials urged the agency to stay away from mirroring the 2012 requirements.
API stressed in an Aug. 13 meeting that EPA should take into consideration the impacts that CTGs will have on existing sources, given that the “costs and issues associated with retrofitting existing sources with controls are very different from how one might address new operations,” one informed source said ahead of the proposal's release. “If EPA 'cuts-and-pastes' or incorporates by reference” the NSPS 2012 rules for new sources into the draft CTG, it may demonstrate a “failure to adequately accommodate and consider the differences between new and existing sources and the required limitation of the regulated pollutant to VOCs only,” the source said.
-
Consolidation Denied in Clean Power Plan Lawsuits
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A federal appellate court denied an emergency motion from 15 states seeking to consolidate their legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan with other pending appeals (In re West Virginia, D.C. Cir. , No. 15-1277, per curiam order 8/19/15).
The 15 states led by West Virginia will still be able to pursue their lawsuit seeking a stay to block implementation of the carbon dioxide emissions standards for power plants despite the Aug. 19 per curiam order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denying the consolidation request.
The states filed a lawsuit Aug. 13 asking the D.C. Circuit to issue an extraordinary writ to halt implementation of the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) even before the rule is published in the Federal Register because the rule imposes an immediate requirement on state regulators to begin work on a compliance plan (157 DEN A-1, 8/14/15).
The stay is being sought by Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
With that petition for review the states had also filed an emergency motion seeking to have their lawsuit consolidated with pending requests to rehear legal challenges to the EPA's carbon dioxide standards.
The states argued that they were raising many of the same arguments previously heard by the same D.C. Circuit panel addressing the reconsideration requests and that Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas Griffith were already familiar with the material.
States Cite Judicial Efficiency
“In short, considerations of judicial efficiency militate strongly against requiring a new panel to become familiar with these arguments. This is particularly so because the emergency petition seeks relief on an expedited basis,” the states said.
The three judges had dismissed prior challenges to the Clean Power Plan because the rule wasn't yet final. Many of the same states seeking the stay have also asked the same panel, which is viewed as skeptical of the EPA's authority, to rehear those lawsuits now that the final rule has been issued (In re Murray Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, petition for rehearing 7/24/15; (143 DEN A-2, 7/27/15).
-
D.C. Circuit Halts Power Plant Startup Lawsuits
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit halted a pair of lawsuits over power plant startup provisions included in the mercury and air toxics standards, pending a decision on whether those standards should remain in place (White Stallion Energy Ctr. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 13-1106, motion granted 8/18/15; Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1013, motion granted 8/18/15).
The federal appeals court Aug. 18 granted motions to govern further proceedings filed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA asked the court to continue to hold the two lawsuits in abeyance until a decision is issued in the initial MATS litigation because that decision may have an impact on the startup lawsuits.
The D.C. Circuit will decide whether the mercury standards (RIN 2060–AP52, RIN 2060-AR31), issued in 2012, will be vacated or will remain in place while the EPA works to address a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held the agency was required to consider costs when deciding it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate mercury emissions from power plants (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 80 ERC 1577, 2015 BL 207163 (U.S. 2015).
Motions to govern future proceedings in that litigation are due Sept. 10, but the EPA already indicated that it intends to ask the court to leave the MATS rule in place on remand (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 two lawsuits that are held in abeyance are:
• a lawsuit brought by White Stallion Energy Center to challenge a requirement in the MATS rule that power plants comply with a work practice standard during startup and shutdown and
• a lawsuit brought by the Utility Air Regulatory Group to challenge a 2014 rule (RIN 2060-AS07) that established an alternative work practice standard for power plant startup.
The court said that motions to govern further proceedings in the two startup lawsuits will be due 30 days after the court issues its decision on how to address the Supreme Court's decision.
-
Western Senators Demand Answers In IG Probe Of EPA Spill
Aug 19, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
The six senators from Colorado, New Mexico and Utah today sent a letter to U.S. EPA's internal watchdog seeking answers to more than a dozen questions related to the agency's Aug. 5 spill of millions of gallons of contaminated water from the Gold King mine in southwest Colorado.
The letter urges EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins to ensure his probe of the spill discusses the nature of EPA's work to remediate the mine; whether EPA held itself to the same standards as it would a private contractor; the agency's policies and legal obligations for reporting the release of hazardous substances and contacting local governments; and a timeline of internal and external communications by EPA immediately following the spill, among other inquiries.
"It is our belief that there was a lack of transparency, coordination and communication in the events leading up to and following EPA's spill of approximately three million gallons of contaminated water into Cement Creek and the Animas River," the lawmakers wrote. "The OIG investigation and report will assist in determining the details of the accident, provide a better opportunity to improve future remediation projects and prevent spills of this nature at other legacy mines across the West."
The lawmakers also asked Elkins to probe whether EPA took adequate precautions before moving rocks that led to the burst of contaminated water from the mine and what new policies may be needed to prevent similar spills at other shuttered mines across the West.
In addition to the IG, the Interior Department is conducting its own 60-day investigation of the mine spill, EPA announced yesterday.
-
Colorado Mine Spill Seeps Into Presidential Race
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The spill of 3 million gallons of metals and sediment into Colorado's Animas River gushed into the presidential race conversation, as Republican contender Ben Carson toured the site and promised “a different kind” of Environmental Protection Agency if he becomes president.
Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, told a crowd in Durango, Colo., Aug. 18 the EPA should be held responsible for causing the Aug. 5 release from the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colo., and vowed to radically revamp the agency if elected president.
“Under my administration, you wouldn't have to sue the EPA, because I would get rid of all the old people and bring in people who understand the Constitution,” Carson said, according to the Durango Herald.
Following his speech, Carson told the newspaper he wouldn't fire “everyone” at the agency but said he was instead referring to “people who don't understand the purpose of the EPA, which is not to make businesses miserable.”
The Animas River has since been reopened to recreational activities following the spill, and the EPA's Office of the Inspector General has launched an investigation into the causes of the spill (159 DEN A-6, 8/18/15).
Carson becomes the first Republican contender to visit the site of the spill, but two other leading candidates—businessman Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)—slammed the EPA's response to the spill during Aug. 12 radio appearances.
Trump, Rubio Address Spill
Trump, consistently leading Republican primary polls, called the EPA's response to the spill “disgraceful” and suggested such a mistake could be grounds to fire the administrator.
“I mean, they go around and give people like me a violation if something minor happens,” Trump said during an appearance on the Hugh Hewitt Show. “It is so disgraceful what happened with that river, just incredible.”
On the same radio show, Rubio slammed the “incompetence” of the EPA for causing the “horrifying thing that's happened” in the Animas River.
“It's not just the crisis they've created, it's their response to it that belies arrogance and this notion that ‘yeah, we're sorry it happened, but we don't need to give you any more information, because we're the EPA and you can't do anything to us,' ” Rubio said. “So I think it's both competence and arrogance at play.”
Clinton Seeks Distance on Drilling
Over on the Democratic side, front-runner Hillary Clinton voiced Aug. 18 her sharpest disagreement yet with President Barack Obama on environmental matters by opposing fossil fuel exploration in the Arctic Ocean.
“The Arctic is a unique treasure,” Clinton said in a signed post on Twitter. “Given what we know now, it's not worth the risk of drilling.”
The administration Aug. 17 gave Royal Dutch Shell Plc a long sought go-ahead to drill deeply for oil beneath the Chukchi Sea in waters north of Alaska. A senior Obama administration official defended the decision as one that seeks to balance economic development and environmental protection (160 DEN A-5, 8/19/15).
Though Clinton's rare break from Obama on policy issues drew the praise of environmental and progressive advocates, Republican rivals for the presidency condemned her opposition to Arctic drilling.
“Wrong,” former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) responded on Twitter. “Being more-anti energy than Obama is extreme.”
Said ‘Impatient' for Keystone Decision
On the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, Clinton told reporters following a town hall that she “would really hope” the Obama administration makes a decision on the project soon and described herself as “impatient” for one.
“I am getting impatient, because I feel that at some point a decision needs to be made,” Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. “And I'm not comfortable saying, you know, ‘I have to keep my opinion to myself' given the fact that I was involved in it.' So at some point I may change my view on that.”
Clinton has been repeatedly pressed by environmental advocates and pipeline backers alike to take a clear position on the pipeline project but has heretofore declined to do so, citing her prior involvement with the review process while serving as secretary of state.
Walker Talks RFS
Another candidate repeatedly asked to take a clear position on an energy issues—this time the renewable fuel standard—is Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R).
Walker, speaking at the Iowa State Fair, indicated he supported a two-year gradual phase out of the renewable fuel blending requirement because “I would like to see all different standards and mandates bunched together and phased out over time.”
America's Renewable Future called those comments murky and unclear, asking Walker to clarify when he would phase out the requirements.
“It is unclear whether the governor's time frame would mean an immediate repeal upon entering office, if elected president, whether it might mean two years from the current date, or two years from achieving full market access,” the group said in a statement. “While the governor's position is murky, it is absolutely clear that a phase out anytime before full market access is realized would be disastrous for farmers and rural communities.”
-
Court Won’t Combine Legal Challenges To EPA Carbon Rule
Aug 19, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A federal court today stymied an effort by opponents of EPA’s carbon regulations to have their lawsuit over the final rule heard by a panel of three Republican-appointed judges.
Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request from West Virginia and 14 other states to link their Aug. 13 plea to put the rule on hold during litigation with their previous legal challenge to the proposed rule, which the trio of judges tossed out in June as premature.
The states argued the two legal challenges should be consolidated because they shared issues and parties. That would have guaranteed that the three GOP-appointed judges hear the challenge to the final rule. A new panel of randomly chosen judges may be more receptive to the administration’s arguments.
But in an order issued Wednesday, the judges declined to consolidate the cases. They provided no explanation for their decision.
Several of EPA’s opponents have also moved to keep the dismissed challenge to the proposed rule alive long enough to overlap with the formal publication of the final rule, which could also keep the GOP-appointed judges on the issue. That effort is ongoing. -
Eight Areas Should Get Ozone Extension, EPA Finds
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed to grant eight nonattainment areas, including the Washington, D.C., and Houston metropolitan areas, an additional year to meet the current national ambient air quality standards for ozone.
The agency, in a proposed rule signed Aug. 19, said the eight areas met the qualifications for such an extension based on 2014 air quality data. The EPA in the proposed rule also would determine that 17 marginal nonattainment areas have met the 2008 ozone standards of 75 parts per billion, while 11 areas have not attained the standards.
Marginal nonattainment areas had until July 20 to demonstrate compliance with the current ozone standards, based on a three-year average of the fourth highest, daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentration measured each year.
The EPA originally wanted to give marginal areas until Dec. 31 to demonstrate compliance, which would have allowed use of 2015 ozone data, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in December that would unlawfully extend the compliance deadline (NRDC v. EPA, 777 F.3d 456, 79 ERC 2065, 2014 BL 361062 (D.C. Cir. 2014); 06 DEN A-4, 1/9/15).
While the court ruled that EPA could not extend the compliance deadline for all areas, Section 181(a)(5) of the Clean Air Act gives the agency the discretion to extend the attainment date in an area by one year if a state has met all requirements under an applicable implementation plan and if there has been no more than one measured exceedance of the ozone standard in the past year.
Eight Areas to Receive Extension
Based on 2014 air quality data, the EPA proposed that the following eight nonattainment areas qualify for a one-year extension:
• the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain region in Ohio;
• the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria region in Texas;
• the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City region in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and southern New Jersey;
• the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley region in Pennsylvania;
• eastern San Luis Obispo County, Calif.;
• Sheboygan, Wis.;
• the St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington region in Missouri and Illinois; and
• the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, which includes parts of Maryland and Northern Virginia.
The one-year extension could give those areas the time needed to attain the ozone standards. If the extension is granted for the Washington, D.C., metropolitan region, the area would likely qualify for attainment status, according to Stephen Walz, director of the Department of Environmental Programs at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Walz told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 18 that the current design value for the D.C. area, based on 2012-2014 data, is 76 ppb, which slightly exceeds the standards. Although the area's final 2013-2015 design value will depend on how high ozone levels rise over the rest of the summer, so far the fourth-highest concentration recorded for 2015 in the D.C. area is 68 ppb. If that data point holds, the D.C. area would attain the ozone standards with a three-year average of 71 ppb, Walz said.
Moderate Reclassification Proposed
There are 36 areas currently designated as marginal nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standards. Of those, the EPA proposed that 17 areas attained the standards by their July 20 attainment date.
The areas that the EPA determined have attained the standards include the San Francisco Bay Area, Memphis, Tenn., and Columbus, Ill.
Under the EPA proposal, the remaining 11 areas that did not attain the standards or qualify for an extension would be reclassified as a moderate nonattainment areas. That reclassification would trigger a requirement that the state submit a new ozone state implementation plan addressing nonattainment area requirements. Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 standards by no later than July 20, 2018.
The 11 areas that would be reclassified as moderate under the EPA's proposal are:
• Atlanta;
• the Chicago-Naperville region in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin;
• Mariposa County, Calif.;
• western Nevada County, Calif.;
• the Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland region in Colorado;
• the Greater Connecticut area;
• Imperial County, Calif.;
• eastern Kern County, Calif.;
• the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island region in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut;
• the Phoenix-Mesa region in Arizona; and
• San Diego County, Calif.
The EPA proposed two options for setting a deadline for affected states to submit state implementation plans to address the moderate nonattainment requirements. The proposed deadlines are the beginning of each areas' ozone season in 2017 or Jan. 1, 2017, for all 11 areas.
The agency will open a 30-day public comment period once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. Comments will be accepted at http://www.regulations.gov and should reference Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0468.
-
Judge Rejects Negligence Claims Against Norfolk, CSX
Aug 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. and CSX Transportation Inc. aren't liable for negligence in the derailment of a train carrying toxic cargo in Paulsboro, N.J., because neither company owned the train that derailed, employed the crew or operated the bridge the train was crossing when it derailed, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has held (In re Paulsboro Derailment Cases, 2015 BL 265751, D. N.J., No. 1:13-cv-784, unpublished opinion, 8/18/15).
U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler Aug. 18 dismissed claims of negligence, gross negligence, nuisance, per quod and punitive damages against the two companies in a case involving a train that derailed Nov. 30, 2012, while crossing the Paulsboro Moveable Bridge in Paulsboro, N.J., spilling 20,000 gallons of vinyl chloride into Mantua Creek (242 DEN A-4, 12/18/12).
Plaintiffs Alice Breeman, Savanna Breeman-Rodgers, Ryan Ragone, Michelle Truluck, Abdeslam Sahla, Bryan Everingham, Robert Van Fossen, Marlo Johnson, Zena Custis, Ronald Morris and Kristen Pickel didn't dispute that Consolidated Rail Corp. (Conrail) owned and operated the bridge and the train, Kugler wrote in an unpublished opinion.
Although the plaintiffs alleged that the Paulsboro Bridge and the train were “jointly and severally” owned, operated, managed and controlled by Norfolk and CSX, “discovery has revealed that these allegations have no factual basis,” Kugler wrote. “Plaintiffs admit that the Paulsboro Bridge was a Conrail bridge, that the train was operated by Conrail, and that Conrail employed the crew on board.”
The ruling is part of a consolidated case that a group of plaintiffs brought against Conrail, Norfolk and CSX for physical injuries suffered as a result of the chemical spill. The group of plaintiffs sued under theories of medical monitoring, nuisance, negligence and trespass.
Earlier, the district court allowed claims of medical monitoring to proceed, and the plaintiffs withdrew claims of trespass (218 DEN A-17, 11/12/13).
CSX and Norfolk declined to comment, citing continuing litigation. A trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 8.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested