Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Jan 18
-
Hearing To Examine The Near-Term Outlook For Energy And Commodity Markets
Jan 19, 2016 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) These 5 Habits Could Be Costing You Your Retirement Savings
Jan 17, 2016 | The Motley Fool
By Maurie Backman
You've probably heard it a few thousand times by now: It's the small, seemingly meaningless daily habits that can really add up over time. But if you're struggling to save a decent chunk for retirement, those same everyday practices could be to blame. The solution? Change your ways, cold turkey-style. Here are five habits that may be... -
(ACC Mentioned) Can We Solve The Flexible Film Recovery Puzzle?
Jan 17, 2016 | Packaging World
By Anne Marie Mohan
Multilayer, mixed-material flexible film packaging is a sustainability conundrum. Lighter in weight, using less material, and resulting in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than alternative packaging formats such as glass, aluminum, and rigid plastic, flexibles seem like the most eco-friendly packaging choice. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Touts TPP Market Gains at Hearing
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
A sprawling trade agreement between the U.S., Western Hemisphere and Asian countries is poised to boost U.S. chemical exports through regulatory cohesion and tariff cuts, providing a boon to an industry already thriving off record shale gas production, chemical industry leaders said at a hearing Jan. 15. -
Academies Hosts Workshop on Low Doses of Chemicals
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee will hear presentations at a Feb. 3 workshop on the biological effects low doses of three chemicals may have. The academies Low Dose Committee will hold a workshop called “Potential Case Studies for Unraveling Endocrine-Related Low Dose Toxicity.” Academic and ... -
N.Y. Seeks Federal Action on PFOA Contamination
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
New York health and environmental agencies are urging the Environmental Protection Agency to put an upstate plastics plant site contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) on its Superfund list and act to tighten regulation of the chemical. Steps by the state Environmental Conservation and Health Departments... -
2016 TSCA Chemical Data Reporting – Are You Prepared?
Jan 18, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Thomas C. Berger
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule (40 C.F.R. Part 711) will require U.S. manufacturers and importers of certain chemical substances to report information on these substances to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by September 30, 2016. Industry should be well aware of... -
What Caused Your Child’s Allergic Skin Reaction?
Jan 15, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Uh-oh. Your child has developed a red, itchy, or sore rash. Your little one may have a case of contact dermatitis, an eczema-like skin condition caused by touching something that triggers an allergic reaction or irritates the skin. If the reaction is serious, talk to your doctor about a referral for allergy testing to determine the source. -
Los Angeles-Area Gas Leak Triggers New Regulations
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Operators of natural gas storage facilities must conduct daily inspections of well heads and have risk management plans, under interim regulations California oil and gas regulators proposed Jan. 15. Required under an emergency declaration Gov. Jerry Brown (D) issued Jan. 6, the proposed regulations ... -
Protesters Demand Shutdown Of Calif. Gas Leak Facility
Jan 15, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
Public health and environmental advocates today rallied at U.S. EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., demanding the agency take steps to permanently shut down the gas storage facility in Porter Ranch, Calif., that blew out and has been emitting up to 1.6 million pounds a day of toxic gas into nearby Southern California neighborhoods. -
One Killed In Chemical Plant Explosion
Jan 16, 2016 | The Houston Chronicle
By St. John Barned-Smith
Russell Sage heard a loud boom and felt blast waves shake his truck as he sat parked across the street from the PeroxyChem plant in Pasadena Saturday afternoon. "All of a sudden, the truck vibrated and you could hear it," said Sage, 34, who was on call at a facility about 800 yards from the plant. "You could feel it in your chest." -
EPA Extends Deadline for Oil and Gas Submissions
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The oil and gas industry now will have until March 11 to respond to an Environmental Protection Agency request for information on hazardous air pollutant emissions from the sector, according to a notice signed Jan. 14 and posted online Jan. 15. The agency in November asked (RIN 2060-AS13) the industry for additional information on emissions... -
Democrats Seize On Porter Ranch Gas Leak
Jan 15, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Carla Marinucci
California’s Porter Ranch environmental fiasco, the gas leak which has displaced thousands of Los Angeles-area homeowners and could cost billions in damages, could have a last political impact. That’s what Democrats in Southern California’s swing 25th Congressional District are counting on, as the disaster lingers into its third... -
EPA: Mercury Rule Reconsideration Case Should Proceed
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's denial of reconsideration petitions on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants should proceed now that the main litigation challenging the rule has been resolved, the agency said in a court filing (ARIPPA v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1180, motions filed 1/14/16). -
EPA Haze Plan For Texas, Oklahoma Sets Precedent On Rejected SIPs
Jan 15, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's decision to reject Texas and Oklahoma's state implementation plans (SIPs) for complying with the agency's regional haze program and instead impose an EPA-crafted plan on the states sets a precedent on how the agency will handle future situations where one state's SIP compromises other states' ability to comply, an environmentalist says. -
Cuomo Deals Final Blow to Coal Power in New York
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Coal-fired power plants, already on the decline in New York state, were dealt a final blow when Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) set a goal in his State of the State message to be coal-free by 2020. There are three coal plants currently operating in the state, but one, NRG Energy's Huntley generating facility outside ... -
House Members Seek EPA Briefing on Flint Lead Scare
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Ware
Eight Republican and Democratic members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in a Jan. 15 letter urged the Environmental Protection Agency to hold an “urgent” briefing soon on the drinking water situation in Flint, Mich. Over the past few months, elevated lead blood levels have been found in some children in Flint after the city... -
Lawmakers Seek EPA Briefing On Michigan Water Crisis
Jan 15, 2016 | InsideEPA
A bipartisan group of lawmakers is calling on EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to provide an “urgent” briefing to discuss EPA's efforts in the Flint, MI, drinking water crisis, adding to a chorus of cries for more federal action in the disaster, including the governor's request for the White House to declare a federal emergency in the city. -
San Francisco Voters to Consider Water Restoration Measure
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E.Cutler
San Francisco Bay area voters in June will decide whether to levy a $12 a parcel tax to fund $500 million in water restoration projects and climate-related flood protection. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority approved a resolution to put on the ballot the measure that would raise $25 million a year for 20 years in the nine-county Bay...
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Hearing To Examine The Near-Term Outlook For Energy And Commodity Markets
Jan 19, 2016 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) These 5 Habits Could Be Costing You Your Retirement Savings
Jan 17, 2016 | The Motley Fool
By Maurie Backman
You've probably heard it a few thousand times by now: It's the small, seemingly meaningless daily habits that can really add up over time. But if you're struggling to save a decent chunk for retirement, those same everyday practices could be to blame.
The solution? Change your ways, cold turkey-style. Here are five habits that may be costing you more than you realize.
1. Throwing out food
Not big on leftovers? Although eating the same meal over and over again may not exactly entice your taste buds, it'll work wonders for your budget. It's a sad statistic that American households collectively manage to waste over $40 billion in food each year. The average household throws out a good $640 in food annually, and according to a survey by the American Chemistry Council, 76% of Americans throw out leftovers on a regular basis.If you're guilty of tossing old or unwanted food, consider how much that habit will impact your long-term savings. Say you're like the average family, wasting $640 a year in uneaten food. Over the course of 30 years, that's a grand total of $19,200 down the drain.
But wait -- let's say you were to take that extra $640 a year and invest it, earning a respectable yet realistic return of 8%. In 30 years, you'd be looking at another $78,937 to pad your retirement savings, which kind of makes leftover casserole not seem so bad after all.
2. Using your credit card
In some ways, using a credit card can actually save you money, especially if yours offers cash-back incentives for the things you're buying anyway. But unless you're prepared to pay your credit card bill in full each month, using it could translate into major interest charges that can really add up over time.Let's say you rack up a $2,000 balance one month and can't pay it off right away. If your credit card charges you 12% interest, then you'll spend an extra $400 over the course of three years. Now imagine taking that $400 -- money that isn't actually buying you anything -- and investing it for retirement instead. At an 8% return, you'd be looking at an easy additional $4,000 over the course of 30 years.
3. Playing the lottery
Sure, playing the lottery can be fun, and at just $1 per day, it seems like a minor indulgence. But if you were to take that $365 per year and invest it for retirement, based on our same 8% return, you'd have an extra $45,000 after 30 years. Of course, this assumes you don't actually win the lottery, but since you're more likely to be struck by lightning or eaten by a shark, hitting the jackpot is never something you should count on.4. Smoking
It's no secret that smoking is bad for your health, but it can be downright fatal for your wallet. With cigarettes averaging $7.26 a pack, that one-pack-a-day habit translates into $2,650 each year. Guess what you could be doing with that money instead? If you put that $2,650 into a retirement account each year, earning an average 8% return, you'd have an extra $327,000 when you're ready to leave the workforce behind -- not to mention the fact that you'll probably be around longer to enjoy your hard-earned retirement savings.5. Shopping online
Shopping online is extremely convenient, but unless you do it wisely, you could wind up overspending on a regular basis. When you shop online, you're more likely to buy things you don't need to meet certain thresholds for free or expedited shipping. Plus, since you can't use cash, you run the risk of racking up a credit card balance that you can't pay off at month's end and starts to work against you.If you find that you tend to shop online out of boredom, then find a hobby that's not hazardous to your wealth. Take up knitting, or bake your way through that 200-page cookbook you got as a wedding present seven years back. Do whatever it takes to keep your hands occupied so that you don't waste money -- money you could otherwise use for more important things, like retirement.
They say old habits die hard, but if you're serious about saving for retirement, then it's time for your bad habits to meet their immediate demise. Besides, you can always replace those old habits with a more healthy and fulfilling alternative: logging on to your retirement account, checking up on your investments, and watching that balance grow.
The $15,978 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known Social Security secrets could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. In fact, one MarketWatch reporter argues that if more Americans knew about this, the government would have to shell out an extra $10 billion annually. For example: one easy, 17-minute trick could pay you as much as $15,978 more... each year! Once you learn how to take advantage of all these loopholes, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. -
(ACC Mentioned) Can We Solve The Flexible Film Recovery Puzzle?
Jan 17, 2016 | Packaging World
By Anne Marie Mohan
Multilayer, mixed-material flexible film packaging is a sustainability conundrum. Lighter in weight, using less material, and resulting in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than alternative packaging formats such as glass, aluminum, and rigid plastic, flexibles seem like the most eco-friendly packaging choice. But, unlike glass, aluminum, and rigid plastic, mixed-material flexible film* cannot be recovered at end of life.
For some sustainability diehards, the fact that the only place for multilayer flexibles at the end of their use is the landfill is a deal-breaker—despite all of their sustainability advantages. For the those companies that supply and use this material, however, understanding the challenges associated with flexible film recovery and moving toward feasible solutions have become a priority, especially as the use of flexible packaging grows.
According to a 2015 report from PMMI, The Association for Packaging and Processing Technologies, “The unique benefits of flexible packaging have made it the second largest packaging segment in the U.S. [representing 19% of the total $164 billion packaging market]. The format has grown considerably in popularity over the last decade and has continued to take market share in the packaging industry.” It adds that while this growth may be starting to plateau, the market is expected to continue to expand at a healthy rate into the future. (Source: PMMI 2015 Flexible Packaging Market Assessment Report.)
Consulting firm Freedonia estimates in its 2015 study, “Converted Flexible Packaging,” that demand for mixed-material film packaging will rise 3.3% annually through 2019, to $20.7 billion, due to the cost and performance advantages of lightweight bags and pouches. In addition, it says that “converted flexible packaging’s source reduction, space savings, and lower production and transportation costs…will drive further conversions from rigid to flexible formats.”
Currently there are no systems in the U.S. to collect and recover multilayer flexible films. To put such systems in place will involve solving technical and commercial challenges at every stage of the process—collection, sorting, and end markets—with the development of each depending on the success of the others.
Drivers of change
While it is true flexible films represent a large chunk of the packaging materials market, their percentage of landfill waste does not: multi-material laminates accounted for just 1.6% of the total municipal waste stream in 2012, according to the Flexible Packaging Assn. Even though this number has increased since then and will continue to grow as the market expands, there are other pressing reasons why the packaging industry is taking on the challenge of flexible film recovery.
Alan Blake, Executive Director of PAC Next, a part of Canadian association PAC, Packaging Consortium, that was founded to create a vision of “A World Without Packaging Waste,” says the group initially became interested in finding ways to recover flexible films due to Canada’s Extended Producer Responsibility laws. Under EPR requirements, all stakeholders pay a fee based on the quantity of packaging materials they put into the market. PAC NEXT’s Multi-Layer Laminated Films & Bags project is focused on initiating and completing a pilot to recycle post-consumer recycled multilayer laminated film from a Municipal Recycling Facility (MRF).
“Given EPR, there’s this pressure to see what can be done to avoid materials going to landfill and what can be done to find solutions,” Blake says. “People become a bit emotional when they start seeing increasing levels of materials going into the waste stream that are non-recyclable, such as multilayer, mixed-plastic laminates.”
Jeff Wooster, Global Sustainability Director of Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics, which is involved in many initiatives around flexible film recovery, explains the growth in interest in flexible film recovery this way: “The development of the recycling infrastructure for any material follows the introduction of that material and its growth to a scale where it makes sense to invest in a recycling infrastructure.”
For example, he says, when aluminum cans and PET bottles were first introduced, they were not recycled. But as the markets for these materials grew, recycling followed. “With flexible packaging, because it’s more difficult to mechanically recycle and because the weight of each individual package is much lower than it is for other materials, there are some additional challenges that other materials don’t have to the same extent.”
Consumer pressure is definitely also a driver, he adds: “Consumers don’t like to see packaging going into the landfill, and neither do we.”
One of the projects Dow is involved with is Materials Recovery for the Future, an initiative of the Research Foundation for Health and Environmental Effects, established by the American Chemistry Council. The project has brought together brand owners, manufacturers, and packaging industry organizations interested in creating recovery solutions for flexible packaging. Its first goal is to study the movement of films and flexible plastic packaging at U.S. MRFs.
“Our motivation for this is to close the resource loop and make sure that our materials continue to deliver value for as long as they can,” Wooster says. “We know it’s of great interest to companies, NGOs, and well-informed consumers to try to recover the value of their materials instead of putting them into a landfill.”
Collection: curbside or store drop-off?
The first step in any packaging materials recovery system is its collection from consumers. Single-stream curbside collection is available in many municipalities for a range of materials, including PET, glass, aluminum, paper, and cartons. Single-layer polyethylene bags, such as grocery, newspaper, and dry cleaning bags, are also collected for recycling through store drop-off programs. Currently, there are 18,000 locations across the U.S. that collect PE films. In 2013, 1.14 billion lb of PE film were recovered for recycling, according to the “2013 National Postconsumer Plastic Bag & Film Recycling Report,” from ACC.
Blake says adding multilayer flexible films to the materials collected through store drop-off systems is one option. “If you could get those materials together, then they are relatively easy to sort because of weight and density,” he says. “The plastic bags will just sort of float away. You could skim them off.”
However, he believes retail stores are somewhat reluctant to expand these programs due to fears about contamination and dirt. “Retailers are concerned about people bringing all this stuff to their front-of-store; they don’t want it to turn into a garbage dump,” he says. “You’d have to make a bigger effort in terms of defining areas where the material could be brought, making it clear to consumers, and keeping it clean.”
With current single-stream curbside collection in the U.S., consumers often mistakenly throw flexible films into the bin, believing that they are—or should be—recyclable. Once in a MRF sorting system, the two-dimensional flexible films play havoc with the MRF’s mechanical systems. “The material wraps around screens and other rotating equipment, it gets caught in places it’s not supposed to be, and it contaminates the paper stream,” explains Wooster.
Ultimately, the collection system adopted for flexible packaging will depend on the development of MRF sorting systems. “If MRFs had technology to adequately separate bags and not have processing problems, then the material wouldn’t be a contaminate, it would be a raw material,” Wooster days. “If we can implement technology that makes more of the things already in the bin into raw materials, we can ask for even more materials to be put into the bin. Then we can have a system with higher recovery rates.”
Sorting: technology available, but costly
Sorting technology for flexible films does exist—at a significant cost. The challenge is finding the most efficient systems and making them financially viable for MRFs. In order for MRFs to make the investment, there needs to be enough material collected, and viable end markets must be developed for the recovered material.
According to Blake, even if the challenges of collection are overcome, it will still take a lot of material to make sorting it worthwhile. “The recycling industry works on weight,” he explains. “To make a bale of flexible laminates, you need a ton of material. Just fathom this: To create a bale of rigids—and these are just approximate numbers—you need 10,000 containers. Since laminates weigh 80-percent to 90-percent less than rigid containers, you would need approximately 100,000 multilayer flexible laminates to make up that same bale, to achieve that same weight.”
In terms of end markets, because flexible films comprise a mix of polymers, there are currently no commercial uses for the recovered material. Said Nadine Kerr, Acting Manager of Processing Operations for the city of Toronto in a webinar sponsored by PAC Next, “Even when flexible film packaging is sent to a processor, it is difficult to recycle. Recycling is complicated, and it can yield a plastic with poor physical properties because it contains a variety of materials and is often contaminated with food.”
Before tackling the development of end markets, however, the Materials Recovery for the Future project is first trying to determine how flexible materials can be sorted. Dow initiated the project by commissioning Resource Recovery Systems to conduct a study to understand what it would take technically and financially to sort flexible films at a MRF. Upon completion of the study, Dow invited brand owners and packaging producers to join the project and drive it forward.
The first phase involves studying the movement of films and flexible plastic packaging through the MRF. So far, project members have gathered a representative assortment of flexible packaging present in the marketplace. These will be mixed with paper and other materials commonly found in a MRF and run through the sorting systems typically used for paper.
As Wooster explains, MRFs use modern optical sorters based on infrared technology that can identify the composition of the polymer types to sort 3D HDPE and PET bottles. “It’s not in use for plastic films or flexible packaging, however, but there are a few facilities that use this type of equipment to sort paper,” he says.
The hope is that the technology used to sort paper can be employed to separate out flexible films. “Paper is a two-dimensional object when it goes through the MRF, whereas a bottle is a three-dimensional object, so there’s quite a bit of handling and processing differences between the two,” Wooster says. “Flexible packaging and films though are two-dimensional like paper, so our hypothesis is that we’ll be able to use the sorting equipment that’s currently used for paper to sort the flexible film from the paper. What the project really entails is a series of experiments with equipment manufacturers and MRF operators to figure out how to use this equipment to properly sort the materials.”
Meanwhile, PAC Next has identified a company in Canada, TeTechS, that is using terahertz wave technology to sort different polymer types based on spectral signals. TeTechS has proved out its Rigel™ technology on a lab scale, but is looking for a venture capital partner to invest in the technology for commercial scale use. “This is an interesting sorting technology that might be the sort of thing that could help identify flexible films,” says Blake. “Then, using a sort of optical sorting air-blowing collection system, the materials could be shot into a recovery system.”
End-use markets: a range of opportunities
The development of end-use markets for recovered flexible films is really the linchpin upon which the rest of the recovery system depends.
One possible end market is energy recovery. This includes technologies such as:
Gasification, which converts feedstock into clean, synthetic fuel gas that can be used to generate electricity.
Engineered solid fuels, in which plastics and other waste is turned into fuel pellets to generate power.
Pyrolysis, a technology that transforms plastics into energy feedstock, such as industrial wax, lube stock, and synthetic crude oil.Says Wooster, recycling options include a mechanical-type technology that allows the material to be turned into another article without changing the nature of the plastic, and chemical feedstock recycling, where the plastic is broken down into its chemical components so that the feedstock can be used to make other materials.
PAC Next is working to bring together industry partners to help advance technologies from Zzyzx Polymers and Greenable Technology. As Blake explains, the extrusion-like technologies allow PCR laminates to be reprocessed as is or as blends with virgin materials.
Zzyzx uses solid-state sheer pulverization technology to compatibilize resins and reduce and disperse contaminants. The end product is pellets that can be used in injection molding and compression molding to create new films.
Equipment supplier Greenable has developed a range of compounding extruder machines engineered to reprocess PCR laminated film, which can be used to manufacture products such as dimensional lumber.
PAC Next has done pilot work with both companies, but the biggest challenge has been collecting enough materials to run larger-scale trials.
Single-material laminates: a work-around
To circumvent the challenges of recovering mixed-material flexible packaging, some companies and projects are focused on designing multilayer films that use a single material, PE, or combinations of materials that can be collected through store drop-off programs.
In the U.K., the REFLEX project, led by Axion Consulting and co-funded by the U.K.’s innovation agency Innovate UK is working on designing new film constructions—in addition to helping develop a recovery infrastructure. “The aim of the REFLEX project is to create a circular economy for post-consumer flexible packaging,” explains Liz Morrish, Principal Consultant for Axion. “There are a number of key elements to the project, including the redesign of current packaging so that it is recyclable and investigating and optimizing technologies for sorting recyclable packaging from the waste stream.
“A key output of the project will be a set of design for recycling guidelines, to help brand owners, packaging designers, and convertors design flexible packaging that can be recycled.”
According to Morrish, over the last year, the REFLEX project has made significant progress in redesigning flexible packaging for food and household products to make them potentially recyclable, while ensuring the packaging structures and designs still achieve their required barrier and mechanical properties, and ease of handling on packaging lines.
Closer to home, Dow and film converter Accredo Packaging, Inc. recently collaborated to help launch a multilayer stand-up PE pouch for Seventh Generation’s dishwash detergent pods. Another reverse-printed multilayer PE SUP—which also sports a unique cube-shape—was designed by ConservaCube, LLC for Mountain View Seeds.
At least a decade away
Despite a multitude of challenges, there is a way forward for multilayer flexible film recovery, but it will not happen overnight. “It takes an awful lot of time to get the momentum and the critical mass to drive change through the packaging industry,” says Blake. “People forget how many decades it took to get decent systems in place for the recovery and recycling of PET. We would say that PET is a big success story. Yet if you look at the overall recycling rates even for PET, you’d argue that there’s significant room for improvement, but it’s taken decades to get where we are today with PET.
“Multilayer flexible films, despite their growth and despite the fact that they’ve been out in other regions of the world for some time, are still a relatively young packaging format in North America, so it’s going to take time to find solutions for these materials and find end markets, which by the way, unfortunately is still a challenge globally.
“I think it will probably be at least a decade before you’ll start to see the kind of investments needed to recover these films. I don’t think it will be any sooner than that.”
Says Wooster, “It’s really going to take a lot of people working together to solve this challenge. It’s not an easy challenge to solve, or it would already have been fixed, but we recognize that it’s important, so we’re committed to doing it.” c
*For the purposes of this article, “flexible film” or “flexible packaging” will be used to describe multilayer, mixed-material film—used for packaging such as stand-up pouches for snacks, petfood, beverages, frozen meals, and other products—versus single-layer PE film.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Touts TPP Market Gains at Hearing
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
A sprawling trade agreement between the U.S., Western Hemisphere and Asian countries is poised to boost U.S. chemical exports through regulatory cohesion and tariff cuts, providing a boon to an industry already thriving off record shale gas production, chemical industry leaders said at a hearing Jan. 15.
The 12-member Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes economic powerhouse Japan and critical U.S. trade ally Vietnam, could fuel a $1.2 billion increase in U.S. chemical exports, American Chemistry Council (ACC) Senior Director Greg Skelton told the International Trade Commission (ITC) at the hearing.
“For the chemical industry, a growing lack of regulatory coherence, particularly as governments amend or develop new chemical regulations is increasing the cost of moving products across border,” Skelton said, while testifying alongside textile and apparel lobbyists and other chemical industry officials. “The emphasis signaled in TPP on addressing regulatory divergences, promoting efficiencies and burden sharing, and pursuing greater transparency within and between regulatory systems will result in cost savings for governments and industry alike.”
Skelton testified at the ITC hearing Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Likely Impact on the U.S. Economy and on Specific Industry Sectors.
TPP parties tack $236 million in tariffs on U.S. chemical exports annually, according to an International Trade Administration analysis. The pact's tariff elimination schedule shows dramatic decreases in those tariffs on a line-by-line basis, including cuts to 100 percent of Japanese chemical tariffs immediately after implementation. The TPP also would implement a range of regulatory commitments, such as customs facilitation measures and increased transparency in the development of regulatory processes.
TPP members struck heavily anticipated and controversial agreement on the agreement's text in November, and President Barack Obama continues to urge Congress to pass implementation legislation this year. But U.S. trade critics pledge to block legislative movement, pointing to expectations for U.S. job loss and manufacturing hits linked to easier access to cheap foreign products.
Chemical Export Growth
The prospect of near-term TPP fruition comes on the heels of a decade-long unprecedented growth in the U.S. shale gas industry. A recent ACCstudy suggests shale gas growth could fuel more than a 200 percent boost in U.S. exports of affiliated chemistries, such as polymers, plastic resins and specialty chemicals, Skelton said in testimony.
In an interview with Bloomberg BNA following the ITC panel, Skelton said expected chemical industry growth linked to shale gas will overshadow the likelihood of increased U.S. chemical imports due to the TPP.
“The data that we're seeing indicates that the increase in exports is going to be larger than the increase in imports,” said Skelton, noting U.S. production is likely to outweigh domestic demand. “If you were to give me a choice between the U.S. chemical industry 10 years ago or the business of the U.S. chemical industry now, there's no competition. Shale gas has been that big of a deal.”
TPP Targets Cosmetics Regulatory Rules
Some TPP cosmetic tariffs on U.S. exports reach nearly 30 percent, particularly in Vietnam, but the majority of cosmetic exports face tariffs around 5 or less percent, said Francine Lamoriello, executive vice president at the Personal Care Products Council, in testimony.
The pact's regulatory rules therefore provide a much larger boon to the cosmetic industry, she said, pointing to a TPP annex geared specifically to that industry.
The cosmetics annex, which is part of the technical barriers to trade (TBT) chapter, outlines measures to increase transparency, reduce duplication of regulatory requirements and ensure a risk-based, rather than hazard-based, framework for imposing regulations.
“There's been a growing awareness, and I think our industry is only a part of this, that at a certain point the issues that are really impacting trade are regulatory in nature and that even the [TBT] agreement, while it is one of our best resources in fighting barriers, doesn't always go far enough,” said Lamoriello. And “in working with our government on the TPP cosmetics annex, we very much had in mind the possibility of other countries joining in the future.”
The Obama administration has repeatedly over recent years stressed that the pact is intended to be a “living” agreement, indicating China, South Korea and others may ultimately accede.
Aiming for Mutual Recognition
The TPP does not require parties to implement mutual recognition, a broad concept that allows countries to accept foreign certifications and labeling. That is the “ultimate goal” in trade negotiations, said Lamoriello.
The U.S. and Europe have a better opportunity to move forward with those rules in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, although that effort will also likely fall short, she said.
“The difficulty in having our own regulators achieve mutual recognition agreements with other countries is legend,” Lamoriello said in testimony. “And so we didn't push for that with TPP. I think we have a better chance with the EU agreement, but even there it's become almost impossible.”
Implications of TSCA and Foreign Chemical Regulations
The House and Senate recently passed respective legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (08 DEN A-1, 1/13/16).
A revamp could potentially create a paradigm for other countries to follow, said Skelton in the interview with Bloomberg BNA.
“First of all, you identify what chemicals you have in commerce, you prioritize them and you assess the ones that are the highest priority, whereas Europe has taken a totally different approach; they take a hazards-based approach,” he said. “We say ‘no, risk is a function of hazard and exposure.’ You've got to be exposed to it for there to be a risk.”
Foreign implementation of similar risk-based approaches to chemical regulation would help fuel global trade, Skelton said.
In another Jan. 15 interview with Bloomberg BNA, Brian Francois, chief executive officer of Pulcra Chemicals Group, who did not testify at the ITC hearing, also called for a global risk-based approach to chemicals in contrast to Europe's Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals, a regulation promulgated in 2006.
In the meantime, however, companies and associations are setting internal rules to safeguard supply chains from hazardous chemicals, he said.
-
Academies Hosts Workshop on Low Doses of Chemicals
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee will hear presentations at a Feb. 3 workshop on the biological effects low doses of three chemicals may have.
The academies Low Dose Committee will hold a workshop called “Potential Case Studies for Unraveling Endocrine-Related Low Dose Toxicity.” Academic and government scientists will present information about the effects low doses of bisphenol A, dioxin and phthalates may have on the male and female reproductive systems.
The committee will reflect on whether the chemicals would be useful case studies as it examines whether the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory toxicity tests would predict public health problems that may occur from environmentally relevant chemical exposures.
“This committee has the opportunity to change the way we think about toxicity testing, low dose risks and their relevance to protecting public health,” Thomas Burke, EPA's science adviser and deputy assistant administrator for research and development, told the panel at its first meeting in October 2015 (198 DEN A-17, 10/14/15)
Interested parties can make short remarks at the end of the workshop.
The report the EPA has asked the committee to release in 2018 would address a wide range of contemporary issues facing toxicology and risk assessment.
Underlying Issues Panel Discussing
These issues include:
• what types of toxicity tests produce data that should be considered by risk assessors and, consequently, regulators;
• how risk assessors should use the growing amount of detailed information on biological effects chemicals have on cells and genes;
• how risk assessors can systematically review and integrate human, animal and biological data to determine whether one or more chemicals causes harm; and
• how risk assessors can recognize when data from divergent sources provide evidence of a clear causal connection between chemicals and health problems and when the data provide conflicting evidence.
The committee is focusing on chemicals, often called endocrine disruptors, that mimic, block or alter the normal functions of hormones.
-
N.Y. Seeks Federal Action on PFOA Contamination
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
New York health and environmental agencies are urging the Environmental Protection Agency to put an upstate plastics plant site contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) on its Superfund list and act to tighten regulation of the chemical.
Steps by the state Environmental Conservation and Health Departments, announced Jan. 14, were taken in response to 2014 findings of a PFOA contamination in the drinking water supply of Hoosick Falls, N.Y., where the McCaffrey Street Plant run by Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. is located.
In a letter to EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith A. Enck, acting Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Basil Seggos said that sampling had found the PFOA in Hoosick Falls drinking water and groundwater above the 400 parts per trillion (ppt) provisional EPA health advisory threshold. The state agencies have worked with village officials on the problem for more than a year, he said.
He proposed a federal-state investigation of the site, along with any other contamination sources that may be uncovered, leading to nominating the site for inclusion in the National Priorities List. The source or sources of the PFOA in the village's public water system haven't been confirmed, the state agencies said.
Officials credited Saint-Gobain and the village for collaborating with the state on evaluating drinking water treatment options, providing bottled water and setting up a temporary treatment system to be installed in the coming weeks while a permanent treatment system is completed.
A company representative didn't respond Jan. 15 to a request for comment.
Lower Threshold Sought
In a separate letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Seggos and state Health Commissioner Howard Zucker called for the agency to lower its provisional health advisory threshold “to take into account the most current scientific evidence and adopt a protective maximum contaminant level.”
They further urged the EPA to expeditiously list PFOA as a hazardous substance under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and review remaining uses for the chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act, with an eye toward substitution with less-toxic alternatives.
Although the use of PFOA is being phased out at the Hoosick Falls plant, the state said, it's still used to make household and commercial products that resist heat and repel oil, stains, grease and water—including nonstick cookware, surface coatings for stain-resistant carpets and fabric and paper and cardboard food packaging.
The Health Department also said it has begun an investigation of cancer incidence in the community and will offer a PFOA biomonitoring study for area residents. Studies have linked PFOA exposure to an increased risk of health problems with the liver, immune system, thyroid gland, cholesterol levels and blood pressure during pregnancy, as well as kidney and testicular cancer, the state said.
Studies Said to Show PFOA's Pervasiveness
In their letter to McCarthy, state officials noted that a Jan. 10 cover story in the New York Times Magazine had reported that “several studies have asserted that the presence of PFOA in drinking water and groundwater may be more pervasive than originally thought and may subject people across the country to PFOA exposure since EPA first began working on this issue in 2001.” PFOA contamination of drinking water, they wrote, isn't “just a local issue” but is “an emerging nationwide issue.”
The Times, in a Jan. 12 editorial, said that the “frightening saga” of drinking water contamination in West Virginia laid out in the magazine article should move Congress “to choose the strongest possible reform” of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Competing versions of a TSCA revision are before a House-Senate conference (08 DEN A-1, 1/13/16).
The plaintiffs’ attorney featured in the magazine article, Robert A. Bilott of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP in Cincinnati, wrote village and state officials in December 2015 to question a fact sheet stating that the Health Department doesn't “expect health effects to occur” from continued use of village drinking water with PFOA levels of 0.6 parts per billion (ppb).
State's Advice Challenged
Bilott argued that the state's advice went against findings of a scientific expert panel that, he said, had found links to serious diseases from exposure to drinking water with PFOA levels as low as 0.05 ppb for as little as one year.
He backed the position taken by the EPA in a November 2015 letter to the village pointing out that the current 400 ppt provisional threshold was set for only short-term exposure and mandating immediate alternative drinking water sources.
Bilott is class counsel for some 70,000 residents of West Virginia and Ohio in a PFOA exposure case that resulted in a settlement providing for a $235 million medical monitoring program, which was launched in September 2014 (171 DEN A-5, 9/4/14).
In a Jan. 15 interview, Bilott said he welcomed the state's announcement as “a great step forward for the folks in Hoosick.”
While he declined to discuss what role he's played in the controversy there, he told Bloomberg BNA that he had “sent the letter, frankly, to make sure the people had access to the right information.”
-
2016 TSCA Chemical Data Reporting – Are You Prepared?
Jan 18, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Thomas C. Berger
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule (40 C.F.R. Part 711) will require U.S. manufacturers and importers of certain chemical substances to report information on these substances to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by September 30, 2016. Industry should be well aware of and theoretically has ample time to meet this deadline, but the 2016 CDR is more complicated, more onerous, and requires more information than the 2012 CDR. Particularly given the significant penalties for CDR noncompliance (up to $2-5,000 per chemical per site), companies should devote significant time and effort to ensuring full compliance with this requirement.Companies should be preparing now for the CDR submission period in 2016.
CDR reports must be submitted between June 1 and September 30, 2016.
Companies must report if they manufactured in or imported into the U.S. at least 25,000 pounds (lbs.) of a TSCA Inventory listed substance at any one U.S. site during any one of the following calendar years - 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015.
Certain regulated chemicals (e.g., chemicals subject to TSCA section 5 significant new use rules (SNUR)) are subject to a lower, 2,500 lbs./year, manufacture / import volume threshold for these calendar years. ---
CDR reports must include detailed, chemical-specific and site-specific manufacture / import and processing / use information for calendar year 2015 (the "principal reporting year"), and production volume information for each calendar year from 2012 to 2015.
Information reported for the CDR can be claimed as TSCA confidential business information (CBI) only if "upfront" substantiation is provided.
EPA regulations governing CDR appear at 40 C.F.R. Part 711. For additional information, visit http://www.epa.gov/cdr.The CDR Program
Since 1986, U.S. manufacturers and importers have been required to periodically submit under TSCA certain basic information on many of the now over 85,000 chemicals appearing on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (Inventory). Information submitted to EPA under this reporting requirement has been used as a tool for regularly updating the Agency and the public as to potential human and environmental exposure to substances in U.S. commerce.
In 2011, EPA overhauled this reporting requirement, which was originally known as the TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) rule. The new "CDR" rule ushered in significant changes to reporting requirements beginning with the first CDR submission period, which ended in August 2012. For the 2012 CDR, about 1,600 U.S. companies reported activities for about 7,700 chemicals at about 4,800 sites. The second CDR reporting period will occur between June 1 and September 30, 2016 (to recur at 4-year intervals thereafter). Given the broader time period beginning in 2016 during which chemical production can trigger CDR reporting, in the future even more companies will likely be subject to and have to report on more chemicals.Basic Thresholds and Reporting Requirement
For the 2016 submission period, companies must report for the CDR if, at one or more U.S. sites, they manufactured in or imported into the U.S. at least 25,000 pounds (lbs.) of a reportable chemical substance during any one of the calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015. The CDR reporting form is known as the "Form U."
The Form U requires companies to provide a variety of information, including technical contact information, and a Chemical Abstracts (CA) Index Name and corresponding Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry Number (CASRN) (if available) for each reportable substance.
To the extent that it is known or reasonably ascertainable, the Form U requires reporting of the following information on manufacture / import activities for each reportable substance at each site:
Volume of the substance that is manufactured or imported;
Number of workers reasonably likely to be exposed to the substance at each site;
Physical form(s) of the substance as it leaves the submitter's possession, along with the associated percent production volume; and
Maximum concentration of the substance as it leaves the submitter's possession;
Volume of a substance used on site;
Volume of a substance that is directly exported and not domestically processed or used;
Whether an imported substance is physically at the reporting site; and
Whether a substance is being recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, or reused.
For the 2016 submission period, companies must also report production volume, by substance and site, for each of the calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.Processing and Use Information
As was the case under the 2012 CDR, companies are required under the 2016 CDR to report detailed "processing and use" information associated with downstream domestic customer facilities regardless of whether the facilities are controlled by the manufacturer or importer. For the 2012 submission period, information on processing and use activities was required only for substances manufactured or imported in quantities ≥ 100,000 lbs. in the principal reporting year. This higher threshold, however, has been eliminated such that, other than substances specifically exempted from this required as described and listed at section 711.6, this extensive processing and use information is now required for all CDR-reportable substances.
Required processing and use information includes the following:
Type of industrial processing or use operations at downstream sites;
Approximate number of sites and estimated number of industrial processing and use workers reasonably likely to be exposed to each substance for each combination of processing or use code and industrial function category;
Estimated percentages of the submitter's production volume for each processing or use code and corresponding industrial function category;
Whether the products are intended for use by children; and
Maximum concentration of the reportable chemical substance in each commercial and consumer product category.
Processing and use information must be reported if it is "known to or reasonably ascertainable by" the manufacturer or importer. This is a considerably lower standard compared to the previous IUR requirement to report information that was "readily obtainable."Exemptions from CDR Reporting
Several categories of substances are exempt from CDR - certain polymers, microorganisms, and certain natural gas streams - so long as the specific substance is not subject to certain specified TSCA actions, such as proposed or final rules issued under section 4, 5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), or 6 of TSCA (e.g., test rules, significant new use rules), or to orders issued pursuant to section 5(e) or 5(f). Note that substances that are subject to an enforceable consent agreement (ECA) are similarly ineligible for these exemptions, even if the CDR reporter is not a signatory to the ECA. Also, otherwise polymeric substances resulting from hydrolysis, depolymerization, or chemical modification of polymers must be reported if the hydrolysis, depolymerization, or chemical modification occurs to such an extent that the resulting product is no longer totally polymeric in structure.
Exemptions also exist for substances that are produced or imported in small quantities for research and development, substances imported as part of an "article," and substances manufactured or imported as an "impurity" or "non-isolated intermediate." Other types of substances that are described at 40 C.F.R. § 720.30(h) are also excluded from CDR.
"Byproducts" are excluded from CDR if their only commercial purpose is to be burned as a fuel, disposed as a waste, or from which component chemical substances are extracted for a commercial purpose. Note, however, that any extracted component substances are potentially reportable for CDR.
Under section 711.6, certain petroleum process streams and other specifically listed "low interest" substances are exempt from the requirement to submit processing and use information. Manufacturers and importers of partially exempt substances, however, are still required to provide the traditional information required on the Form U if the general 25,000 / 2,500 lbs. production volume threshold is exceeded. EPA has established a process for revising these "partially exempt" substance lists.Electronic Reporting
CDR reports must be submitted electronically using e-CDRweb, EPA's free electronic reporting tool, to EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX).CDR Violations, Penalties
EPA can assess substantial monetary penalties (up to $25,000 per chemical per site) for failure to comply with the CDR. Violations subject to penalties include seemingly minor CDR reporting violations such as late reporting, or reporting a slightly inaccurate manufacture or import volume. Companies would be well-advised to carefully review their production / import records and their prior CDR filing before preparing and submitting the 2016 report. If non-compliance occurs, companies may be able to rely on EPA's "Audit Policy" (65 Fed. Reg. 19,618 (April 11, 2000)) to mitigate or eliminate penalties for past reporting errors or omissions, but companies should consult with legal counsel before examining past CDR compliance.Confidentiality and Records Retention
To claim the chemical identity, site identity, or processing and use information as confidential business information (CBI), reporting companies must substantiate such CBI claims at the time of reporting. Submitters cannot claim information as CBI when it is identified as "not known to or reasonably ascertainable." CDR records must be kept for 5 years.Small Business Exemption
Certain small manufacturers are exempt from the CDR. A company may qualify for a small business exemption from reporting if it either: (1) produces less than 100,000 lbs. of the otherwise reportable substance and has total annual sales of less than $40 million (including those sales of the parent company); or (2) has annual sales of less than $4 million regardless of production / import volume.
This exemption does not apply for any substance that is the subject of a proposed or existing rule issued under sections 4, 5(b)(4), or 6; an order in effect under section 5(e); or relief that has been granted under a civil action under sections 5 or 7.CDR Non-Compliance Issues
In our experience, many factors contribute to CDR non-compliance. These can include:
inaccurate manufacture and import volume tracking
failure to report / file all or some reportable substances
incorrect conclusions as to who is the "importer" of a substance
failure to report production volume to the required two significant figures of accuracy
nomenclature issues
"toll" manufacturing issues
misinterpretation of exemptions
failure to account for reportable "byproduct" and related stream manufacture
fractionation issues
As noted above, CDR violations are potentially eligible for EPA's "Audit Policy," and companies should strive to preserve their ability to use the Audit Policy to the extent possible and seek legal advice when necessary.
-
What Caused Your Child’s Allergic Skin Reaction?
Jan 15, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Uh-oh. Your child has developed a red, itchy, or sore rash.
Your little one may have a case of contact dermatitis, an eczema-like skin condition caused by touching something that triggers an allergic reaction or irritates the skin.
If the reaction is serious, talk to your doctor about a referral for allergy testing to determine the source. But for minor reactions, some easy sleuthing at home can help you figure out if a common allergen is to blame.
Here are the worst – and most likely – offenders:
Metals
The American Academy of Dermatology estimates that 11 million children in North America are allergic to nickel, so this or another metal might have set off your child’s skin allergy. Clothing fixtures such as zippers and hooks or jewelry, including watch straps, are all easy ways we come into contact with metals. Face paints may also contain traces of heavy metals, and for older children, cosmetics could be the problem.
Preservatives
Carefully read the labels of body care product your child uses. An ingredient could be responsible. Methylisothiazolinone (MI) and formaldehyde releasers such as 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3 diol (bronopol), diazolidinyl urea and DMDM hydantoin are potent skin allergens.
Manufacturers add MI to body washes, moisturizers, sunscreens, baby wipes and even products labeled “hypoallergenic.” Bronopol turns up in some CVS diaper wipes and cosmetics products such as facial cleansers, nail polish and moisturizers. Watch out for diazolidinyl urea and DMDM hydantoin in hair styling products, shampoos, conditioners and body washes.
Not sure if your family’s favorite products contain these or other allergenic ingredients? Search EWG’s Skin Deep database to find out.
Botanical Allergens
Plant-based essential oils such as lavender, tea tree or citrus are popular in “natural” personal care products in place of chemical fragrances. Because the concentration of these oils can vary, they can easily trigger allergic reactions in people with sensitive skin.
Parents often notice these reactions after using botanical bug repellents, which commonly contain citronella, clove, geranium, lemongrass, peppermint or rosemary oils, or oil of lemon eucalyptus. Click here to learn about safer ways to beat bug bites.
Tips for parents: Need help sleuthing? Allergic reactions typically break out where an allergen touches the skin, so the location of your child’s rash may indicate which allergen is responsible. Is the rash on your child’s face or hands? A personal care product, like lotion, may be to blame. Around your child’s wrist? Watch strap. At a certain spot on the chest? Zipper. Baby’s behind? Diaper wipe.
Reactions may occur immediately after contact – making it easier to isolate the cause – or after a long period of exposure. Keep both in mind when investigating possible sources.
Always contact a medical professional if your child shows symptoms of a serious skin reaction, particularly if she shows any sign of infection, such as a fever.
Take heart: Allergic reactions often clear quickly and are generally avoidable once you determine the culprit. -
Los Angeles-Area Gas Leak Triggers New Regulations
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Operators of natural gas storage facilities must conduct daily inspections of well heads and have risk management plans, under interim regulations California oil and gas regulators proposed Jan. 15.
Required under an emergency declaration Gov. Jerry Brown (D) issued Jan. 6, the proposed regulations are part of the state's response to the ongoing natural gas leak at Southern California Gas Co.'s underground storage facility in Aliso Canyon near Los Angeles.
The California Office of Emergency Services and other state officials will discuss the regulations, an evaluation of the leak's potential health impacts and other issues at an evening meeting Jan. 15, held in Porter Ranch, a community near the facility.
The proposed regulations would require infrared imaging and other gas leak detection technology be used for the daily well inspections; ongoing verification of the mechanical integrity of wells; ongoing measurement of annular gas pressure or annular gas flow within wells; minimum and maximum pressure limits for each gas storage facility in the state; and comprehensive risk management plans that evaluate and prepare for risks, including corrosion potential of pipes and equipment.
Regulations Will Strengthen Oversight
“These regulations execute the governor's order and will significantly strengthen state oversight of natural gas storage facilities to ensure public health and safety as well as environmental protection,” Jason Marshall, chief deputy director of the Department of Conservation, said in a Jan. 15 written statement.
DOGGR plans to submit the interim regulations to the state's Office of Administrative Law Jan. 26. The OAL will have 10 days to review and field public comments on the proposed rulemaking, the Department of Conservation said.
The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) oversees oil and gas operations in the state.
Health Impacts Evaluated
Concentrations of benzene and other volatile organic chemicals measured in natural gas leaking from the Aliso Canyon facility pose no acute health hazards to nearby residential communities, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment said Jan. 14.
The agency is conducting an ongoing evaluation of the air samples, OEHHA spokesman Sam Delson told Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 15 e-mail.
In the latest review of data collected through Jan. 11, OEHHA concluded the nausea and headaches being reported by residents downwind of the leak can be attributed to exposure to the odorants added to natural gas, but the levels of those chemicals are too low to cause more serious or longer-lasting health effects, such as eye or respiratory damage.
OEHHA found that current levels of benzene, a cancer-causing chemical, in the samples are “similar to background levels generally found in the Los Angeles area.” As a result, “any increase in cancer risk to people in the area due to benzene emissions from the natural gas leak is likely very small,” OEHHA said.
SoCalGas Relocating Residents
Southern California Gas Co. has relocated from the Porter Ranch community about 2,500 residents who live downwind of the facility and is providing indoor air filters and weatherizing homes for other residents in the affected area.
Since discovery of the leak, the California Air Resources Board estimates 1.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent have escaped from the damaged well.
On Jan. 16, the South Coast Air Quality Management District hearing board will decide whether to approve permits to allow SoCalGas to install equipment to capture and destroy some of the leaking gas.
SoCalGas is drilling a relief well to stop the leak, a project the utility recently said should be completed by the end of February.
Legislation Would Require Well Closures
State lawmakers introduced legislation Jan. 11 calling for the closure of the oldest wells at the facility and other measures to stop the leak and hold SoCalGas financially accountable for the incident (07 DEN A-2, 1/12/16).
Environmental groups are calling for closure of the underground storage facility.
-
Protesters Demand Shutdown Of Calif. Gas Leak Facility
Jan 15, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
Public health and environmental advocates today rallied at U.S. EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., demanding the agency take steps to permanently shut down the gas storage facility in Porter Ranch, Calif., that blew out and has been emitting up to 1.6 million pounds a day of toxic gas into nearby Southern California neighborhoods.
The leak was detected last October at the Aliso Canyon storage facility, which is operated by Southern California Gas Co., or SoCalGas. The city of Los Angeles has filed a lawsuit against SoCalGas, claiming the company took too long to inform residents of the potentially harmful leak. And now thousands of residents have evacuated their homes.
The private utility originally reported that there would be no long-term health risks, saying just two airborne samples contained the cancer-causing chemical benzene. But an Associated Press story and other experts took a closer look at the data and found that a dozen samples from the Porter Ranch area have at least twice the standard amount of airborne benzene.
Residents have reported symptoms such as wheezing, headaches, bloody noses, burning eyes and an inability to breathe.
"Four days before Thanksgiving, all of a sudden in the afternoon around 5 o'clock, I could not breath anymore," Hope Tropper, who lives near Porter Ranch, said in a video.
At the protest today, about 50 people from the consumer rights group Food & Water Watch gathered in front of the EPA building holding signs that read "#SavePorterRanch" and "Shut it down," chanting "Hey hey, EPA, shut it down and save the day" and "I don't know, but I've been told, SoCalGas has got to go. Stop the lies and stop the leak, shut it down, that's what we seek."
"The facility is at risk of more problems in the future," said Adam Scow, the California director of Food & Water Watch. "Shutting this facility down is an important step in protecting the community and phasing out the use of natural gas in Los Angeles and transitioning to a renewable energy supply."
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the group, addressed the crowd with a megaphone, calling on EPA to shut down the Aliso Canyon storage facility.
"EPA, get a spine," Hauter called. "Shut it down."
In a longer statement, she wrote the leak is a reminder of the threat of fossil fuels to the environment and public health.
"This disaster underscores the need to end reliance on fossil fuels and transition to 100 percent truly clean, renewable energy," she said in the statement. "Obama must also move to end federal leases for fracked oil and gas."
The amount of methane being released into the atmosphere could also contribute to global warming, experts say.
EPA sent a federal Clean Air Act information request letter to SoCalGas asking for additional data and documents related to its facility and operation, according to a statement from an EPA representative. The agency expects to receive the information in the coming days.
"After completing its review of this information and in consultation with the state and local regulators already active on the scene, EPA will determine the appropriate next steps," the representative wrote in the statement.
Nearly 80 days after the leak was discovered, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) declared a state of emergency for the Porter Ranch neighborhood, which is about 30 miles northwest of Los Angeles. He said the gas company will be responsible for paying all costs related to the leak.
The source of the leak was a steel pipe 8,500 feet in the ground. SoCalGas is working to drill a relief well and expects the leak to be plugged by February or March. In the meantime, the leak is emitting 4.5 million cars' worth of pollution each day. resize text Resize Text Email  Email Print  Print
Advertisement
-
One Killed In Chemical Plant Explosion
Jan 16, 2016 | The Houston Chronicle
By St. John Barned-Smith
Russell Sage heard a loud boom and felt blast waves shake his truck as he sat parked across the street from the PeroxyChem plant in Pasadena Saturday afternoon.
"All of a sudden, the truck vibrated and you could hear it," said Sage, 34, who was on call at a facility about 800 yards from the plant. "You could feel it in your chest."
Moments later, Sage saw police, paramedics and other emergency personnel rush into the plant in the 12000 block of Bay Area Boulevard. Two ambulances later left, one with lights blaring and the other silent.
PeroxyChem officials and police confirmed that one person was killed and three others injured during an explosion at 12:45 p.m. at a tank holding an oil-based cleaning solution, according to Vance Mitchell, with the Pasadena Police Department.
David Brannon, with the Pasadena Fire Marshal's Office, said the explosion was caused by an over-pressurized tank. Harris County Haz-Mat and Channel Industries Mutual Aid also responded to the accident, he said.
The worker who died at the scene was a contractor whose name has not yet been released, PeroxyChem spokeswoman Natalie Kay said. Another contractor and two employees were taken to a local hospital. One of the injured suffered a broken arm, while the other two suffered chemical exposure, Mitchell said. This video player must be at least 300x168 pixels in order to operate.
"Plant employees and contractors were conducting a routine function when the contractor's equipment exploded," Kay said in an email. "The site's emergency response plan was implemented. The emergency situation is contained. Current activities are focused on ensuring the safe and secure state of the plant and its employees."
According to PeroxyChem's webpage, the company employs approximately 550 people and manufactures hydrogen peroxide, calcium peroxide, persulfates and peracetic acid and other products for electronics, energy, environmental, food safety, pulp, paper, polymer, and other industrial and consumer markets.
"We are deeply saddened to report the loss of the contractor. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and loved ones," company officials said in a statement.
The facility was last inspected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in December 2014, and is in compliance with the Clean Air Act.
A federal Chemical Safety Board representative said Saturday evening that the agency is following up on details of the explosion and gathering information.
The accident marks the latest death in Houston's chemical industry. In July, a 46-year-old contractor died at Dow Chemical Co.'s Oyster Creek facility while checking welds inside a new pipe. Four workers suffered burns in an explosion in October at a SunEdison chemical plant in Pasadena. And in November 2014, four workers were killed when 23,000 pounds of a toxic substance leaked at a DuPont facility in LaPorte.
-
EPA Extends Deadline for Oil and Gas Submissions
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The oil and gas industry now will have until March 11 to respond to an Environmental Protection Agency request for information on hazardous air pollutant emissions from the sector, according to a notice signed Jan. 14 and posted online Jan. 15. The agency in November asked (RIN 2060-AS13) the industry for additional information on emissions from small glycol dehydrators after learning that the air toxics emissions standards for those units may actually be below the level of emissions that can be detected by the method used to ensure compliance (215 DEN A-3, 11/6/15). The original deadline to respond was Jan. 26, but the agency received a request for more time from the American Petroleum Institute. Comments can be filed at http://src.bna.com/b4v.
-
Democrats Seize On Porter Ranch Gas Leak
Jan 15, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Carla Marinucci
California’s Porter Ranch environmental fiasco, the gas leak which has displaced thousands of Los Angeles-area homeowners and could cost billions in damages, could have a last political impact.
That’s what Democrats in Southern California’s swing 25th Congressional District are counting on, as the disaster lingers into its third month and as an aggressive new Democratic challenger ramps up attacks on Rep. Steve Knight, the Republican who represents the lion’s share of Porter Ranch constituents.
Democrat Bryan Caforio, the Valencia attorney running against Knight, told POLITICO California this week that the freshman Republican has been “totally AWOL” on Porter Ranch, failing to show up at local meetings while residents have struggled to get help.
“It’s a tragedy that’s happening here — an environmental disaster,’’ Caforio said of the incident, which has raged since Oct. 23, when the gas leak started. “Steve Knight has been totally missing in action …. his first public statement was on Dec. 30, when he said SoCalGas was 'working diligently' to fix it," he said.
Daniel Outlaw, a spokesman for Knight, told POLITICO California via email that the congressman “has taken a behind the scenes role on this issue.”
Knight, in an emailed statement to POLITICO California, said: “My understanding is that state and local agencies have been informed and involved for the duration of the leak. At this point in time I don’t believe politicizing this incident by getting the federal government more involved will help anyone and in fact could interfere with the repair and cleanup process.”
Since it was discovered in October, the leak has pumped massive amounts of methane gas into the air surrounding Porter Ranch and the region of Aliso Canyon in northern Los Angeles county. Residents have complained of a sickening smell, health impacts that include headaches, and thousands have been relocated. Gov. Jerry Brown has declared a state of emergency, and SoCalGas already has racked up tens of millions in costs. Critics have called the incident the worst environmental disaster since the BP Gulf oil spill.
Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat from Sherman Oaks who represents the neighboring 30th Congressional District but only a fraction of the Porter Ranch residents, has called on Brown to back efforts to make businesses near the leak eligible for Economic Injury Disaster Loans from the Small Business Administration.
Meanwhile, both of California’s U.S. senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, joined this week in urging the Obama Administration, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to address issues surrounding the Porter Ranch leak.
Knight, in his statement emailed to POLITICO, said his goal is “to ensure that this situation is resolved as quickly and effectively as possible,’’ and vowed to take “any appropriate steps” to protect residents.
His spokesman said Knight contacted SoCalGas officials in November “to receive an update” about their strategies and to hear about efforts to control “any potential harm” to the community. In December, the spokesman said, Knight “spoke with the Los Angeles Unified School District Deputy Superintendent Michelle King” about possible relocation of students.
He also said Knight’s staff has a web page to update residents, and “has been in regular contact” with gas company officials since then, and they have attended monthly Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council meetings.
-
EPA: Mercury Rule Reconsideration Case Should Proceed
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's denial of reconsideration petitions on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants should proceed now that the main litigation challenging the rule has been resolved, the agency said in a court filing (ARIPPA v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1180, motions filed 1/14/16).
The EPA, in a motion filed Jan. 14, said there is “no reason” to further delay progress on the reconsideration lawsuits now that the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards have been remanded back to the agency by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. However, two power sector trade groups have asked the D.C. Circuit to continue to hold their challenge in abeyance pending the EPA's action on remand of the MATS rule.
Utility industry groups and environmental groups are challenging the EPA's denial of all remaining reconsideration requests on the mercury standards, which the agency estimated to cost the power sector $9.6 billion per year. The litigation has been held in abeyance since August 2015 pending resolution of the challenges to the main MATS regulation.
The U.S. Supreme Court in June ruled that the EPA erred when it failed to consider cost in making a finding that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate air toxics emissions from power plants, a decision that triggered a requirement that the agency issue standards (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 80 ERC 1577, 2015 BL 207163 (2015); 125 DEN A-1, 6/30/15).
However, the D.C. Circuit in December decided to leave the MATS rule in place while the EPA addresses the Michigan v. EPA ruling (White Stallion Energy Ctr. LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1100, order issued 12/15/15).
The EPA told the D.C. Circuit in its latest filing that now that the main MATS litigation has been resolved, the legal challenges to the EPA's denial of petitions for reconsideration of the rule are now ripe for the court to review. The agency requested that the D.C. Circuit remove the litigation from abeyance and require involved parties to submit proposed briefing schedules within 10 days.
Power Industry: Wait for EPA Action
The Utility Air Regulatory Group and ARIPPA, both power sector groups that are challenging the EPA's denial of reconsideration petitions, want their challenges to remain in abeyance. The power sector groups said that there is still uncertainty over the legality of the MATS rule because the EPA has not yet addressed the Supreme Court's ruling in Michigan v. EPA.
“The basis for holding these cases in abeyance has not changed,” the power industry groups said in a joint motion filed Jan. 14.
It would be premature and a potential waste of resources for the court to move ahead with consideration of the MATS reconsideration lawsuits until the EPA completes the required rulemaking on whether it is appropriate and necessary to regulate based in part on cost consideration, the power sector groups said.
Additionally, the power groups argued that their challenges should not proceed at this time because issues they intend to raise can and should be addressed in the context of EPA's action on remand.
The Hawaiian Electric Co. Inc., which petitioned the EPA to reconsider the particulate matter standard established in the MATS rule for oil-fired electric steam generating units that burn liquid oil and are located outside of the mainland U.S., asked the court to enter an order removing the challenges from abeyance. If the court chooses to continue to hold some of the other consolidated challenges in abeyance, the Hawaiian utility said those challenges should be separated so its litigation can proceed expeditiously.
-
EPA Haze Plan For Texas, Oklahoma Sets Precedent On Rejected SIPs
Jan 15, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's decision to reject Texas and Oklahoma's state implementation plans (SIPs) for complying with the agency's regional haze program and instead impose an EPA-crafted plan on the states sets a precedent on how the agency will handle future situations where one state's SIP compromises other states' ability to comply, an environmentalist says.
Texas as an upwind state failed to craft an emissions control plan that would adequately cut interstate transport of regional haze-forming pollution, in turn hindering downwind Oklahoma from complying with the haze program's emissions reduction requirements, EPA said. As a result the agency disapproved parts of both states' SIPs for the haze program, which aims to cut pollution and restore visibility in national parks and wilderness areas.
The environmentalist says EPA's decision to disapprove portions of both states' plans is important precedent for how the agency handles similar situations in the future. “I don't think that the fact pattern here is unique to Texas. The heart of the problem with the Texas plan is that Texas didn't properly analyze reasonable progress controls, and therefore, during the consultation process with other states, didn't provide accurate information to other states on controls for Texas sources. Other states have committed the same error, such as Nebraska,” the source says.
EPA is looking at issues related to “reasonable further progress” (RFP) in Nebraska's haze plan under a voluntary remand, after initially rejecting the state's plan because of various shortcomings, including inadequate controls to cut pollution in certain areas. These issues have been severed from other legal questions over haze planning in Nebraska, which are currently under litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in State of Nebraska v. EPA, et al., and National Parks Conservation Association, et al. v. EPA, et al. The court heard argument in the cases Sept. 23.
While the source says that Nebraska is an example of the problems in some states' regional haze plans, “the errors Texas made have particular significance, though, because Texas has such a large impact on other states” as a result of its emissions. Indeed, “Texas sources contribute more to poor air quality in Oklahoma than Oklahoma sources do.”
The source adds, “So this was a case where both Texas and other states suffer poor air quality because Texas did not properly analyze the controls available for cleaning up Texas facilities.”
“I do think that the Texas rule sets an important precedent for how EPA should deal with this situation moving forward,” says the environmentalist. “EPA makes clear in the Texas rule that when faced with this situation, EPA should disapprove both the upwind state's long-term strategy (which in this example was Texas) as well as the downwind state's reasonable progress goals (which in this example was Oklahoma),” the source adds.
Federal Plan
EPA on Jan. 5 issued its federal implementation plan (FIP) through which it directly writes haze reduction plans for those parts of the Texas and Oklahoma SIPs that it rejected. In the rulemaking, the agency disapproved Texas' SIP, because it says the state did not propose emissions controls sufficient to ensure “reasonable further progress” not only in Texas, but also in neighboring Oklahoma. The agency further disapproves Oklahoma's plan, imposing a FIP for the state with respect to the Wichita Mountains area that receives cross-border pollution from Texas.
EPA's 1999 regional haze rule requires that states submit SIPs to demonstrate how they will reduce haze to natural conditions in national parks and wilderness areas, known as Class I areas, by 2064. The program set a schedule of SIP submissions, with the first round due by 2008, although some plans were delayed. The first wave of such SIPs focused on imposition of best available retrofit technology (BART) on eligible air pollution sources, such as power plants.
Imposition of BART, while controversial, is however a one-time requirement, while the need to show how states will make RFP is an ongoing requirement under the program that will feature in many new state haze plans now in development for the second phase of the program.
States must also craft a “long-term strategy” showing how they will meet the 2064 goal, and where their haze-forming emissions impact other states' attainment, they must consult with those other states.
“During the interstate consultation required by the Regional Haze Rule, Oklahoma and Texas discussed the significant contribution of sources in Texas to visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains, but Texas concluded that no additional controls were warranted for its sources during the first planning period to ensure reasonable progress at the Wichita Mountains, or at its own Class I areas, the Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains National Parks,” EPA says in the final rule, faulting Texas' conclusions on the necessary controls in the SIP.
“In reaching this conclusion, Texas relied on an analysis that obscured the benefits of potentially cost-effective controls on those sources or groups of sources with the largest visibility impacts in these Class I areas by inclusion of those controls with little visibility benefit, but which served to increase the total cost figures,” EPA finds.
“This flawed analysis deprived Oklahoma of the information it needed to properly assess the reasonableness of controls on Texas sources during the consultation process and prevented Texas from properly assessing the reasonableness of controls to remedy visibility at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains,” EPA says.
Texas in its proposed SIP did not require controls on its power plants beyond existing regulatory mandates, but EPA in the FIP imposes additional controls or control upgrades for sulfur dioxide (SO2), which contributes to particulate matter formation, from 15 electrical generating units at several power plants.
EPA's plan disapproves aspects of haze planning related to the state's reliance on interstate emissions trading, but does not impose federal measures in their place. EPA does, however, state that its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule emissions trading program should suffice as equivalent to BART for Texas power plants.
RFP Assessment
Meanwhile, EPA's FIP for Texas has previously attracted criticism for what opponents say is a new departure in assessing RFP on a unit-specific level, rather than for a state as a whole.
For example, a broad coalition of 21 industry associations, including major groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in April 20 comments on EPA's then-proposed FIP said, “After conducting an individual source and individual emission control analysis of a small subset of sources within Texas, EPA concluded that several sources should be required to install additional control technologies.”
The comments added, “Not only does this approach ignore State primacy in establishing reasonable progress goals, it unlawfully shifts the focus of the reasonable progress goals from source categories to individual sources.”
The coalition said EPA's proposed FIP usurped state authority, second-guessed states' judgment, and was contrary to the Clean Air Act's principle of co-operative federalism. The comments also criticized EPA's characterization of the consultation between Texas and Oklahoma as somehow inadequate.
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI), representing shareholder-owned electric companies, in its April 20 comments echoed the industry coalition's concerns about the interstate consultation. “In support of its proposed FIP, EPA's main rationale is that Texas and Oklahoma did not properly confer regarding [reasonable progress goals, or RPGs]. This forms the basis for the Agency's disapproval of Texas' and Oklahoma's SIPs and the imposition of its own FIP.”
EEI added, “However, Texas and Oklahoma's conferral regarding the RPGs was fully consistent with the [Clean Air Act] and the regional haze regulations, and, during that process, the states agreed on which regulatory programs were needed for reasonable progress. EPA must respect this decision and recognize that the Agency's imposition of a FIP is unreasonable and unauthorized under the [air law] given these state actions.”
Critics claim that EPA departed from the established “four-factor” analysis for determining RFP by adding another consideration, the potential visibility improvement. The four factors are: time necessary for compliance, energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, remaining useful life of the source, and the costs of compliance. Industry groups further decried EPA's selection of a smaller universe of sources than all possible sources in the state that could impact visibility. The agency in the final FIP for Texas said this would have been impractical, and distorts the analysis to exclude possible cost-effective emissions reductions. Further, the air law does not define which sources to analyze when considering RFP, EPA says.
-
Cuomo Deals Final Blow to Coal Power in New York
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Coal-fired power plants, already on the decline in New York state, were dealt a final blow when Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) set a goal in his State of the State message to be coal-free by 2020.
There are three coal plants currently operating in the state, but one, NRG Energy's Huntley generating facility outside of Buffalo, is scheduled to close down March 1. The Dunkirk coal-fired power plant, which is also owned by NRG, was mothballed Jan. 1.
Cuomo said in his Jan. 13 State of the State speech to the Legislature that he would direct the state Public Service Commission (PSC) to work with the Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York Independent System Operator on a proceeding to close two remaining plants, the Cayuga and Somerset facilities, by 2020 (09 DEN A-11, 1/14/16).
Cuomo said the two coal plants, which are owned by Upstate New York Power Producers Inc., could either shut down or convert to natural gas. Cayuga currently provides 312 megawatts of power, while Somerset provides 668 megawatts.
Coal No Longer Needed
“While coal supplied the bulk of our energy needs up until the 1950s, the nation now enjoys access to cleaner, greener and more sustainable energy resources for power production,” Cuomo said in his prepared speech.
Cuomo said, although coal only supplies about 4 percent of the state's electricity, the plants should be closed to help the state meet its goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by 40 percent by 2030. He said the state would provide $19 million in assistance to the two western New York communities where the plants are located.
Darren Suarez, director of government affairs for the Business Council of New York State, told Bloomberg BNA that he would have preferred that the governor allowed market forces to determine the plants' fate.
He said “the economics of coal haven't worked out” due to low natural gas prices and other factors. It's “largely inevitable” that, regardless of Cuomo's actions, the remaining plants would have had to re-think their operations due to these forces, he said.
Indian Point Nuclear Plant
The New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, an organization composed of business groups and certain labor unions, urged Cuomo to reconsider his position to shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant, given the future loss of the two coal plants.
“Keeping Indian Point operating is consistent with the governor's recent stated position that nuclear power is clean power and that carbon reduction is essential to address climate change,” Arthur J. Kremer, chairman of the Alliance, said in a statement. “As such, the state should now withdraw its opposition to the independent, federal license renewal for Indian Point.”
“However, if the state somehow succeeds in its push to close Indian Point, it will take a big step backwards and go off the tracks on meeting its carbon reduction goals,” he said. “Closing Indian Point, which provides more than 10 percent of the state's electricity, will add 8.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually and cost New York $1.6 billion in annual economic activity.”
Indian Point is owned by Entergy Corp.
Cuomo's announcement will also complicate an existing proceeding before the PSC to allow for the purchase of Cayuga and Somerset by Riesling Power LLC, a subsidiary of Bicent Power LLC.
Ruth E. Leistensnider, a partner at Nixon Peabody LLP who represents Riesling Power LLC, said the company believes “these well-run assets” are “critical to the long-term reliability of the electric grid.”
“The plants also provide a unique opportunity for industrial and energy development that will help drive economic redevelopment in these areas,” she told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “There are a number of announced initiatives on the future of energy markets in the state of New York. The details on how they will be achieved while maintaining a reliable electric system in the state at a fair economic price will highlight the importance of these assets to the system.”
-
House Members Seek EPA Briefing on Flint Lead Scare
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Ware
Eight Republican and Democratic members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in a Jan. 15 letter urged the Environmental Protection Agency to hold an “urgent” briefing soon on the drinking water situation in Flint, Mich.
Over the past few months, elevated lead blood levels have been found in some children in Flint after the city switched its source of drinking water from the Detroit water system to the Flint River. Lead can cause liver, kidney or central nervous system problems and an increased risk of cancer. It has been suggested the lead appeared after the city didn't use proper corrosion control treatment when it made the switch.
Reports also have suggested Flint's drinking water may be contaminated with e-coli and other biological pathogens and chemicals such as trihalomethanes, the letter said.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) has asked President Barack Obama to declare both an emergency and an “expedited major disaster” for Genesee County, which would make available aid including grants for temporary housing and home repairs and low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses (see related story).
The committee members said they understood the EPA has established a Safe Drinking Water Task Force to provide assistance to Flint and has announced plans to audit Michigan's drinking water program.
“We urgently request a briefing on these matters and on EPA's anticipated role as the situation in Flint continues to unfold,” they said.
The letter was signed by Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), committee chair; Frank Pallone (D-N.J.); John Shimkus (R-Ill.); Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.); Tim Murphy (R-Pa.); Diana DeGette (D-Colo.); Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.) and Gene Green (D-Texas).
-
Lawmakers Seek EPA Briefing On Michigan Water Crisis
Jan 15, 2016 | InsideEPA
A bipartisan group of lawmakers is calling on EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to provide an “urgent” briefing to discuss EPA's efforts in the Flint, MI, drinking water crisis, adding to a chorus of cries for more federal action in the disaster, including the governor's request for the White House to declare a federal emergency in the city.
“We are extremely concerned about the drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan,” leaders of the House Energy & Commerce Committee write in a Jan. 15 letter to McCarthy. “It is our understanding that the EPA has established a Safe Drinking Water Task Force to provide assistance to Flint and has announced plans to audit Michigan's Drinking Water Program. We urgently request a briefing on these matters and on EPA's anticipated role as the situation in Flint continues to unfold.”
The lawmakers, including committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-NJ), ask EPA to provide the briefing by Jan. 22. The committee has oversight of federal drinking water issues.
The briefing request follows a Jan. 14 call from Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) for President Obama to declare a federal emergency in Flint to expedite major disaster relief. Snyder is requesting $31 million, including at least $10 million for a three-month supply of clean drinking water and millions more for filters, filter cartridges and water testing kits, according to the Associated Press, which says the application for federal aid says the needs of people in Flint “far exceed the state's capability.”
Environmentalists have criticized EPA for failing to take emergency action under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to address the crisis, and have filed a notice of intent to sue the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and local authorities, alleging that they failed to properly implement EPA-mandated lead testing and corrosion control programs in Flint.
The number of infants and children with above-average levels of lead in their blood has nearly doubled since 2014 when the city switched its water source from Detroit's water system back to Flint's water. “Although the city has now reverted to using treated water from Detroit, according to news reports, testing still reveals elevated lead levels in Flint's water due to corrosion damage in the pipes,” the lawmakers say in their letter. Exposure to elevated levels of lead can cause irreversible brain damage and other health issues for children.
EPA Region 5 Administrator Susan Hedman wrote to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Dec. 10 declining for now to take action on a petition from environmental groups for the agency to use its authority under SDWA section 1431, which allows the agency to take action when a contaminant in a public water system “may present an imminent and substantial endangerment.”
“In light of the actions that the State and the City have taken during the past several weeks, EPA could arguably conclude that your petition fails to meet the jurisdictional prerequisites set forth in Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act,” Hedman writes. “However, EPA has instead decided to defer action on the petition until such time as the Agency determines that corrosion control treatment is fully optimized for the Flint system.”
Hedman in an interview with the Detroit News, published Jan. 12, expanded on the agency's reasons for urging the state to act earlier this year rather than taking federal action, explaining EPA was analyzing whether it had the statutory authority to force action.
“If this is how the EPA views their powers, the agency might as well stay out of the Flint crisis because they have clearly been part of the problem,” NRDC said in a Jan. 14 statement. “The people of Flint have been let down by every level of government -- City, State, and Federal -- through the sorts of inaction and lack of transparency that are painfully on display in comments from Region 5 Director Susan Hedman.”
-
San Francisco Voters to Consider Water Restoration Measure
Jan 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E.Cutler
San Francisco Bay area voters in June will decide whether to levy a $12 a parcel tax to fund $500 million in water restoration projects and climate-related flood protection.
The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority approved a resolution to put on the ballot the measure that would raise $25 million a year for 20 years in the nine-county Bay Area.
The funds would be used for activities that would reduce toxins and trash, improve water quality, restore habitat and increase shoreline access along the interconnected waterways.
About 90 percent of the wetlands around San Francisco Bay have been destroyed or permanently altered while much of the surrounding lands are fully developed or heavily urbanized, said Ian Wren, San Francisco Baykeeper staff scientist.
“As sea levels rise, a lot of our existing wetlands are going to be inundated, so there's a need to restore the areas upland of those and some of the historic wetlands in order to provide for wetlands that may be lost in the future,” which will provide water quality improvement and reduced flood risk, Wren told Bloomberg BNA.
The $25 million a year “can get you so far when you're talking about big restoration projects and there is hopefully a lot of this money that can be leveraged to the private sector as well as federal and state funding to get some large restoration projects,” Wren said Jan. 15.
Support Expected
Sejal Choksi-Chugh, San Francisco Baykeeper executive director, said Jan. 15 she expects great support. “It is a very small amount, but it is going to result in a large amount of money for protecting the shoreline from rising waters.”
The measure also is backed by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Choksi-Chugh told Bloomberg BNA. The group's members include such companies as Facebook Inc., Google Inc. and Oracle Corp.
The San Francisco Bay Area Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Program would authorize projects in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma counties.
The measure approved Jan. 13 would split funds among the areas. A minimum of 9 percent would fund projects in the North Bay, 18 percent in the East Bay, 11 percent in the West Bay and 12 percent in the South Bay.
The remaining money would be allocated and, like the designated projects, would be overseen by an independent citizen committee.
The tax proceeds would pay off bonds the authority issues for water projects. The California Legislature in 2008 created the restoration authority to raise local funds to restore critical bay water habitat.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested