Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Nov 12
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Play Bigger Role In Today's Autos
Nov 11, 2015 | ICIS News
By Christie Moffat
The use of plastics in the production of light vehicles is continuing to grow, with more than $18.1bn worth of finished automotive plastic products incorporated into vehicles assembled in the US and Canada last year, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Wednesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Three Chinese Plastics Industry Associations Sign “Global Declaration for Solutions on Marine Litter”
Nov 12, 2015 | Plasteurope
The “Global Declaration for Solutions on Marine Litter” has been joined by three new signatories from China. In November, the China Plastics Processing Industry Association (CPPIA, Beijing; www.cppia.com.cn), the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation (CPCIF, Beijing; www.cpcia.org.cn/English) and the China Synthetic... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Aims To Finalize Hazardous Waste Post-Closure Care Guide In Spring
Nov 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA officials say the agency expects to finalize in the spring guidance that aims to assure state regulators of their discretionary authority to lengthen beyond 30 years the period when hazardous waste landfills must monitor for potential releases following closure, responding to feedback from states and others on how to strengthen... -
Roche To Phase Out SVHCs Within Ten Years Of Listing
Nov 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Global pharmaceutical and diagnostic company Hoffmann-La Roche has committed to a goal of phasing out the use of substances of very high concern (SVHCs) – where technically feasible – within ten years of their listing. To implement the goal, the company will first identify SVHCs used in products or their manufacture ... -
OECD Nanomaterials Group To Focus On Environmental Exposure
Nov 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Environmental exposure to nanomaterials is set to be central to future work of the OECD's Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN). At its 15th meeting on 4-7 November, the WPMN began to draft its work programme for 2017-2020 (CW 22 October 2015). -
Senators Push Pipeline Safety Reform Bill
Nov 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A bipartisan group of senators has introduced a bill to beef up pipeline safety standards. The bill, from Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and others, reauthorizes the federal agency charged with pipeline safety and directs it to take new steps to crack down on spills and problems with the American pipeline... -
(ACC Mentioned) Critics Of EPA 'Consistency' Air Policy Outline Potential Legal Challenge
Nov 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Critics of EPA's proposal to revise its Clean Air Act "regional consistency" policy and exclude adverse court rulings from its uniform application of agency air requirements are outlining a potential legal challenge to the plan, warning it violates an air law provision that mandates national uniformity for air permitting and other mandates. -
Recycling Wastewater from Oil and Gas Wells Poses Challenges
Nov 11, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Dan Mueller
Each year, the oil and gas industry produces more than 800 billion gallons of wastewater. Coupling the massive volumes of wastewater generated over the life of the well and the millions of gallons of water needed to hydraulically fracture each well, it’s easy to see that oil and gas exploration and production is just as much a water issue... -
EPA 'Exceptional' Air Policy Overhaul Could Ease States' Rule Compliance
Nov 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing to overhaul its policy on when states can discount air pollution associated with “exceptional events” such as dust storms and wildfires from their compliance with Clean Air Act programs, potentially boosting several states as they aim to meet stricter rules including the agency's recently tightened ozone ambient air limit. -
Bush Leaves Door Open To Carbon Regulation
Nov 11, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
Jeb Bush and the rest of the Republican presidential field have promised to repeal President Barack Obama’s new climate change regulations if they win the Oval Office, but the former Florida governor has added a caveat: The EPA ought to “start over on that.”
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Play Bigger Role In Today's Autos
Nov 11, 2015 | ICIS News
By Christie Moffat
The use of plastics in the production of light vehicles is continuing to grow, with more than $18.1bn worth of finished automotive plastic products incorporated into vehicles assembled in the US and Canada last year, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Wednesday.
In a new report, the ACC found that the use of plastics and polymer composites has grown from an average of 20 pounds per car in 1960 to 329 pounds in today’s cars, minivans, pickups and SUVs.
Additionally, the ACC said that US companies producing plastic automotive parts directly employ 55,000 people, which then creates an additional 50,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy.
Automotive plastic parts were produced at nearly 16,000 plants located in 45 states last year, the ACC said.
The ACC estimates that plastic materials form approximately 50% of a lightweight vehicle’s volume, but only about 8% of the vehicle’s weight.
Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for ACC, said the advances in plastics are making significant contributions to the fuel efficiency, safety and design of cars and trucks.
“And tough, lightweight plastics will help automakers further reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions to meet 2025 CAFE requirements,” Russell said.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations are driving companies to look at reducing the weight of vehicles, with the aim of doubling fleet fuel economy within the next 10 years.
The ACC report also details the growing use of plastics and polymer composites throughout the interior, exterior, electrical system, chassis, powertrain, fuel system and engine of vehicles.
-
Nov 12, 2015 | Plasteurope
The “Global Declaration for Solutions on Marine Litter” has been joined by three new signatories from China. In November, the China Plastics Processing Industry Association (CPPIA, Beijing; www.cppia.com.cn), the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation (CPCIF, Beijing; www.cpcia.org.cn/English) and the China Synthetic Resin Marketing Association officially joined the initiative, thereby committing to contribute to scientific research, knowledge sharing and partnerships to “develop solutions that treat plastics as resources and keep them out of the marine environment.”
Commenting on the groups’ decision to sign the declaration, American Chemistry Council (ACC, Washington DC; www.americanchemistry.com) vice president of plastics Steve Russell said, “Marine debris is a complex, global problem, and China’s participation is a strong signal that this industry is committed to doing our part in providing solutions.” Earlier this year CPPIA also became a partner in “Operation Clean Sweep”, which aims to prevent plastics raw materials from entering the marine environment (see Plasteurope.com of 10.06.2015).
The Global Declaration for Solutions on Marine Litter was first established in 2011 (see Plasteurope.com of 24.03.2011). Since then it has grown to comprise 60 associations in 34 countries, with 185 projects that are either still in the planning stages, have already been initiated or have been completed. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Aims To Finalize Hazardous Waste Post-Closure Care Guide In Spring
Nov 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA officials say the agency expects to finalize in the spring guidance that aims to assure state regulators of their discretionary authority to lengthen beyond 30 years the period when hazardous waste landfills must monitor for potential releases following closure, responding to feedback from states and others on how to strengthen a draft version of the policy.
The Association of State & Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) has pushed for the post-closure care (PCC) guidance, urging EPA to support the presumption that PCC requirements would continue beyond the initial 30-year PCC period as long as waste remains in place.
And EPA officials at ASTSWMO's annual meeting in Bethesda, MD, Oct. 30 said the agency expects to release a final version of the PCC guidance in the spring.
Tammie Hynum, chair of ASTSWMO's Hazardous Waste Subcommittee, responded at the forum that states want to encourage the release of the guidance, but would nonetheless like to briefly review the agency's revised version before it is finalized.
Under Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C regulations governing hazardous waste management, owners or operators of hazardous waste disposal facilities follow PCC requirements for a 30-year period after closing a unit. But the regulations also "provide discretionary authority to the permitting authority to extend or shorten the length of the post-closure care period," Barnes Johnson, director of EPA's Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery, says in the April 29 draft guidance. PCC involves specific monitoring and maintenance activities that facility operators or owners must undertake after a waste unit is closed to ensure the integrity of waste containment systems and to prevent releases of hazardous pollutants, the guidance says.
The PCC requirements apply to land disposal units where hazardous waste is left in place after closure, such as landfills, land treatment units, surface impoundments, or other units, according to the guidance.
EPA committed to writing the guidance after state regulators pressured EPA to issue guidance because many waste facilities were nearing the end of their 30-year PCC period covered by the regulations.
States, according to July 31 written comments recently posted by EPA on its PCC website, called for EPA to strengthen the draft version of the guidance, for instance saying the agency should advocate for continued post-closure care with the continued presence of waste in a unit after closure.
At the same time, though, industry commenters on the guidance have called on the agency to pare back language that may overly favor extending PCC beyond 30 years. As the guidance is currently written, the document "would make it nearly impossible for a post-closure care period to be shortened or ended," the American Petroleum Institute wrote in July 31 comments.
"Even though EPA and delegated states have the authority to extend the 30 year post-closure period, it was certainly not EPA's original intent in developing the post-closure regulations to have post-closure care last in perpetuity," API says. The industry group says EPA is effectively recommending that no facilities would exit PCC. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 186310)
And the Environmental Technology Council, which represents recycling, waste treatment and disposal firms, says in July 31 comments that "While the guidelines set forth the relevant criteria for states to consider, we feel the document as a whole places greater emphasis on extending the post-closure care period rather than a balanced approach. It is important that the guidelines be used to extend or shorten post-closure care based on the relevant site-specific factors, and that the criteria be fair and balanced and not overly weighted toward one result."
In the draft guidance, EPA says decisions about extending or shortening the PCC period must be based on protecting human health and the environment, and advises regulators to make decisions about adjusting the PCC period long before the existing monitoring period ends.
The agency describes an array of criteria for regulators to use on a site-specific basis to evaluate whether to adjust a PCC period, but notes that each of the criteria "is not necessarily appropriate for every unit in post-closure care."
The first criterion to consider is the "presence of hazardous waste," with EPA noting that many hazardous wastes degrade slowly or not at all, which could potentially pose unacceptable impacts on the environment or human health in the future, the guidance says. Regulators should also consider the type of unit the waste is in; the leachate, such as the leachate generation rate and leachate collection system integrity; and groundwater, for instance whether groundwater quality is in compliance with current standards, among other factors.
EPA in the draft document also calls for accounting for the potential impacts of climate change and vapor intrusion -- factors that were likely not considered when many of the facilities' permits were issued, the draft guidance says.
ASTSWMO in its comments says that regarding the "presence of hazardous waste" criterion, EPA should "strengthen the statements in the document on the need for post-closure care beyond 30 years at units closed with waste in place even in the absence of current evidence of releases from the regulated unit." EPA should make it clear "that the continued presence of waste in a unit after closure implies a need, unless demonstrated otherwise, for post-closure care to continue to assure protection of human health and the environment."
States also call for broadening the evaluative criterion on the "integrity of the cover system" to include the "viability of engineering and institutional controls," as ending PCC may affect not only the cover but other aspects that were relied on at closure for maintaining a safe condition, ASTSWMO says.
The group advises other modifications and warns that it may be difficult to consider the effects of climate change such as flooding if the historical record for the area is no longer valid due to changed conditions. The recommendation could lead to inadequately protective decisions in cases where PCC is allowed to end because flooding is not expected based on historical records, or could lead to legal challenges if there is not a scientific basis for substantiating potential flooding, it says.
But industry says the agency could strengthen its guidance by recognizing alternative options to PCC. "Most significantly, the guidance fails to adequately emphasize the institutional controls (ICs) and engineering controls (ECs) that states can impose through state authorities, such as the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act and similar laws," API says.
The RCRA Corrective Action Project -- comprised of industry representatives -- and the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical companies, advise three changes in July 31 joint comments to strengthen the guidance. These include "greater recognition of (1) EPA's 1998 Post-Closure Permit rule, which recognized that site-wide corrective action can be done in lieu of closure and post-closure and that enforceable documents other than permits are often the best way to manage post-closure care, (2) the expanded availability of enforceable environmental covenants in many States, and (3) the RCRA program's overall need to transition sites over to a long-term stewardship regime, rather than retaining perpetual RCRA jurisdiction."
-
Roche To Phase Out SVHCs Within Ten Years Of Listing
Nov 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Global pharmaceutical and diagnostic company Hoffmann-La Roche has committed to a goal of phasing out the use of substances of very high concern (SVHCs) – where technically feasible – within ten years of their listing.
To implement the goal, the company will first identify SVHCs used in products or their manufacture on a global basis. This will be conducted with the aid of “enterprise-resource-planning software” that will soon include a material declaration tool.
The company has also undertaken an awareness campaign among its R&D staff, who "are key if you want to ensure that SVHCs will not be used in any future processes or products", says Dr Jan Backmann, the company’s head of chemical legislation.
The ten year timeframe was selected, he says, in order to “strike a good balance between realism and ambition, while taking into account the lifecycle of products and processes in our company”.
He adds that this timeline is "very ambitious", as diagnostics and pharmaceuticals are highly regulated and require approval by various authorities.
To avoid "regrettable substitutions", Roche is emphasising close collaboration between its regulatory experts and toxicologists and ecotoxicologists while evaluating product and process development.
Dr Backmann adds that the company has also made investments “to theoretically evaluate and test several potential alternative process aids”. These would be cross-linked with the green chemistry and ecodesign teams within the company.
With regards to the technical feasibility aspect of the goal, Dr Backmann says that it is “very strictly defined”, and does not just mean “hard to achieve”.
He adds that an example of technical impossibility would be cobalt chloride. This is a nutrient in fermentation and a co-factor of certain enzymes and therefore cannot be substituted.
Apart from situations where it is technically impossible to replace an SVHC, such as in cases where a substance is "essential on a molecular level", the company is committed to avoiding the "temptation" to take advantage of exemptions that exist within REACH for the pharmaceutical and diagnostics industry, he says.
Dr Backmann says the company does see potential to improve the procedures related to SVHCs and authorisation. "More could be done to deliver on the promise of REACH to create an atmosphere in which scientific and technological innovation and manufacturing can really thrive in the European Union,” he says.
He adds that there have been several motives behind the establishment of the SVHC goal. These include: protecting the health of customers and employees, as well as the environment;ensuring supply chain continuity of raw materials;allowing processes to be more easily moved to another site globally, including to the EU;making products more attractive to customers and giving the company a competitive advantage in the marketplace; andmaintaining a high sustainability rating.
-
OECD Nanomaterials Group To Focus On Environmental Exposure
Nov 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Environmental exposure to nanomaterials is set to be central to future work of the OECD's Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN).
At its 15th meeting on 4-7 November, the WPMN began to draft its work programme for 2017-2020 (CW 22 October 2015).
“We had a wide-ranging discussion about what people's future needs and challenges might be,” Peter Kearns, OECD’s Principal Administrator for Nanosafety, told Chemical Watch.
“In lots of different places in the discussion, it became clear that there is a need for a more focused, stronger emphasis on exposure assessment,” he said. “We have done a lot of work on exposure vis-a-vis occupational safety in the past. But there was really a strong push for more work on exposure with respect to the environment and consumer products. We have initiated some work in that area but that came out as a major priority.”
The WPMN has sent out a draft survey on future needs in the area of environmental exposure and assessment. Several countries have already responded, with others now keen to add their opinions, said Mr Kearns. It's a question of looking at available methods and data, as well as identifying gaps, he added.
What also emerged was a need for “urgent” work to be done on the physico-chemical properties of manufactured nanomaterials, Mr Kearns said. Members also called for an increased focus on grouping/categorisation and read-across.
The working party has outlined plans to focus on four key areas: testing and assessment, including more detailed work on physico-chemical properties;exposure assessment and mitigation;risk assessment and regulatory programmes, including categorisation and read-across; andenvironmentally sustainable use of nanomaterials.
The WPMN is also working on a review of its council's recommendation on the safety of nanomaterials. This includes an annex on “tools for the adaptation of the existing chemical regulatory frameworks or other management systems to the specific properties of manufactured nanomaterials”.
The annex will include more information on physico-chemical properties and characterisation. “People feel there is urgency to find speedy ways forward to look at those needs,” said Mr Kearns.
“The methods are there – it is more about having a more systematic protocol so that people can compare results more easily,” he said.
-
Senators Push Pipeline Safety Reform Bill
Nov 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A bipartisan group of senators has introduced a bill to beef up pipeline safety standards.
The bill, from Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and others, reauthorizes the federal agency charged with pipeline safety and directs it to take new steps to crack down on spills and problems with the American pipeline network.“America’s pipelines move critical energy resources to our homes and businesses,” Fischer said in a statement. “Congress must conduct robust oversight to ensure the safety of this important network.”
The senators’ bill would reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) through 2019. It would direct the agency to prioritize its current safety regulatory regime over new rulemaking and call for reports on new mapping technology and safety programs for liquid and nature gas pipelines.
The bill would give the agency new hiring powers and encourage coordination between federal regulators, states and the private sector.
Lawmakers have criticized PHMSA’s oversight of pipelines in light of high-profile spills around the country over the past several years.
In July, senators questioned Marie Therese Dominguez, President Obama’s nominee to head PHMSA, over everything from the agency's regulatory jurisdiction to its ability to implement congressionally-mandated safety reforms.
The new bill, sponsors say, would give the agency more direction on its priorities.
“With new technologies at our fingertips, we should be pursuing more effective and efficient ways to safeguard against potential pipeline accidents that threaten public safety and our environment,” Booker said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Critics Of EPA 'Consistency' Air Policy Outline Potential Legal Challenge
Nov 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Critics of EPA's proposal to revise its Clean Air Act "regional consistency" policy and exclude adverse court rulings from its uniform application of agency air requirements are outlining a potential legal challenge to the plan, warning it violates an air law provision that mandates national uniformity for air permitting and other mandates.
The agency's plan is "inconsistent with the authority granted to EPA" in section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, in which Congress required EPA to issue regulations that would ensure consistency in its national policies and to resolve inconsistencies between agency regions, argue the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) in joint Nov. 2 comments on the agency's proposed consistency policy update.
The groups urge that the proposal "be withdrawn in full," saying the proposed revisions "unequivocally violate the plain language" of the Clean Air Act and exceed EPA's authority under the air law.
EPA took comment through an extended Nov. 3 deadline on its Aug. 5 proposed rule that would allow EPA to exclude adverse appellate court rulings on its Clean Air Act policies from applying nationwide, which could mean different agency regional offices imposing differing requirements on industries.
Early comments on the proposal filed by energy, chemical and other industry groups raised general concerns that the policy update could lead to legal and regulatory confusion for the sectors (Inside EPA, Oct. 23).
The new API-INGAA comments hint at a potential legal challenge if EPA finalizes the proposal by warning that the consistency policy update would be at odds with the section 301(a) mandate for uniform air policies. "By broadly condoning inconsistency, EPA's proposed revisions would do the opposite," the organizations argue. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 186475)
The agency's proposal responds to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in May 2014 in National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP) v. EPA, which vacated an EPA memo that sought to narrow the reach of an adverse 6th Circuit air permitting ruling to only the states in that circuit. The D.C. Circuit said the memo was at odds with the regional consistency policy as it could have led to differing permit requirements among all 50 states -- prompting EPA to now seek exemptions to the policy.
Under the proposed rule, the agency would not apply rulings by other circuit courts on locally or regionally applicable regulations to states in other appellate circuits, even though this may result in inconsistent policy application and uneven application of the air law. This could affect a wide range of air policies including agency regional offices' approvals of state implementation plans for complying with air standards, or permitting decisions.
But groups representing various industry sectors argue in their comments on the proposal that the NEDA/CAP ruling did not necessitate the proposed rule, given that EPA has been enforcing the regional consistency regulations that were promulgated under section 301 without issue for decades. They urge the agency to withdraw the proposed rule, saying it will create massive uncertainty and uneven enforcement of air permitting.
The Air Permitting Forum, which represents Fortune 100 companies dedicated to the implementation of Clean Air Act permitting and regulatory programs, says in Nov. 3 comments that the NEDA/CAP ruling is a single court decision and "does not highlight a pressing need to overhaul such longstanding and undisturbed regulations."
The comments add, "What is more, the form of EPA's proposal, which would allow EPA to apply intercircuit nonacquiescence at its discretion, enhances this concern, because it invites the very inconsistency that Section 301(a)(2) was designed to prevent." Section 301(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires the agency to promulgate rules establishing "general applicable procedures and policies for regional officers and employees . . ." to "assure the fairness and uniformity in the criteria, procedures and policies," applied by the regions and should provide a "mechanism for identifying and standardizing inconsistent or varying" policies or criteria.
The Air Permitting Forum argues that while the general doctrine of intercircuit nonacquiesence may be a relevant consideration in absence of a specific statutory mandate, "that situation does not exist here" because section 301(a)(2) precludes nonacquiesence.
The group also warns that a provision in the proposal which says "EPA regional offices' employees would not need to seek headquarters office concurrence to act inconsistently with national policy or interpretation if such action is required by a federal court decision arising from challenges to 'locally or regionally applicable' actions" is unlawful.
"It would be arbitrary and irrational for the Administrator to delegate authority to regional administrators in an inconsistent fashion," according to the Air Permitting Forum.
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI), representing shareholder-owned electric companies, also raises concerns about the proposed policy update in its Oct. 19 comments.
EEI says that a "single decision by a federal court lacking jurisdiction to review and invalidate a nationwide rule should not give rise to a scenario under which EPA regions that are not subject" to that court's authority are "deciding for themselves" whether to follow the court ruling or the nationwide policy.
A better approach, EEI suggests, would be to require all other regions to continue following the national policy unless EPA headquarters changes the national policy through an "appropriate mechanism" such as a formal rulemaking.
A collection of major industry groups, including American Chemistry Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Gas Processors Association, American Farm Bureau Federation and others, say in Nov. 3 comments that the proposed rule is unnecessary and if the agency does finalize the proposal, it should establish a consistent approach for expanding the scope of locally or regionally applicable actions. "Thus, to promote transparency and avoid any confusion or uncertainty, the Associations urge EPA to clarify in any final rule that it will only apply such decisions on a national scale after identifying the criteria upon which EPA is proposing such decision and after completing notice and comment rulemaking for each judicial decision that EPA intends to apply nationally," those comments say.
-
Recycling Wastewater from Oil and Gas Wells Poses Challenges
Nov 11, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Dan Mueller
Each year, the oil and gas industry produces more than 800 billion gallons of wastewater. Coupling the massive volumes of wastewater generated over the life of the well and the millions of gallons of water needed to hydraulically fracture each well, it’s easy to see that oil and gas exploration and production is just as much a water issue as it is an energy issue.
With growing frequency, this huge volume of oil and gas wastewater – which contains hundreds of chemicals resulting from operations as well as underground water that is usually heavily laden with salt and naturally-occurring pollutants – is being recycled, and some groups are pushing for mandatory recycling policies. Sounds great. After all, recycling is good for the environment, right?
On one level, it is great. In drought-stricken parts of the country, water is a scarce resource and beneficially reusing the huge volume of wastewater the oil and gas industry produces could help mitigate impacts on local water sources. In some counties in Texas, for example, over half the water demand in the county is used for oil and gas exploration and production.
But recycling this wastewater creates some environmental challenges. And if they are not proactively addressed, we run the risk of trading one environmental problem for a host of new ones.
Water Management vs. Conservation
Depending on the local geology, the process of hydraulic fracturing can use up to 15 million gallons of water in a matter of days – the same amount of water used per day by 50,000 American households.
Operators add many chemicals to this fluid to make the process more productive. Once injected deep underground into the well, naturally salty water trapped inside the rock mixes with the chemical-laced fluid and then much of this mixture flows back to the surface.
Recent studies indicate that approximately 70 percent of 400 examined cases of groundwater contamination from oil and gas operations were caused by surface releases – accidents that happened once the wastewater returned to the surface, essentially spills. Increasing reuse and recycling threatens to exacerbate this problem because these processes require increased management and handling of contaminated water at the surface.
A recent Associated Press report highlighted some troublesome numbers. It reported that more than 180 million gallons of oil and gas wastewater spilled from 2009 to 2014 and the source of the spills included ruptured pipes, overflowing storage tanks and deliberate dumping. The report also noted many spills go unreported, meaning actual volumes are surely higher. And the oily content of the wastewater is not the only problem that must be addressed when a spill occurs. The high salt content of the wastewater is more difficult to clean up, and can damage habitat and cropland for decades afterward.
More Storage + More Transportation = More opportunity for recycling mishaps
Wastewater has to be stored in pits and tanks at well sites and central storage facilities, and with recycling it is happening a lot more and for a whole lot longer. That’s because the opportunities to reuse the wastewater often don’t occur immediately. Storage alone doesn’t mean wastewater will spill and cause contamination, but the more drilling companies hold on to this wastewater, the higher risks for spills.
Further, recycling operations also significantly increase transportation requirements, since the wastewater must be moved from where itis generated to treatment facilities, to interim storage, to points of use. Whether the wastewater is moved by truck, pipeline, rail, etc… increased transportation also means more opportunity for accidents and spills.
To avoid this, we need stronger requirements to make sure that tanks, open pits, and pipelines are properly engineered, constructed and managed and other water management operations are conducted to minimize spills. It is also important to rapidly identify and cleanup spills when they do occur. These sorts of requirements have existed for other industry sectors that manage toxic materials for decades.
Treatment Challenges
Wastewater treatment is another possible pollution vector. Oil and gas wastewater contains a varied mixture of: salt and suspended solids in high concentrations; metals, including arsenic and barium; organics like hydrocarbon compounds; and potentially naturally-occurring radioactive material. Important to determining the risks of all constituents is their toxicity, how they move if released into the environment, how long they stay in the environment, and whether they bioaccumulate in the food chain.
Treatment is not a one-size-fits-all challenge. Some “light-treatment” technologies are readily available. More robust treatment technologies have limited real-world track records when treating this highly variable wastewater and when deployed properly are very expensive to construct, operate and maintain. And there are limited accepted standards regarding how to identify what is in each waste stream and how to adequately “clean” it.
What Do We Do With the Waste?
There’s a long list of toxic constituents that can be present in this wastewater, and with successful treatment, the sludge and solids left over can contain very high concentrations of them. The volume and makeup of these waste streams vary and require a variety of handling and disposal guidelines. It’s vital that we understand and address the environmental impact of the wastes produced from recycling when weighing its overall costs and benefits.
Recycling wastewater is a good idea. But it’s not as simple as dropping your bottles and cans in a blue bin. As is the case with the entire oil and gas industry, responsible practices and smart regulations need to make sure we do it right. Industry must use proven engineering practices to identify and minimize spills, and rapidly cleanup spills when they do occur. And we must continue to advance the science on what is in this wastewater, how toxic it is, and what technologies are required to properly treat it. And, during all of this, we must recognize what we know, what we don’t know, and work to fill the knowledge gaps. Otherwise, we’ll just be trading one problem for another.
-
EPA 'Exceptional' Air Policy Overhaul Could Ease States' Rule Compliance
Nov 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing to overhaul its policy on when states can discount air pollution associated with “exceptional events” such as dust storms and wildfires from their compliance with Clean Air Act programs, potentially boosting several states as they aim to meet stricter rules including the agency's recently tightened ozone ambient air limit.
One state official, who was still reviewing the plan at press time, offered cautious praise for the updates given states' long-running calls to simplify and accelerate the process for claiming exceptional events. But the proposal might prompt criticism from environmentalists who are wary of allowing many types of air compliance waivers.
In a package of documents released Nov. 10, but not yet published in the Federal Register, EPA announced proposed revisions to the exceptional events policy; draft guidance on how to demonstrate that emissions from wildfires might impact ozone concentrations; and a fact sheet on the regulatory updates.
EPA will take comment on the proposed rule revisions through Jan. 19, and hold a Dec. 8 public hearing on the effort in Phoenix, AZ.
The proposal would update the exceptional events policy from 2007 to simplify the process for states to win the agency's acceptance of an event as “exceptional.” If EPA concurs that events qualify, states can exclude air quality data gathered during these events from reporting for the purposes of compliance with national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
The rule will have particular significance for Western states' compliance with EPA's new, tougher ozone NAAQS of 70 parts per billion (ppb) issued Oct. 1, which is stricter than the prior 75 ppb standard set in 2008.
EPA has touted exceptional events exemptions as one way states can cope with naturally-occurring high ozone levels that would otherwise push them in nonattainment with the new ozone limit. Areas in NAAQS nonattainment must impose costly pollution controls on industry, and might try to limit industrial growth to avoid emissions increases. Critics of the stricter NAAQS say that nonattainment status drives industries away from such areas.
In the proposed regulatory update, the agency says that it “intends to promulgate these rule revisions in advance of the date by which states, and any tribes that wish to do so, are required to submit their initial designation recommendations for the revised 2015 ozone NAAQS (expected in October of 2016).”
EPA in its new proposed rule admits that implementation of the existing exceptional events policy has been tough, with states experiencing long delays in getting their data exclusion requests approved by EPA regional offices. States have often complained that ambiguity in the rule's requirements has lead to confusion among state air agencies and inconsistent interpretations of what such requests must include.
“Interpreting and implementing the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule has been challenging in certain respects both for the air agencies developing exceptional events demonstrations and for the EPA Regional offices reviewing and acting on these demonstrations,” EPA says. The agency in May 2013 issued interim guidance to states that aimed to help clarify the rule's requirements, but many states found this to be inadequate.
Exceptional Events
The agency's proposed solution is to return to an interpretation of the Clean Air Act provisions on exceptional events that predates the 2007 rule, and should reduce the burden on states to show that events qualify as exceptional.
EPA is proposing to structure its rule around three Clean Air Act provisions that it says are fundamental: that the event affected air quality in such a way that there exists a clear causal relationship between the specific event and the monitored NAAQS exceedance or violation; the event was not reasonably controllable or preventable; and that the event was a human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or was a natural event.
The agency proposes significant changes to the existing rule, such as revising the definition of exceptional event by allowing states to consider the combined effects of an event and the resulting emissions, a new concept.
EPA further proposes to eliminate a current requirement that states show they would have complied with a NAAQS “but for” the exceptional event causing high levels of pollution, which states have complained is too difficult to prove.
The agency is also proposing to find that states automatically meet the requirement that the event was “not reasonably controllable or preventable” if they have in place measures to prevent pollution from the affected sources under an EPA-approved state implementation plan (SIP) for NAAQS attainment or maintenance.
EPA proposes to subsume an existing rule requirement that an event “affected air quality” under the “clear causal relationship” requirement, on the basis that affecting air quality is evidence of a causal relationship.
Also, the agency proposes easing an existing requirement that the event is associated with a measured concentration of pollution in excess of normal historical fluctuations including background, by removing the term “historical fluctuations,” and instead requiring a comparison of the event with historical levels of pollution but not proof that the event was “in excess of” those historical levels. This responds to longstanding state complaints that proving an event caused pollution in excess of historical levels is too onerous, given the difficulty of calculating such historical levels.
EPA is easing certain deadline requirements for states to submit various documents in support of exceptional events requests. “Because affected air agencies have provided feedback regarding the difficulty associated with meeting the current regulatory timelines associated with data flagging, initial event descriptions and demonstration submittals, the EPA proposes to remove the specific deadlines that apply in situations other than initial area designations following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS,” EPA says in the proposed rule.
Wildfire Guidance
In addition to the proposed rule, EPA has published its draft guidance document dealing specifically with the issue of wildfire, a major cause of high ozone levels in some states. Fires produce high levels of ozone, and also smoke, which contains particulate matter, another NAAQS pollutant, EPA notes in the guidance.
The guide addresses the circumstances under which wildfires may be distinguished from intentional “prescribed” fires that are undertaken by land managers, including the federal government, for environmentally beneficial reasons.
Under the proposed rule, federal land managers or agencies will be able, under certain circumstances, to submit exceptional events requests regarding fire-related events directly to EPA, rather than working with states to submit them.
EPA proposes to codify existing provisions, established in guidance, allowing prescribed fires to qualify as exceptional events when states have certain safeguards and policies in place. The agency says it expects an increase in exceptional events requests for wildfires, as climate change increases the frequency and severity of wildfires.
Also, EPA notes that states and federal land managers may use prescribed fires to limit the potential for catastrophic wildfire, and that in certain circumstances land managers may let wildfires burn, within limits, to achieve the same goal. The agency says it intends “to make the preparation and review of demonstrations for wildland fire events more efficient and predictable for all parties.”
In addition to the draft guidance on wildfire, EPA is also announcing that it is working on another guidance document that will advise states on how they can win regulatory exemptions for high pollution events outside the construct of the exceptional events rule.
The guidance “will describe the appropriate additional pathways that we intend to make available for data exclusion for some monitoring data applications (e.g. predicting future attainment that is the basis for approval of an attainment demonstration in the SIP for a nonattainment area, preparing required air quality analyses in an application for a [prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)] permit or preparing required air quality analysis for the purposes of transportation conformity),” EPA says in the proposed rule. PSD air permits are required by new or modified major sources of air pollution -- those emitting 100 tons per year (tpy) or 250 tpy of a NAAQS pollutant, depending on the pollutant. Transportation conformity is the requirement for local air regulators to ensure that transportation projects do not cause NAAQS violations.
-
Bush Leaves Door Open To Carbon Regulation
Nov 11, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
Jeb Bush and the rest of the Republican presidential field have promised to repeal President Barack Obama’s new climate change regulations if they win the Oval Office, but the former Florida governor has added a caveat: The EPA ought to “start over on that.”
At Tuesday's debate in Milwaukee, Bush blasted the Clean Power Plan, as well as the administration's rules on the Internet and clean water, saying they should be removed "because the economic costs of this far exceed the social benefit.”
But his remarks were notable as a rare instance of a GOP candidate veering away from Republicans' sweeping rejection of the regulations to cut the carbon emissions from power plants, and may be a sign that Bush would be open to some effort to address the pollution scientists blame for climate change.
And though environmentalists say Bush still isn’t close to proposing a serious plan to address greenhouse gas emissions, he could be tacitly acknowledging a legal fine point so far not addressed in the presidential primary: The EPA is essentially required by law to take action.
It was not clear that Bush did not misspeak in calling for the EPA to start over, and his campaign did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Greens remained skeptical that he would offer any substantial proposals to fight climate change.
“The bottom line is Jeb Bush would put a big roadblock in reducing carbon pollution, and it’s unclear if or what he would replace [the Clean Power Plan] with,” said Daniel Weiss, senior vice president of campaigns for the League of Conservation Voters.
For Republicans like businessman Jay Faison, who has pledged to spend $175 million on a GOP climate change campaign, just raising the issue at the debates is noteworthy.
“Every time, candidates responded with solutions,” he said. “The tide is turning and GOP candidates are answering the call to take back this issue as a Republican one, calling for innovation and market-based solutions.”
Bush’s remarks about replacing the carbon rule won't be enough to attract moderate voters, according to Weiss, who suggested the candidate would have to follow the lead of someone like Sen. Kelly Ayotte, the New Hampshire Republican who's in the midst of a tough reelection fight and endorsed the CPP last month.
To be sure, Bush isn't the only candidate to cite climate change as a problem, but the two biggest proponents of taking action, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and former New York Gov. George Pataki, polled too low to be included in even the undercard debate on Tuesday. The remainder of the GOP candidates who have spoken about the rule have only called for its ouster and not explicitly for a new version, according to an LCV compilation of candidate statements on the rule.
Even Ohio Gov. Kasich, who is viewed as a moderate on energy issues, said in his October energy plan that the Clean Power Plan "must be scrapped and not replaced.” His attorney general joined the more than two dozen states that have lodged legal challenges against the CPP.
Calls to abandon effort to fight climate change appear to overlook the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which established that the agency must regulate carbon dioxide if it concludes there is a danger to public health or welfare. Two years later, EPA weighed in with its endangerment finding, a scientific document that concluded greenhouse gases from cars and other vehicles pose a threat. That finding was eventually expanded to include power plants, the top source of greenhouse gases in the U.S.
But as some Republicans note, that doesn’t make a crystal-clear case for the EPA to write regulations as extensive as the Clean Power Plan, which goes beyond the so-called fenceline of power plants to take into account natural gas and renewable energy. They argue EPA can only consider “inside the fenceline” strategies, such as efficiency improvements or burning coal with natural gas or biomass to cut carbon emissions.
However, those types of strategies would not come close to achieving the reductions the Clean Power Plan would.
Jeff Holmstead, who was the EPA’s air chief from 2001 to 2005 and now represents industry clients at Bracewell and Giuliani, has said he believes the agency can regulate carbon emissions under the section of the law used by the Obama administration, but that EPA should stick to improvements that can be made at the source.
“If I were the EPA administrator, I would say we are going to require regulation of existing sources, and we’re going to require states to submit a plan, and they need to go to each of their individual sources and see what can be done to improve their CO2 emissions rate,” he said. “I think that is legally defensible, and that would get you some reductions in CO2 emissions.”
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested