Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 6/2/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Weekly Resin Report: Softer PE Prices Ahead; Another PP Price Cut Coming This Month
Jun 2, 2016 | Plastics Today
By Plastics Today Staff
The resin markets continued to be very active the week of May 23, with the vast majority of May business conducted during the second half of the month, according to the PlasticsExchange (Chicago). -
(ACC Mentioned) Analysis: Polypropylene Producers Turn to Asian Automotive Demand to Fend off Heavy Competition
Jun 2, 2016 | Platts
By Tess Tseng and Yi-Jeng Huang
Producers are moving toward polypropylene impact copolymers and other higher value PP for automotive applications, banking on rising automobile demand in Asia to lift profits, as the market for commodity grade PP homopolymers becomes increasingly competitive... -
ZDHC to Launch Online ‘Chemical Registry’
Jun 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) group is launching an online portal that will assess whether a chemical formulation complies with its manufacturing restricted substances list (MRSL). -
Sizzling Demand for Halogen-Free Flame Retardants
Jun 1, 2016 | Plastics News
By Clare Goldsberry
According to new research, the market size of halogen-free flame retardants, which was $3.36 billion in 2015, is projected to reach $5.38 billion by 2021, registering a CAGR of 8.4% between 2016 and 2021. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA's 1-BP Draft Risk Assessment Needs 'Refinement'
Jun 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA's draft risk assessment of 1-bromopropane (1-BP) is in need of further refinement to ensure risks are not overestimated. -
Senator's TSCA Concerns Grow
Jun 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott and Brian Dabbs
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul isn't backing down from his objections last week that derailed a sweeping overhaul of U.S. chemical law, and that has left supporters scouring the landscape for other ways to get the bill back on the floor in the weeks ahead. -
TSCA Reform Bill Might Set New Limits On EPA's Regulation Of 'Articles'
Jun 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Pending compromise legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) might set new limits on EPA's authority to regulate chemicals in “articles,” or finished products, by requiring the agency to consider human or environmental exposure to substances... -
Federal Government, Not States, Should Regulate Chemicals
Jun 1, 2016 | Economics21
By Preston Cooper
Writers at E21 have generally been critical of regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I argued that the Clean Power Plan, an EPA scheme to reduce carbon emissions, placed unjustifiably disparate burdens on different states. -
Revamped Chemical Safety Law Gives EPA More Power
Jun 2, 2016 | Cortez Journal
By Elizabeth Shogren
The normally divided Congress got together this week to take on a major overhaul of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, giving the Environmental Protection Agency broad new authority to regulate chemicals in millions of products American use every day. -
Shumlin Signs Toxic Chemical Bill in North Bennington
Jun 2, 2016 | Vermont Public Radio
By Howard Weiss Tisman
Gov. Peter Shumlin signed a new hazardous chemical bill Wednesday that gives the state more power to go after companies that pollute the environment. -
Making Sense of the New Reports on Cell Phones and Cancer
Jun 1, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Curt DellaValle
You may have read the headlines about a new study linking cellphone radiation to cancer. What does this mean for your health? Researchers at the National Toxicology Program found an increase in tumors among rats exposed to radio-frequency radiation similar... -
Wearable Wristbands Detect Flame Retardants
Jun 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick
Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN) recently featured an article on simple, silicone wristbands used to detect chemicals in the everyday environment. Developed by researchers from Oregon State University, these wearable wristbands act like sponges to absorb chemicals... -
State Regulators Group Releases Guide for Rule Compliance
Jun 1, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A group of air regulators released a guide today for states that want to proceed with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan despite the rule being frozen by the Supreme Court. -
Sanders Challenges White House and DNC over Fracking
Jun 1, 2016 | Washington Post
By David Weigel
Just days after two federal agencies seemed to clear the way for offshore fracking in the Pacific Ocean, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called on it to stop. -
Federal Environmental Regulators Dispel Fracking Fears
Jun 1, 2016 | Forbes
By Brigham A. McCown
Last Month, the Obama Administration’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) in a rulingfound no significant environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing off the California shores. -
3 Key Energy Policies That Can Help Us Turn the Corner on Climate
Jun 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Diane Regas
We know we need massive decreases in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 if 177 countries are to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement. -
California Proposes Methane Reductions at Oil and Gas Sites
Jun 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz and Carolyn Whetzel
The California Air Resources Board proposed new leak detection and control standards designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas facilities. -
Ukraine Attack Prompts Energy Industry to Take a Fresh Look at Manual Operation
Jun 1, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Tim Starks
A major lesson from December's cyberattack on the Ukrainian electricity grid is the value of being able to shift to manual operation to restore power, energy industry organization officials said today. -
Fossil Fuels’ Unpopularity Leaves a Mark
Jun 1, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Erin Ailworth
Many major fossil-fuel projects across the U.S., from pipelines to export terminals, have been shelved or significantly delayed because of a confluence of new regulations, grass-roots opposition and a drop in energy prices. -
PHMSA Addresses Transport of Acetylene in Final Rule
Jun 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
National Transportation Safety Board recommendations for the transport of acetylene cylinders would be incorporated under a final rule by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration scheduled to be published June 2. -
Freight Railroads in Wis. Move Ahead on Safety
Jun 1, 2016 | Green Bay Press-Gazette
By Michael J. Rush
Railroads play a crucial role in the Badger State, with the thousands of employees who call Wisconsin home operating on approximately 3,400 miles of track. -
Environmental, Industry Groups Disagree on Haze Air Rule
Jun 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Environmental groups urged the Environmental Protection Agency to not follow through on an April proposal that would delay submittal deadlines for state regional haze plans by three years, while power generators called the proposal an “extension”... -
New Pacific Coast Pact Signed to Battle Climate Change
Jun 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The governors of California, Oregon and Washington, British Columbia's premier and the mayors of six West Coast cities signed a pact to collaborate on efforts to address climate change and build a regional clean energy economy.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Weekly Resin Report: Softer PE Prices Ahead; Another PP Price Cut Coming This Month
Jun 2, 2016 | Plastics Today
By Plastics Today Staff
The resin markets continued to be very active the week of May 23, with the vast majority of May business conducted during the second half of the month, according to the PlasticsExchange (Chicago). Railcar availability for both polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) was slightly better this past week, as was demand, which facilitated a high volume of transactions. PE prices averaged out steady, with some grades moving either a half-cent higher or lower. After a sharp 3-cent plunge the previous week, PP consolidated and was flat.
Spot PE trading was solid, with a well-balanced flow of both buy and sell orders creating a very liquid market in the key commodity grades. HDPE availability is leaning toward abundant; however, not all PE resin—notably, LDPE high clarity for film and LLDPE high flow for injection—is readily available in larger quantities.
Despite the recovery in crude oil prices, which theoretically should support international PE markets, Asian and South American levels have slipped amid heavy supplies, hampering incremental U.S. export efforts. So, where is the resin? Well, based on restricted production capacity mostly due to reactor maintenance, writes the PlasticsExchange in its weekly Market Update, it was not surprising to see relatively snug supplies during this past month. According to the American Chemistry Council, only 3.23 billion lb of PE was produced in April, the lowest in 15 months.
Considering the absence of another industry-wide PE price increase nomination, the buy side of the industry has been talking about a decrease in June, especially as capacity is expected to return online. However, PlasticsExchange analysts say they have yet to see an abundance of material hit the market that might support such a price break, and producers, who have plenty of room to absorb inventory, seem inclined to hold this level another month. Still, the market is maintaining a slightly bearish undertone and softer prices may be in the offing, at least in the spot market.
The spot PP market has been hot: Better supplies and lower prices have aided transactional volumes, which continue to grow. There is a good assortment of availability, both domestic railcars and packaged imports, which, incidentally, are starting to thin. The sharp 3-cent decline in the previous week spurred demand; some processors required resin to run, but others were re-stocking inventories at these favorable prices.
The phenomena of PP imports have more than balanced the previously short market, wrestling pricing power away from producers and into the hands of processors, according to PlasticsExchange analysts. Resin producers combated the open import arbitrage, which brought in a flood of PP material, by implementing two $0.05/lb price decreases, the first in April and the second forthcoming in June.
The rapidly declining prices left some resellers with relatively high-cost imported material; some of them probably will be more cautious with their next round of import purchases. We are witnessing a classic supply/demand pricing cycle, and if it continues on cue, where lower prices restrict incremental supply, there should be another resin shortfall developing sometime during the summer, which would be accompanied by… a leg of higher prices.
http://www.plasticstoday.com/weekly-resin-report-softer-pe-prices-ahead-pp-price-cut-coming-month/214015803924710
-
Jun 2, 2016 | Platts
By Tess Tseng and Yi-Jeng Huang
Producers are moving toward polypropylene impact copolymers and other higher value PP for automotive applications, banking on rising automobile demand in Asia to lift profits, as the market for commodity grade PP homopolymers becomes increasingly competitive, an industry source said Tuesday.
Japan's Mitsui Chemicals and Prime Polymer, in which Mitsui Chemicals has a 65% stake, announced plans to raise its global PP compound capacity by 5% to 1.05 million mt/year by fiscal 2017 (April 2017-March 2018) in response to growing demand from the automotive sector, in a joint press release earlier this month.
Production capacity in Asia, excluding Japan, is expected to increase 5.7% to 280,000 mt/year while in North America, capacity is set to expand by 7.3% to 440,000 mt/year, according to the release.
Mitsui Chemicals and Prime Polymer are not the only producers eyeing automotive PP applications recently.In an interview with S&P Global Platts last month, Saudi Basic Industries Corp.'s executive vice president of polymers Abdulrahman Al-Fageeh said: "We have shifted some of our portfolio in our local production [from homopolymer to copolymer] here in Sinopec Sabic Tianjin Petrochemical [SSTPC] to cope with [China's automotive] demand."
SSTPC is a 50:50 joint venture between Sabic and Sinopec with a nameplate capacity of 450,000 mt/year of PP and 600,000 mt/year of polyethylene.
In Southeast Asia, PP demand from the automotive sector remains a bright spot, said Thailand's IRPC in April during the Chinaplas 2016 conference.
IRPC has invested heavily in a 100,000 mt/year PP plant at Rayong using compounding technology licensed from Japan Polypropylene Corporation, or JPP, suitable for automobile bumpers and instrument panels, company sources said. The plant is expected to start up in end-2017.
Thailand is a key PP exporter to China.CHINA'S AUTO DEMAND TO DRIVE PP COPOLYMER GROWTH
China's automobile demand is expected to grow by 1.4 million units in 2016, or up 7% year on year, to around 21.4 million units, according to Scotiabank's 2016 Global Auto Report, outpacing demand growth rate of 4% to 33.6 million units across Asia this year.
So far, growth in China's automobile sales has broadly been in line with Scotiabank's forecast. Between January and April, sales in China grew 6.1% year on year to 8.7 million units, according to China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, or CAAM.
Chinese production grew by 5.7% to 8.8 million units over the same period, roughly in balance with demand. Revenue figures provided more evidence of demand growth in 2016, with sales for the first four months rising 7% to about $181 billion from the same period last year, according to latest data from China's National Bureau of Statistics.
Plastics are used in auto parts extensively, as part of the industry trend of "lightweighting," the practice of building lighter vehicles for fuel efficiency and performance, making the auto industry a key demand center for PP impact copolymers and other automotive PP compounds.
"The percentage use of PP copolymer in the automotive and consumer goods industries is increasing every year, the sophistication of the parts -- mainly injection molding -- is increasingly using lighter and lighter parts," said David Lines, principal of Energy & Chemicals Advisory at Nexant, adding that copolymers are usually compounded with reinforcing agents such as fibers and talcs.
An average car uses about 150 kg of plastics and polymer composites in 2014, according to the American Chemistry Council. This amount is expected to double by 2020, making it one of the most important growth sectors for PP producers, industry sources said.CHINA'S COPOLYMER IMPORTS FALLING, HINTING FUTURE HEADWINDS
Despite strong growth seen in China automobile demand and production, PP copolymer imports into China have been falling in 2016. From January to April of 2016, China imported about 428,000 mt of PP copolymer, down 10% compared with the same period last year, China customs data showed.
Supply side headwinds are seen in the form of increased Chinese domestic production of PP copolymers, which may derail imports, an industry source said.
"Copolymer demand is definitely increasing in China, but is offset by new supply from coal-to-olefins plants, which have been switching to copolymers since last year," said a major trader, adding that domestic copolymer production is the main reason for falling imports.
Current production is sporadic and opportunistic, but CTO producers may ramp up copolymer production if homopolymer prices continue to fall, he predicted.
"CTO producers are increasingly producing low melt flow index [MI] material, but high MI material still comes mostly from imports," said another trader. Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are main exporters of copolymers to China, he added.
On the demand side, risks include the general slowdown of the Chinese economy affecting consumer demand.
China's manufacturing sector continued to decline in May, with the Caixin Manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index falling to 49.2, compared with 49.4 in April and 49.7 in March. A reading below 50 indicates contraction.
Although sales revenue for China's automobile sector in the first four months rose 7% compared with last year, April revenue was weakest -- up by just 5.1% year on year -- according to NBS data. This raises doubt on the sustainability of China's demand for automobiles, a source noted.
Demand in Southeast Asia is also relatively weak, with 2015 automobile sales across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations member countries falling 3.7% year on year to 3.07 million units, according to the Association of Indonesian Automotive Industries.http://www.platts.com/latest-news/petrochemicals/singapore/analysis-polypropylene-producers-turn-to-asian-27598385
-
ZDHC to Launch Online ‘Chemical Registry’
Jun 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) group is launching an online portal that will assess whether a chemical formulation complies with its manufacturing restricted substances list (MRSL).
The ZDHC chemical registry will include a list of chemical products and an MRSL conformance assessment for each chemical formulation.
It will also provide textile manufacturers with documentation showing the extent to which a chemical product conforms with the ZDHC MRSL and other chemical accreditations.
It is due to be launched in August.
ZDHC executive director, Frank Michel, says it will be an "open, flexible data portal" to help brands, suppliers and chemical companies assess a chemical's compliance.
Without this type of portal, each textile manufacturer would need to assess every product from each of their chemical suppliers against the ZDHC MRSL to ensure conformance," he says.
"Our goal is to provide a simple, easy, inexpensive way to provide this information to all stakeholders."
How it works
The first step sees a chemical company register as a producer, manufacturer, or supplier of chemical formulations.
The user can then register its formulations. To be listed, and visible on the registry, a formulation must have a safety data sheet (SDS).
Listing, however, does not mean the formulation conforms to ZDHC's MRSL or any other scheme. "It just confirms the existence of quality documentation," it says.
Once listed, the chemical company can apply for the formulation to be assessed for conformance to ZDHC's MRSL.
The assessment, which includes the use of criteria from accreditation companies such as bluesign, will attribute the formulation with a 'confidence level' indicating its conformance.
ZDHC will be working with chemical companies worldwide to include their product lists in the chemical registry.
This, it says, will pave the way for textile manufacturers to get clear MRSL conformance information on the chemical products they are purchasing.
hemicals advisor for NGO ChemSec, Jerker Ligthart, says the chemical registry will prove highly useful in the textile sector. An easy way to find the "right chemistry for the right job has been long awaited in the supply chain", he says.
The chemical registry draws from experience learned during a pilot project conducted in 2015 across China, Taiwan, Pakistan, Scotland and Sri Lanka.
Meanwhile, the Foreign Trade Association's (FTA) environmental business initiative, Bepi, has launched a supply chain chemical management module (SCCM).
It aims to improve chemical management in the textile and footwear industry, and comes after Bepi announced that it is working with the ZDHC to offer chemical management training across the supply chains of their members.https://chemicalwatch.com/47689/zdhc-to-launch-online-chemical-registry
-
Sizzling Demand for Halogen-Free Flame Retardants
Jun 1, 2016 | Plastics News
By Clare Goldsberry
According to new research, the market size of halogen-free flame retardants, which was $3.36 billion in 2015, is projected to reach $5.38 billion by 2021, registering a CAGR of 8.4% between 2016 and 2021. The new report from MarketsandMarkets, a global market research firm, Halogen-Free Flame Retardants Market , looks at the market by type (aluminum hydroxide, organ-phosphorus and so forth), application (polyolefins, UPE, ETP and others), end-use industry and region.
Making flame retardants safer by eliminating toxic chemicals has been an ongoing goal for a number of years. Flame retardants have been used primarily in mattresses, children’s clothing (particularly sleepwear), upholstered furniture and casings around electronics. Many of these flame retardants contained brominated chemicals (polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs), a class of organohalogens that were found to be toxic to humans.
According to an article, “ Stop Playing ‘Whack-A-Mole’ with Toxic Flame Retardants, Health Advocates Urge ," written by Lynne Peeples, Environment and Public Health Reporter at theHuffington Post , Congress banned PCBs because of health concerns, and “replaced them with a chemical cousin, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE).” The problem with PBDEs is that they can migrate out of the materials into human beings through such innocuous means as house dust. Thus, the search for non-halogenated flame retardants.
One of the active players in the development of flame-retardant materials is FRX Polymers LLP. The Chelmsford, MA–based company won Frost & Sullivan’s Product Innovation of the Year Award in 2008 and 2013 for its environmentally friendly family of inherently flame-retardant plastics. In 2008, Frost & Sullivan wrote that the award was given to FRX Polymers “in recognition of the company’s creation of a new class of novel, high-performance, flame-retardant polymers that are used as transparent, high melt flow, non-burning specialty plastics technology and as polymeric phosphorus-containing flame-retardant additives. The company’s technology is far reaching in that it facilitates functional improvements in a variety of products: Electric and electronic devices, household equipment such as television set housings and kitchen appliances, electronic equipment housings (computers, fax machines, cell phones, PDAs, printers) and all types of electrical connectors and internals.”
In 2013, Frost & Sullivan noted that “FRX Polymers’ Nofia product has the ability to replace bromine-based and competitive halogen-free flame-retardant additives in commercial and industrial applications. The Nofia brand of inherently flame-retardant plastics and additives have the ability to address end-user needs for environmentally friendly non-toxic flame retardants. Frost & Sullivan research clearly shows that Nofia can be used to enhance the flame-retardant characteristics without changing the inherent characteristics of the targeted polymer or resin.”
On May 10, 2016, FRX Polymers and China’s Shengyi Technology Co. announced the joint development of a new copper-clad laminate (CCL) product with greatly improved dielectric properties compared with commercial halogen-free systems. The new CCL, based on FRX Polymers’ Nofia FR hardener system, is in the low loss region (0.005 - 0.010) with accompanying low dielectric constant. The breakthrough technology was unveiled in a joint technical paper presented at the IPC Expo in Las Vegas on March 17. The new CCL technology is expected to find initial applications in the smartphone and server segments of the printed circuit board market.
In addition to its electrical properties, the product also has high modulus, very low coefficient of thermal expansion, good peel strength, pressure cooker resistance and a strong UL 94 V-0 rating in the flammability test. This “game-changing development” is the result of a strong collaborative effort between the R&D teams at Shengyi and FRX over the last two years.
“We are proud to have worked with Shengyi Technology on this important development,” said Marc-Andre Lebel, President and CEO of FRX Polymers. Shengyi Techynology is a “world-class producer of CCLs with state-of-the-art manufacturing and R&D capabilities,” added Lebel.
Nofia phosphonates replace halogenated flame retardants, which are being phased out due to toxicity concerns, said FRX’s information. Nofia products have undergone extensive toxicology testing, received a favorable toxicological profile and have consequently been registered globally. They are produced using sustainable green chemistry principles such as a solvent-free production process, no waste by-products and near 100% atom efficiency. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2014 recognized FRX with the Environmental Merit Award, citing FRX as an example of an innovative New England company making a real difference by making products that reduce risks to human health and reduce environmental damage while simultaneously delivering fire safety. FRX was also awarded the Belgian Business Award for the Environment earlier this year.
Scientific advances in the area of chemicals and plastics has brought H.R. 2576 to the forefront of Congress. Called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, this bill is an update to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), under which “the EPA banned just five chemicals,” noted Peeples in her article. On April 28, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee considered and passed S 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical for the 21st Century Act. The House Energy & Commerce Committee voted to advance H.R. 2576, with the final vote (47-0 with one abstention), to move the bill from the committee to the full House of Representatives.
SPI: the plastics industry trade association has sent out a newsletter asking industry participants to write to their congressional representatives and encourage them to vote for this bill so that the TSCA can be brought into the 21st century.
http://www.plasticstoday.com/sizzling-demand-halogen-free-flame-retardants/191780651024718
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA's 1-BP Draft Risk Assessment Needs 'Refinement'
Jun 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA's draft risk assessment of 1-bromopropane (1-BP) is in need of further refinement to ensure risks are not overestimated.
This is according to industry comments submitted in response to the draft and at a recent meeting of the newly-formed Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC).
In written comments, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said the draft risk assessment's methodology is consistent with a screening-level risk assessment, rather than "a refined risk assessment", and "fails to use 'best science' approaches, which are critical to scientifically defensible assessment."
Prepared oral remarks from the ACC's senior director of regulatory and technical affairs, Christina Franz added: "It appears that study quality, relevance and methodology were not the most important criteria for EPA."
Instead, she said: "the studies selected were driven by the desire to use the lowest hazard values and the highest exposure values to ensure that the assessment was health protective of the 95th percentile."
Albemarle Corporation, a 1-BP manufacturer, said that the draft risk assessment "is likely to represent an overestimate of workplace human cancer risk, beyond the normal implementation of the precautionary principle".
The company also raised several other concerns at the EPA's approach. These include:
· the murine tumour type "has limited relevance to human cancer risk";
· using a non-threshold risk assessment model compounds "the inappropriateness" of the EPA's assessment;
· the dose response analysis for cancer endpoints diverges from standard EPA practice; and
· workplace exposures are not based on recent data and are probably overestimates.
Comments from the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) also raised concern with the "numerous" references in the draft risk assessment to "unsubstantiated" consumer uses of the substance.
According to the trade group: "1-BP products are not manufactured, distributed, marketed nor intended to be sold for consumer uses." It has called for these references to be "removed, substantiated or updated appropriately”".
Full range of exposures assessed?
But comments from a coalition of six NGOs question whether the draft risk assessment takes into account the full range of exposures to 1-BP.
Specific concerns cited by the groups include whether the risk assessment adequately addresses:
· exposure to communities in the vicinity of locations where 1-BP is used, processed or manufactured;
· dermal exposures, "despite acknowledging that such exposures occur"; and
· cumulative exposures to multiple carcinogenic solvents.
Underestimation of the full scope of exposures, they say, is "of great concern, as it could mean that 1-BP will continue to be used in settings that lead to harmful exposures and serious health impacts."
The NGOs also raised concern that some information regarding the manufacture of 1-BP is protected by claims of confidential business information (CBI).
They urged the EPA to "re-substantiate all claimed CBI that is cited in its Work Plan Chemical assessments and to pursue enforcement actions against chemical manufacturers that have failed to comply with reporting requirements."
A spokesperson for the EPA said that the agency provides multiple opportunities for public input throughout the assessment process, and the agency "carefully considers this information as a final assessment is developed."
CSAC
According to a spokesperson, the CSAC was established to provide the agency with "independent scientific advice on the TSCA Work Plan chemical assessments".
But in separate comments last month, the ACC laid out significant concerns with the committee. These included a "lack of diverse representation among the members selected", including that eight of the ten members are from academic backgrounds with "no clear background in regulatory risk assessments".
The ACC and the N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) Producers Group recently flagged up to the CSAC concerns with how the EPA has identified and evaluated work plan chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47769/us-epas-1-bp-draft-risk-assessment-needs-refinement
-
Jun 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott and Brian Dabbs
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul isn't backing down from his objections last week that derailed a sweeping overhaul of U.S. chemical law, and that has left supporters scouring the landscape for other ways to get the bill back on the floor in the weeks ahead.
Paul's lone objection on the floor May 26 blocked the bill from being passed under a fast-track procedure that would have virtually cemented overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act only days after the House version of the bill (H.R. 2576) sailed to passage in that chamber by a vote of 403-12 (101 DEN A-1, 5/25/16).
In a May 31 interview on Louisville radio station WHAS, the Kentucky senator only added to the objections he voiced on the floor last week, from the way the bill preempts state chemical regulation to language that he said essentially bars the Environmental Protection Agency from considering costs when assessing the safety of chemicals.
“I've been reading [the bill] over the weekend, and I'm going to give a speech on this next week when we go back,” Paul said in the interview, complaining that the “sweeping” overhaul of chemical law deserved more scrutiny.
The TSCA overhaul legislation would be the first significant update to the chemical law since 1976. Bill supporters say it would bring long overdue assessment of tens of thousands of chemicals already in U.S. commerce that the EPA has yet to vet, many of which may threaten human health and the environment.
Environmental groups and other supporters take issue with Paul's interpretations. For example, the bill precludes the consideration of costs only in the EPA's evaluation and decision on whether a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, Richard Denison, the Environmental Defense Fund's lead scientist, told Bloomberg BNA.
But costs are to be considered under the bill when the agency decides how to manage risks posed by the chemical, he said.
Costs Can be Considered
“If Senator Paul is claiming that the bill precludes EPA from taking into account costs of regulations, that is simply untrue,” Denison said. “In fact, it is quite the opposite.”
Paul was able to derail floor approval of the TSCA bill last week because it was offered under unanimous consent procedures.
Under that process, the bill would have been deemed passed as long as no senators objected.
The bill is called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, named for the late New Jersey Democratic senator, an early advocate of overhauling TSCA.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has other options for moving the bill forward with or without Paul's approval.
One option, said an aide to bill supporter Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), is to bring the bill to the Senate floor the traditional route, which could require time-consuming debate and a vote to avert a filibuster threat, perhaps after the chamber completes action on the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 2943) pending on the floor.
“We are hopeful that TSCA will move forward after the Senate concludes with the NDAA,” Donelle Harder, a spokeswoman for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told Bloomberg BNA. “We are still working with leadership on what that will look like.”
Action on Defense Proposal Not Assured
But quick action on that bill is no sure thing. The Senate is to take up a motion to proceed on the bill June 6 and vote on an NDAA amendment offered by Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) later that same day. But final passage could take up much, if not all, of next week.
An aide to McConnell cautioned that there is little wiggle room for floor time, given what is likely to be a crowded legislative agenda in the weeks ahead. Among the bills that could easily elbow the TSCA bill for floor time are the Defense Department and other appropriations bills and possible action to address the Zika virus and Puerto Rico's debt crisis.
But if Paul doesn't relent, it would likely force Senate leadership to move the legislation in ways that would require a series of procedural hurdles and mandatory waiting time. That process can involve roughly two weeks to get to final passage. McConnell aides declined to address how the TSCA bill might fit into the majority leader's priorities for floor time in the weeks ahead.
TSCA Bills Moving Back and Forth
Although lawmakers haven't formally reconciled the differences between the House and Senate bills, the legislation has been moved back and forth between the chambers with an eye toward keeping those differences to a minimum and ensuring bill managers can avoid amendments on the Senate floor, according to Harder, the EPW spokeswoman.
“There won't be an amendment process,” she told Bloomberg BNA June 1. “We are working for it to be considered in the same manner as a conference bill because that is what this bill's process reflects.”
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) also pushed back at any attempts to amend the legislation in a statement to Bloomberg BNA June 1. Any Senate amendments would mean the bill would have to be sent back to the House for its approval, a Carper aide said.
“I'm disappointed the Senate wasn't able to quickly approve the bill before we broke for Memorial Day recess,“ Carper told Bloomberg BNA. “But it's my sincere hope that we take it up as soon as the Senate reconvenes and pass the version that's been approved by the House so we can send it to President Obama for his signature.” Obama is expected to sign the legislation if both chambers approve it.
The offices of Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mike Barrasso (R-Wyo.)—both members of the Senate Republican leadership who support the legislation—didn't respond to a Bloomberg BNA request for comment on the bill's path forward.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90831957&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90831957&jd=90831957
-
TSCA Reform Bill Might Set New Limits On EPA's Regulation Of 'Articles'
Jun 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Pending compromise legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) might set new limits on EPA's authority to regulate chemicals in “articles,” or finished products, by requiring the agency to consider human or environmental exposure to substances before regulating -- which could pose a hurdle to controls on some chemicals.
The bill would explicitly give EPA authority to regulate chemicals in articles, but only to the “extent necessary to address the identified risks from exposure to the chemical substance or mixture from the article or category of articles” to ensure that the substance does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
The language is a shift from the agency's authority under section 6 of TSCA, which outlines regulation of hazardous existing chemical substances and mixtures. The law places various rule exemptions on articles, such as those that contain chemical substances not intended to be removed and have no separate commercial purpose.
Attorney Mark Duvall, with the firm Beveridge & Diamond, told Inside EPA in a May 31 interview that EPA is not expressly required to calculate exposure potential from articles in current TSCA, so the TSCA reform bill would set a new mandate to consider exposure. However, that may not be a dramatic shift in practice from how EPA manages articles now, given that the Administrative Procedure Act requires reasonable regulatory decisions, so a finding of “zero exposure potential” to justify regulating a substance could be considered unreasonable and challenged, Duvall said.
The new bill would impose similar limits on EPA's significant new use rule (SNUR) authority under TSCA section 5(a) for the import or processing of substances in articles. Environmentalists previously said that the language included in the final compromise reform bill would weaken the agency's current authority by requiring an affirmative finding that the “reasonable potential” for exposure to the substance justifies the notification.
'Big Authority'
Despite the possibility that the TSCA reform bill might set new limits on regulating articles, some observers say it also empowers EPA by making its regulatory authority over articles explicit.
The bill would give EPA new “authority to regulate products in all sorts of ways it doesn't have now,” says Maureen Gorsen, an attorney with Alston & Bird and a former director of California's Department of Toxic Substances Control said in a May 25 interview with Inside EPA. “That's very big authority,” she said.
Gorsen also noted that in considering exposure under a reformed TSCA, EPA would have to consider the “most sensitive population” under new language requiring the agency to consider vulnerable subpopulations in chemical reviews. That might make it easier to meet the threshold for regulating chemicals in articles given that EPA can consider the “eggshell person” who might be more vulnerable than “the average consumer.”
The final TSCA reform compromise bill, H.R. 2576, which the House approved and sent to the upper chamber May 24, would be a significant overhaul of the 1976 toxics law and give EPA major new powers to address both existing and new chemicals of concern, funded in large part through industry fees.
The bill would overhaul current TSCA to remove a number of obstacles in current law that many say prevent EPA from adequately regulating chemicals believed to be unsafe, such as removing language that would require the agency to identify the “least burdensome” option before regulating a chemical. That language is believed to have hindered EPA's efforts to ban asbestos following a 1991 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in 1991 in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA that the agency failed to adequately identify the least burdensome option.
House lawmakers voted 403-12 to approve the bill. Senators supportive of the bill had hoped to approve it before Congress' Memorial Day recess, but Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) placed a hold on the bill, saying he needed more time to read it. Paul says he has concerns about the bill's criminal enforcement and state preemption provisions.
If the senator lifts his hold once Congress returns from its recess -- or if 60 senators vote to end the hold -- and the Senate approves the bill, President Obama is expected to sign it into law. That would shift attention to the agency's implementation of the bill, including consideration exposure in potential regulations.
Issuing SNURs
Under existing TSCA authority, in order for EPA to issue a SNUR it must consider the extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical; whether it increases the magnitude and duration of exposure; and the “reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of chemical.”
EPA currently issues SNURs to require notice from companies at least 90 days before a new use of a chemical is adopted, which gives the agency an opportunity to obtain more information if necessary and make a decision whether limitations should be imposed on the production or use of the chemical.
SNURs are one of the few methods EPA has under TSCA to restrict the manufacture or sale of existing chemicals -- those on the market before TSCA took effect in 1976. Once in place, the SNUR requires anyone intending to make, import or process "these chemicals for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by the" SNUR to alert EPA 90 days before doing so, allowing it to review the intended practice before commencement.
SNURs usually have an exemption for "articles," or manufactured products containing the chemicals restricted by a SNUR. But recently, EPA has issued several rule proposals without this articles exemption.
Sources have suggested that the agency's restriction of the articles exemption is expanding because more products are being imported, while fewer are manufactured in the United States, where they might fall under other regulatory scrutiny from separate agencies such as the Consumer Products Safety Commission.
In the preamble of EPA's Dec. 17, 2014 final SNUR for nine benzidine-based dyes, it's “pretty clear EPA feels it has unlimited discretion” to make a decision on whether or not to include an articles exemption, Duvall said in the interview. That SNUR would specifically require manufacturers or processors of nine substances to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing such activities for uses designated in the rule, but specifically states that the rule also covers substances that are "part of an article" which EPA has previously exempted from such SNURs.
The TSCA compromise bill language “keeps EPA in a position to use its discretion whether to apply a SNUR,” except that now the agency would also have to expressly consider exposure, said Duvall. Some industry representatives say this could provide more certainty by codifying a policy on articles, especially considering it is often difficult for the regulated community to obtain safety data on substances used in finished products.
EPA has not yet provided a cohesive regulatory policy on articles, so having a statutory requirement could ease some of those concerns, said Lynn Bergeson, managing partner at Bergeson & Campbell.
Environmentalists' Concerns
Environmentalists have, however, raised concerns about the exposure language in previous versions of the TSCA reform bill, warning that it could restrict EPA's power to regulate some substances.
For example, NRDC senior attorney Daniel Rosenberg in a Sept. 16 blog post raised concerns about the articles language in the Senate TSCA reform bill, S. 697, largely unchanged in the H.R. 2576 bill. The language "creates additional legal hurdles before EPA can require notification about products that contain toxic chemicals the agency believes could harm public health or the environment," Rosenberg wrote.
One industry source says that some proposals to significantly narrow the articles language in the final TSCA bill were pushed by Democrats in negotiations, but were ultimately rejected.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/tsca-reform-bill-might-set-new-limits-epas-regulation-articles
-
Federal Government, Not States, Should Regulate Chemicals
Jun 1, 2016 | Economics21
By Preston Cooper
Writers at E21 have generally been critical of regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I argued that the Clean Power Plan, an EPA scheme to reduce carbon emissions, placed unjustifiably disparate burdens on different states. Senior Fellow Diana Furchtgott-Roth showed that the EPA used dubious methodology, including double- and triple-counting of benefits, in its cost-benefit analysis of the emissions regulations. However, in the case of the reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) currently moving through Congress, new powers granted to EPA are warranted.
The bill, passed by the House and awaiting final approval from the Senate, is sponsored by Illinois Congressman John Shimkus, a Republican. It authorizes the EPA to conduct testing of toxic chemicals used in common household products and determine whether they pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. If this determination is made, or if the EPA decides there is insufficient information to render a determination, the agency is authorized to regulate or prohibit manufacture of the chemical.
These are sweeping new powers, and advocates of limited government intervention are right to be skeptical of them. However, since the EPA is currently not authorized to regulate these chemicals, individual states have taken the lead. Since 2003, states have passed a grand total of 167 statutes regulating toxic chemicals, according toSafer States, an advocacy group. Over a hundred more bills pertaining to chemical regulation are currently working their way through state legislatures. California alone has 23 recent laws on the books pertaining to chemical regulation, with six more in the pipeline. And this does not even take into account the countless regulations issued by state agencies under the laws.
Number of Laws Regulating Toxic Chemicals by State, 2003-Present
This creates an inconsistent patchwork of regulations that manufacturers must deal with individually. It is far easier for businesses to deal with a single regulation from the EPA than with up to 50 different regulations from the states. Under the TSCA reform bill, states cannot prohibit or restrict a chemical that the EPA has determined to be safe (with exceptions for grandfathered regulations).
While it does mean an expansion of federal power, the bill will reduce the cost, time, and uncertainty associated with bringing a chemical to market by largely superseding state requirements. This will lower costs for consumers and enable faster development of new wares. A company that can sell in every state, rather than just a handful, will be more inclined to invest in innovative products.
Currently, some states can shape the product market in others. When only a handful of states ban a product, such as dishwashing detergents containing phosphates, manufacturers just may take it off the market entirely.
The bill might appear to be a defeat for federalism. But the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce, and with good reason: so the United States can function as a single market rather than fifty. Congress absolutely has the power to fix the fragmented, state-driven regulatory regime for chemicals currently in place.
One area of potential improvement is a course of action for when the EPA is unable to determine whether a particular chemical poses an unreasonable risk. In these cases, the EPA must issue a regulation that could prohibit manufacture of the chemical if it will be produced in “substantial quantities” or if it poses a risk to a “susceptible subpopulation.”
However, what exactly these terms mean is left to the EPA’s discretion, meaning the agency will have wide latitude to ban harmless chemicals on the basis of unsubstantiated risks. This is the “precautionary principle” of regulation, or the idea that new innovations are guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around. This not only inhibits innovation; it might actually harm public safety if newer, safer chemicals that might replace older, less safe ones in the market are held up during the approval process. Congress should consider amending the bill to more clearly delineate the EPA’s powers in such ambiguous cases.
Despite the bill’s flaws, it is certainly preferable to the patchwork system the country practices now. However, Congress and the public must remain vigilant to ensure the EPA does not overstep the bounds of its new authority. As the burden of federal regulations continues to grow, adding trillions in economic costs, the danger of too much regulation must be considered in concert with the danger of too little.
Preston Cooper is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.
http://economics21.org/html/federal-government-not-states-should-regulate-chemicals-1847.html
-
Revamped Chemical Safety Law Gives EPA More Power
Jun 2, 2016 | Cortez Journal
By Elizabeth Shogren
The normally divided Congress got together this week to take on a major overhaul of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, giving the Environmental Protection Agency broad new authority to regulate chemicals in millions of products American use every day.
“When Americans go to the grocery store and hardware store, they assume products they buy have been tested and are safe; they aren’t,” Sen. Tom Udall, D-NM, one of the bill’s chief authors, said in a press call this week. “For the first time in 40 years we will have a working chemical safety law.”
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, as the update is called, is the biggest environmental law to pass Congress in two decades. It was approved by the House 403-12 on Tuesday. The bill hit an unexpected snag in the Senate. Despite the broad bipartisan support for the bill, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, is blocking a vote, saying he wants time to learn about the bill. He also says that businesses are always complaining to him that they’re “regulated to death” and yet this bill “takes the power away from the states and creates a new federal regulatory regime.”
The bill allows the EPA to evaluate the safety of tens of thousands of older chemicals that were impossible to regulate under existing law and strengthens the agency’s hand in reviewing new chemicals. It requires the agency to consider only safety and health – and not costs – when deciding whether a chemical presents “unreasonable risk.” It charges companies up to $25 million to pay for the reviews, and provides new protections for vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly and people with compromised immune systems.
If the EPA finds that a chemical poses a risk to any group of people, it must “impose restrictions sufficient to ameliorate the risk,” says Richard Denison, lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, who has long worked on the bill.
The bill was shepherded through Congress by Udall and Sen. David Vitter, R-LA. The unlikely duo came together because the industry, public health and environmental groups all agreed that Toxic Substances Control Act was broken. Over 40 years, the EPA managed to use the law to test only a few hundred of the tens of thousands of chemicals in circulation. The prime example of the law’s weakness came when the EPA tried to use it to restrict asbestos. But a court overturned the ban in 1991, eviscerating the agency’s power to regulate existing chemicals.
In the the vacuum, some states, including California, Oregon and Washington, started to regulate toxic chemicals. These state efforts helped push the industry to the table to negotiate a new bill. They also proved a crux for efforts to pass the reform.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, fought against the bill, because it would restrain states’ efforts to regulate toxic chemicals. More recently, she used her influence to narrow those restrictions. “I didn’t go on this bill; I changed it,” Boxer said at a recent press conference. “I wish I had the option to write the bill on my own. Believe me, it would have been much stronger. But I know if we want to make progress, we need to reach across the aisle.”
Under the final bill, state chemical regulations already on the books will remain in effect. Going forward, state action will be preempted while the EPA reviews a chemical. Once the EPA acts, its decision on whether a chemical is safe or needs to be restricted will trump any state action. States can request waivers or step in if EPA takes more than three and a half years to complete its evaluation.
States that pushed hard for fewer restrictions on their authority to regulate chemicals seemed ready to adapt to the new bill and eager for a stronger federal regulator. Ken Zarker, who manages the pollution prevention and regulatory assistance section of Washington State’s Department of Ecology, called the bill “workable” even though his state and others were disappointed that it will restrict states’ regulatory ability. Washington State legislature earlier this year banned several flame retardants in furniture and children’s products. Zarker’s agency was tasked with studying five additional chemicals and reporting back to the legislature on whether they too should be banned. Under the new toxics law, if the federal government decides to review these same chemicals, that could hamper speedier action by the state.
“The feds move too slow; it’s like trying to fight with one arm tied behind your back,” says Zarker.
Still, Zarker says only a few states have the resources to review toxic chemicals. So, having a stronger federal cop on the beat, as provided by this bill, should be good for everybody. “At least it sets up a system; we currently don’t have one,” Zarker says. “We’ve got to start somewhere.”
But some health experts warn that although the measure is stronger than current law it will not provide what so many people want—timely, dependable information about the safety of the chemicals they and their children encounter every day. The bill requires the EPA to name the first ten chemicals it will evaluate within six month and within three and a half years be conducting risk evaluations of at least 20 high-priority chemicals. The bill sets a three-year deadline for the EPA to complete risk assessments of chemicals after designating them as high risk. The agency then would have two years to regulate.
The “glacial pace” of chemical reviews envisioned by the bill and the inadequate funding means that the EPA will be unable to provide consumers with the “proactive prevention that so many consumers are seeking,” Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor of pediatrics at New York University, said in an interview with High Country News.
“How can that be sufficient when there are thousands of highly produced chemicals without testing data?” Trasande wrote in a blog post. In his post and in his earlier article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, he outlined concerns that the new bill will fail to give the government adequate tools to protect vulnerable populations from the risks posed by synthetic chemicals. “A large—and growing—literature demonstrates that synthetic chemicals can disrupt the developing brains of children,” he writes.
Other public health experts are concerned about the way the EPA currently evaluates whether chemicals pose health risks. “Right now EPA’s risk assessment process is inadequate to fully characterize the risk for effects other than cancer. That’s a huge problem,” said Tracey Woodruff, who directs the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. “That could allow a lot of chemicals to stay on the marketplace that might pose a public health risk.”
She’s worried the regulations to implement the new law could enshrine outdated EPA methods. For example, she said the agency must consider the multiple ways a person might be exposed to the same toxic chemical as well as the cumulative impact of a variety of chemicals.
And, of course, how the EPA implements the new law and how much funding the agency gets to do the work will have a huge impact on whether it will live up to its sponsors’ high hopes.
Sen. Udall championed reform of the nation’s broken toxic chemicals law.
http://www.cortezjournal.com/article/20160601/NEWS01/160609991
-
Shumlin Signs Toxic Chemical Bill in North Bennington
Jun 2, 2016 | Vermont Public Radio
By Howard Weiss Tisman
Gov. Peter Shumlin signed a new hazardous chemical bill Wednesday that gives the state more power to go after companies that pollute the environment.
Shumlin signed the bill just a few miles up the road from the former Chemfab plant, which state officials say is the likely source of water contamination in the area.
The state tested 432 private drinking wells in North Bennington and Bennington and 227 have PFOA above the state advisory level of 20 parts per trillion.
The new law gives the state more options when facing future environmental contamination.
"Obviously we can't put the genie back in the bottle," Shumlin said. "But what we can do is ensure that our reaction and our actions are swift, consistent, thoughtful and effective. This bill is yet another step in that process."
The law allows the Agency of Natural Resources to ask companies about specific chemicals being used at Vermont facilities before a lawsuit is filed against the company.
Shumlin said that while it was up to the federal government to regulate chemicals, the state should make sure that untested and unregulated chemicals are safe if they are going to be used in Vermont.
“The discovery of elevated levels of PFOA in Bennington and North Bennington is an unfortunate wake-up call exposing vulnerabilities in the decades-old federal system of regulating chemicals of concern," Shumlin said. "The federal government needs to act, but Vermont won't wait for it to do so. This new law will make it easier for the state to classify and identify toxic chemical use and to give the state more power to hold polluters responsible."
The legislation also sets up a working group that will examine the chemicals that are being used in the state and determine if any are potentially dangerous to the environment or to public health.
The group will report to the Legislature by the end of this year on how to reduce exposure to the toxic chemicals.
http://digital.vpr.net/post/shumlin-signs-toxic-chemical-bill-north-bennington#stream/0
-
Making Sense of the New Reports on Cell Phones and Cancer
Jun 1, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Curt DellaValle
You may have read the headlines about a new study linking cellphone radiation to cancer.
What does this mean for your health?
Researchers at the National Toxicology Program found an increase in tumors among rats exposed to radio-frequency radiation similar to that emitted by cell phones, compared to a control group of unexposed rats. These findings are significant on their own, but to truly understand what they mean the NTP research has to be viewed in context of other research on this issue.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, said that radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones might be carcinogenic, based on some studies that found links to tumors in the brain and inner ear. This was a contentious determination because results from human studies have been inconsistent.
The strongest evidence for carcinogenicity came from case-control studies, which could have critical limitations. These studies compare the exposures of people who already have a disease to people without disease. People with brain tumors, however, may not accurately recount how much they used their cell phones. If they blame their cell phone use for causing their cancers, they may subconsciously exaggerate the hours spent on their mobiles. The subjective nature of human memory can bias study results.
Here is why the NTP study is so important. Some rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed gliomas and schwannomas-- the same types of tumors observed in human case-control studies. Since rats don’t succumb to recall bias, the higher number of tumors among radiation-exposed rats is powerful evidence to support the associations observed among humans.
Should you be concerned? Yes, but there are a lot of points you need to consider before freaking out.
Biological findings in rats are relevant to human health, but rats and humans don’t have identical physiologies. The NTP story also left some questions unanswered: Why did only male rats develop more tumors? Why did the rats in the control group have shorter lifespans than the irradiated rats?
In any case, gliomas and schwannomas are quite rare among people and would remain so, even with modest increases in risk from cell phones.
Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, once remarked, “It is scientific only to say what is more likely and less likely.”
Considering the NTP findings alongside other research, it is more likely than not that cell phones could cause harm. And since it is so easy to reduce an individual’s radiation exposure, it makes sense to take precautions. If you're worried about exposure to radiation, click here to learn more about your cell phone case.
Originally published on the Rethinking Cancer Prevention blog by Curt DellaValle.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/06/making-sense-new-reports-cell-phones-and-cancer
-
Wearable Wristbands Detect Flame Retardants
Jun 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick
Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN) recently featured an article on simple, silicone wristbands used to detect chemicals in the everyday environment. Developed by researchers from Oregon State University, these wearable wristbands act like sponges to absorb chemicals in the air, water and everyday consumer products. EDF sees exciting promise in this technology, and has begun using this tool to make the invisible world of chemicals, visible.
The C&EN article highlighted two new studies which used the wristbands to characterize flame retardant exposure – the first two published studies to demonstrate that the wristband technology can be effectively used for this purpose.
There is good reason to explore flame retardant exposure. A 1975 California flammability standard resulted in the addition of flame retardant chemicals to hundreds of millions of foam products in the U.S. including couches and foam baby products. As furniture and other products get old and breakdown, flame retardants are released into surrounding air and settle in the dust in our homes. Evidence from the CDC’s National Biomonitoring Program demonstrates that 99% of people tested have polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants in their body, and other studies indicate that children are more highly exposed to flame retardants than adults.
In the mid-2000s, certain PBDEs (penta-BDE and octa-BDE) were voluntarily phased out of production in the U.S. due to concerns about health impacts like adverse cognitive effects in children and persistence in the environment. A new suite of flame retardants emerged as replacements, including organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) and new brominated flame retardants (BFRs).
While less is known about the toxicity of many of these replacement flame retardants, emerging research is linking these chemicals to health effects like neurotoxicity and hormone disruption as well as persistence in the environment. Currently, the CDC biomonitoring program only examines human exposure to the PBDE flame retardants, but other studies are detecting the replacement flame retardants all over the place – in house dust,wastewater, breastmilk, and even marine animals.
The wristbands can detect more than 40 different flame retardants including PBDEs and some of the replacement flame retardants. The two studies featured in the C&EN article had children and adults wear the wristbands to explore flame retardant exposure and the performance of the wristband technology. Let’s see what they found.
Children wear the wristband
In the first study, researchers from Oregon State University used the wristbands to investigate flame retardant exposure to children, and to characterize the children’s experience wearing the wristbands.
Seventy-two preschool-aged children wore the wristbands for one week. The study revealed a total of 20 flame retardant chemicals in the children’s environments, including 14 PBDEs, four OPFRs, and two BFRs – with generally higher concentrations of the OPFRs than the PBDEs and BFRs.
The Oregon State University researchers suggest that the higher concentration of OPFRs detected in this study may reflect the shift away from PBDEs in the U.S market to these replacement flame retardants. However, they also caution against directly comparing concentrations of different flame retardants detected, given that each compound has a different affinity for the silicone wristband. More simply stated, one cannot definitively conclude that a higher concentration of OPFRs in the wristbands means the children were exposed to higher levels of OPFRs than PBDEs.
The study also explored what factors might lead to higher individual exposures to PBDEs and OPFRs. Three factors stood out: age of house, frequency of vacuuming, and sociodemographic factors.
Age of housing
Children living in houses built before 2005 tended to have higher levels of PBDE flame retardants in their wristbands than those children living in houses built after 2005, while the inverse was true for the OPFRs. These findings could reflect the phase-out of PBDEs during this timeframe and shift to the replacement flame retardants, but more investigation is necessary.
Frequency of vacuuming
In contrast to popular belief that vacuuming regularly ensures cleaner indoor air, the study found that aggregate PBDE and OPFR flame retardant levels were higher in the wristbands of children living in households where vacuuming occurred frequently (>6 times a month). The researchers surmise that the physical agitation and heat generated during vacuuming could volatilize flame retardants from house dust into the air – allowing both for inhalation of these compounds and absorption by the wristband. Some experts, however, recommend vacuuming specifically with a HEPA filter vacuum to reduce dust containing flame retardants. This study did not distinguish between households using HEPA filter vacuums versus standard vacuums.
Sociodemographic factors
Finally, the researchers calculated a “family context score” that integrates parental education and employment status, household income, and the home learning environment. Children living in homes with a lower family context score tended to have higher levels of flame retardants, especially for the OPFRs. These results contribute to the large body of evidence that disadvantaged communities in our society too often bear the heaviest burdenof exposure to hazardous chemicals and pollution.
So, how did the kids fare wearing the wristbands? Parents reported that the children wore the wristbands with little problem. Some children even seemed to like the wristband, calling it “their own personal science bracelet.”
A good estimate of exposure
The second study compared the ability of the wristbands and hand wipes— a common tool to measure flame retardant exposure — to estimate how much of these flame retardants actually make their way into the body.
In this study, forty adults wore a wristband for a five day period, at the end of which the researchers wiped their hand with a cotton hand wipe. The researchers also collected urine samples on three separate days during the five-day study period. For two of the four OPFRs tested, the researchers found a correlation between urinary levels of these flame retardants and the levels detected by the wristbands and hand wipes. For these compounds, the wristband levels correlated more strongly to the urinary levels than the hand wipe levels.
These results provide suggestive evidence that the wristband may more accurately represent internal flame retardant exposure than hand wipes. However, more research is needed to replicate this study with a larger sample size.
The researchers suggest that while the hand wipes may provide a good estimate of recent dermal exposures from touching contaminated surfaces, the wristbands may be better at predicting long-term or average exposures as well as inhalation exposures. In addition to integrating exposures over several days, wearing the wristband may emulate everyday exposure scenarios. For example, wearing the wristband while bathing may allow some chemicals at the surface of the wristband to be washed away – similar to the effect of washing your skin or hands.
But that’s not the only way that the wristbands may mimic real-world exposures. According to one of the developers of the wristband, Dr. Kim Anderson, the wristband may mimic the way the human body absorbs chemicals. The silicone polymers create a lipophilic structure that forms holes similar in size to pores in human cells (~1 nm in diameter), allowing chemicals to absorb deep into the polymer. In other words, the chemicals trapped by the wristband may have similarities to chemicals that can actually enter our bodies’ cells.
Looking towards the future
EDF is committed to emerging technologies with the potential to help solve our toughest environmental challenges. As illustrated by these two studies, a simple and easily deployable wristband holds considerable promise in helping us answer pressing questions about everyday chemical exposure through non-invasive means.
While these were both small studies, the results suggest a number of important research priorities, including a better understanding of the differential exposure to the full suite of flame retardants among vulnerable populations such as infants, children, pregnant women and low income communities.
This can in part be done by expanding the chemicals and age ranges included in the CDC’s National Biomonitoring Program and by integrating simple exposure tools like the wristbands into larger cohort studies. If the wristbands continue to offer an accurate, non-invasive measure of average exposure to flame retardants – as suggested by the two studies discussed here – they will become an increasingly useful research and citizen science tool.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/06/01/wearable-wristbands-detect-flame-retardants/
-
State Regulators Group Releases Guide for Rule Compliance
Jun 1, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A group of air regulators released a guide today for states that want to proceed with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan despite the rule being frozen by the Supreme Court.
The 438-page report offers an overview of the rule before taking a deep dive into the specifics of state compliance.
It also includes model plans for states to submit to EPA.
Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said the report reflects two years of work and coordination among state and local officials and experts.
The NACAA document "is not meant to endorse or recommend a single plan implementation pathway," Becker said. "Instead, it supports individual state efforts to craft their own plans based on their unique circumstances and policy preferences."
Under the Clean Power Plan, states are required to develop and put in place plans to lower carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. EPA gave states the option of limiting either total CO2 emissions or the rate of CO2 emissions from power plants.
The Supreme Court in February took the unprecedented step of freezing the Clean Power Plan while massive litigation over the program plays out, but EPA has said it will continue to work with states that want to move forward with complying in the interim.
"The stay does not preclude any state from moving ahead on its own and developing plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan if or when the stay is lifted," Becker said.
NACAA examined both mass- and rate-based compliance approaches in its report. The group drafted a model of a state submittal for a time extension for its plan, as well as a full compliance plan, under mass-based compliance that assumes interstate trading of emissions allowances.
The document represents pushback against opposition to the plan in states, Becker said, but the group didn't work with EPA to develop the model plan.
He said there were efforts underway by opponents to remove state authorities to fund or put in place the program (ClimateWire, April 28).
"It was important for an organization to stand up and say, listen, there are enough of you who are interested in moving ahead instead of succumbing to the opposition," Becker said. "Let's try to make things easier for you to adopt the necessary legal authority."
The American Energy Alliance, an opponent of the Clean Power Plan, today slammed the new report and charged that NACAA was "acting as a proxy" for EPA.
"Following the Supreme Court's stay," American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle said, "the EPA is barred from enforcing the regulation, yet groups like NACAA are attempting to mislead states into implementing it anyway."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/06/01/stories/1060038156
-
Sanders Challenges White House and DNC over Fracking
Jun 1, 2016 | Washington Post
By David Weigel
Just days after two federal agencies seemed to clear the way for offshore fracking in the Pacific Ocean, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called on it to stop.
"Make no mistake about it: This was a very, very bad decision by the federal government that will not be allowed to stand if I have anything to say about it," said Sanders. "And as president, I would have a lot to say about it."
With environmental activists by his side and a verdant lettuce field behind him, Sanders used Wednesday morning to restate his opposition to hydraulic fracturing -- a process of extracting natural gas by breaking up the ground with chemicals. He has campaigned for a ban on fracking throughout the primaries, winning some parts of New York, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania where "fracktivists" have blamed the process for toxic drinking water or greater incidence of earthquakes.
But on May 27, responding to a lawsuit from environmental groups, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement jointly released a report that found only a minimal environmental impact from California's existing offshore fracking. On May 31, the bureaus announced a task force, which would include California's pro-fracking Gov. Jerry Brown (D), to assess offshore fracking opportunities. (In Spreckels, Sanders said he had not discussed the issue with Brown, who endorsed Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton this week.)
Clinton has not responded to the report, and there were no questions about it at the White House briefings since its release. Sanders rushed into the gap, criticizing Clinton for favoring international fracking as secretary of state, comparing the potential damage from fracking fluid to the water crisis in Flint, Mich., and arguing for the Democrats' platform to call for a fracking ban.
"Offshore fracking has the potential to pollute the ocean with toxic fluid, and to harm our beautiful beaches," said Sanders. "That risk, to me, is unacceptable."
Sanders, who was given the chance to choose five allies for the 15-member platform drafting committee, gave one slot to the environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben. Earlier this year, McKibben wrote a lengthy feature story for the Nation that collated evidence that fracking was contributing to climate change and earthquakes, and arguing that Clinton -- while she could be "forgiven" -- contributed to the spread of fracking. "Today, the State Department provides 'assistance' with fracking to dozens of countries around the world, from Cambodia to Papua New Guinea," McKibben wrote.
In Obama's first term, Clinton's line on fracking was shared by an administration that was focused on reducing emissions. The 2012 Democratic platform, which never mentioning "fracking" per se, described natural gas as a relatively clean energy source.
"A new era of cheap, abundant natural gas is helping to bring jobs and industry back to the United States," wrote the Democrats of 2012. "Harnessing our natural gas resources needs to be done in a safe and responsible manner, which is why the Obama administration has proposed a number of safeguards to protect against water contamination and air pollution."
Language like that would be anathema to today's fracktivists. At the Spreckels event, Margaret Rebecchi, the Latino outreach coordinator for a Monterey County anti-fracking group, accused frackers of "environmental racism" against poor, non-white people.
"Secretary Clinton wants to quote-unquote, regulate fracking," said Sanders. "Well, I think it is too late for regulating. I think fracking needs to be banned from America... absolutely, the Democratic platform going into the general election should make it absolutely clear that the Democratic Party stands with the American people, stands with the people of California, for a ban on fracking.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/01/sanders-challenges-white-house-and-dnc-over-fracking/
-
Federal Environmental Regulators Dispel Fracking Fears
Jun 1, 2016 | Forbes
By Brigham A. McCown
Last Month, the Obama Administration’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) in a rulingfound no significant environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing off the California shores.
The debate over the safety and implications of fracking has grown over several years to include issues of water contamination and safety, earthquake tremors, and other adverse environmental conditions. The latest iteration of the fracking debate took place in California, where offshore fracking permits had been temporarily suspended pending an environmental impact study.
As reported by The Hill, the ruling, released jointly by the two federal agencies included analysis spanning 30 years and 23 offshore fracking operations. The determination that there would be no “significant” impact on the water quality or health of the ocean indicates that the extraction method is a minimal risk when performed offshore and according to industry standards. While the ruling stated that in the case of most resources, impacts of fracking will be “negligible,” “where impacts are somewhat more pronounced, such as with discharge of produced water, the impacts are minor, short-term and localized.”
There have been over 200 fracking sites off the California coast. In response to protests from environmental groups, the Department of the Interior agreed to cease permitting until a thorough analysis could be completed. According to BOEM Director Abigail Hopper, “the comprehensive analysis shows that these practices, conducted according to permit requirements, have minimal impact.”
The ruling comes exactly one month after the Hydraulic Fracturing Panel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Science Advisory Board (“SAB”) reaffirmedthe EPA’s own assessment on the impacts of fracking on drinking water resources. The Panel agreed with the EPA that fracking had “no widespread, systemic impacts” on drinking water. In its report, the EPA examined over 3,500 individual sources of information, and cited over 950 sources. Twenty-nine of the 30 members of the SABfound the EPA’s approach and analysis was “appropriate and comprehensive.”
Both reports cited above, released within a month of each other have undercut arguments previously advanced by environmental groups as to the dire and severe consequences they allege fracking to have caused. With three agencies of the Obama Administration giving their regulatory blessing to hydraulic fracturing, the debate over safety has gained high level input and found little negative impact.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2016/06/01/federal-environmental-regulators-dispel-fracking-fears/#6ee4f2958b31
-
3 Key Energy Policies That Can Help Us Turn the Corner on Climate
Jun 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Diane Regas
We know we need massive decreases in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 if 177 countries are to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement.
But before emissions go on a steep decline, we need to turn the corner. At Environmental Defense Fund, we have analyzed what it would take to turn the corner by 2020, and zeroed in on a few key actions that will halt the rise in global emissions and make them start to go down. For good.
Christiana Figueres, the United Nations official who led the Paris climate talks, rightly talks about technology, finance and policy – technologies to store and distribute energy, financing to scale the technology we have, and policies to reward innovators who deliver results.
In my home town of San Francisco this week, the Clean Energy Ministerial will bring together innovators, investors and key government officials, marking a shift toward serious focus on achieving the Paris goals.
The energy ministers of the United States, China, Europe and India should heed the terrific work to chart paths for the future (including this global partnership). And this year, they can note three key policies already yielding measurable results.
1. A price on carbon
A price on carbon rewards those who reduce pollution, and penalizes those who lag behind. It helps market forces spur innovation and make sure we meet our goals. The good news? Some major carbon-emitting nations and states are moving ahead.
Most critically, China has committed to putting a nationwide emissions trading system in place by next year – making the country the global leader in carbon markets.
Sixty-seven jurisdictions have or are implementing carbon markets. Globally, there is a realistic path to doubling the amount of greenhouse gas emissions covered by carbon pricing mechanisms, from about 12 percent today to 25 percent of global emissions by 2020.
2. America’s climate action plan
In the U.S., an ambitious plan is already under way, one that will protect people from diseases such as asthma, reduce carbon pollution, and boost clean energy.
Maybe the best news is that the centerpiece, the Clean Power Plan, is designed to reduce household energy bills by about $80 per year by 2030, while driving down pollution. We are also moving to reduce methane emissions.
Make no mistake, the U.S. still has work to do. We will need new laws and policies in the next few years to get us on track to compete in a low-carbon future, and to meet our commitments made in Paris.
3. Policies accelerating the clean electricity grid
Every environmental advance in the U.S. has been preceded by experimentation and progress in the states. The urgent work of decarbonizing our electricity system is no different and for that, we need significant advances in transparency and dynamic pricing.
Transparency: The grid of the future envisions home appliances, electric vehicles, rooftop solar, and smart thermostats operating seamlessly with the power grid. And, today, more than 50 million smart meters connect American homes and businesses to the grid. Unfortunately, information is almost always hidden from the people who could use it to reduce costs and pollution.
In Illinois, EDF and the Citizens Utility Board developed a solution to create transparency – now adopted by state regulators and local utilities. Energy entrepreneurs such as Nest and Google plan to use the data to help customers save energy and money.
Dynamic pricing: For 20 years, the Nobel prize-winning theory of dynamic pricing has benefitted a range of industries from hotels to Uber. Dynamic pricing could also benefit utilities, and smart states are taking notice. By 2019, nearly 9 million residential customers in California will have “time-of-use” as their default pricing, for example.
We do not have to choose between a healthy environment and shared prosperity. If we raise our ambitions and reward those who do the right thing, we can turn the corner on climate change by 2020.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/06/01/3-key-energy-policies-can-help-us-turn-corner-climate
-
California Proposes Methane Reductions at Oil and Gas Sites
Jun 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz and Carolyn Whetzel
The California Air Resources Board proposed new leak detection and control standards designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas facilities.
The proposed regulation, released May 31, sets forth new requirements that oil and gas producers capture intentional and unintentional releases of methane and other gases associated with oil drilling. It includes provisions that companies collect and either use or destroy methane and other gases, install leak detection controls and make repairs, and comply with new monitoring requirements. Intentional releases include venting, while unintentional releases involve fugitive emissions such as leaks.
The first of its kind for California, the rule aims to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector in the state by 40 percent to 45 percent—about 2.5 million tons—by 2025, the board said. Reducing emissions of methane and other “short-lived climate pollutants will effectively slow the rate of climate change in the near term,” the board said. The proposed rule is part of a broader strategy to slash emissions of methane and other potent short-lived climate pollutants 40 percent to 50 percent by 2030 (71 DEN A-13, 4/13/16).
Leak Detection, Repair
The proposal would cover equipment components not currently regulated by the state's local air districts. It would require producers to take leak detection and repair measures to curb fugitive methane emissions from valves, flanges and connections.
While California has a large oil and gas industry, with more than 50,000 oil wells and 1,500 gas wells, the production end of the industry accounts for only a fraction of the state's estimated methane emissions. CARB's most recent emissions data estimated oil and gas extraction accounted for 4 percent of the 118 million metric tons of methane emitted in 2013. Pipelines accounted for an estimated 9 percent of methane emissions, the board said.
Other provisions in the proposed oil and gas regulation would require vapor collection systems on certain uncontrolled oil and water separators and storage tanks and well stimulation circulation tanks. Vented gas from reciprocating compressors and centrifugal compressors also would need to be collected, unless repaired or maintained to prevent leaks. Additionally, “no bleed” pneumatic devices and pumps would be required under the proposal.
Beyond New EPA Rule
CARB's proposed regulation will be rigorous and will give California one of the most comprehensive methane standards in the world, encompassing facilities on land and offshore, Tim O'Connor, senior attorney and director of Environmental Defense Fund's oil and gas program in California, told Bloomberg BNA. The proposed rule goes beyond the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's new rule since it regulates existing as well as new sources, he said.
However, he added, the rule does not go far enough. The rule includes a “step-down provision” that would actually give oil and gas companies strong motivation not to find or report their leaks, he said. While the new regulation will require quarterly leak detection and repair, the step-down provision allows operators to meet only loose annual inspection requirements after only a year of compliance, O'Connor said. “That's a huge step backward.”
O'Connor said research shows that leaks from equipment malfunctions and poor maintenance lead to significant emissions that are not reflected in emission inventories. “To fix the leaks, you have to find them,” he said. “California's aging oil and gas infrastructure increases the likelihood of dangerous leaks happening anywhere at any time, which is why frequent inspections are so important. While this is a strong rule, it needs to have permanent mandatory quarterly inspections to protect the state's people and the environment.”
Monitoring Underground Storage
The proposed regulation establishes emission standards for active and idle equipment and components at these facilities. Depending on the equipment or component, control mechanisms include vapor recovery, leak detection and repair, and equipment replacement. Also included is monitoring at underground natural gas storage facilities for the early detection of large leaks or well failures.
Storage facility monitoring provisions were added to the proposed regulation in response to the catastrophic release that occurred at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility from October 2015 to February 2016, the board said.
The board will conduct a public hearing July 21 in Sacramento to consider the proposed standards, with its governing board expected to vote on the measure later in the year. If approved, the standards would take effect Jan. 1, 2018.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90831943&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90831943&jd=90831943
-
Ukraine Attack Prompts Energy Industry to Take a Fresh Look at Manual Operation
Jun 1, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Tim Starks
A major lesson from December's cyberattack on the Ukrainian electricity grid is the value of being able to shift to manual operation to restore power, energy industry organization officials said today.
The attack itself "was not eye-opening. We’ve been aware this is something that could happen for many, many years and [planned] accordingly," said Scott Aaronson, Edison Electric Institute's managing director for cyber and infrastructure security. What did interest U.S. industry was that power was restored quickly via manual operations, he said.
"There has been this rush to automation in the United States," Aaronson said, which is good in some ways, but "it also expands the attack surface." The question for U.S. industry now is whether it can go "back to the future" to 1963, when everything was manually operated.
Phil Moeller, EEI's senior vice president for energy delivery and chief customer solutions office, responded that, "I wouldn't say it's easy."
The two EEI execs discussed the issue during a roundtable discussion with reporters. Aaronson said that "anecdotally, I’ve heard the gamut from 'We could do that now' to 'That seems interesting but I’m not sure we can do that now.'"
He added that he didn't think it would require regulatory mandates. "I’m not sure a mandate is necessary when you’re talking about the restoration of the capacity for a business to operate," Aaronson said.
That said, it's likely the Ukraine attack wouldn't have been possible in the United States because of existing mandatory cybersecurity standards, Aaronson said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Fossil Fuels’ Unpopularity Leaves a Mark
Jun 1, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Erin Ailworth
Many major fossil-fuel projects across the U.S., from pipelines to export terminals, have been shelved or significantly delayed because of a confluence of new regulations, grass-roots opposition and a drop in energy prices.
Overall, more than a dozen projects, worth about $33 billion, have been either rejected by regulators or withdrawn by developers since 2012, with billions more tied up in projects still in regulatory limbo.
The trend leaves some communities without access to lower-cost fuel and higher-paying jobs while also reflecting a growing wariness in the public’s eye of fossil fuels.
Cancellations are affecting the coal industry’s bid to ship its product through the Pacific Northwest, where local communities are increasingly opposed to fossil fuels due to climate-change concerns.
In May, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rejected a proposed $850 million coal-export terminal proposed for Cherry Point, Wash., a forested, coastal area two hours north of Seattle where two oil refineries and an aluminum facility operate. The agency concluded the proposed terminal would violate tribal fishing rights of the Lummi Nation.
The Lummi Nation, which says it has called the Cherry Point region its home for thousands of years, asked the federal government to reject the project in early 2015, supported by a broad array of environmental groups.
As with other fossil-fuel projects—including the Keystone XL oil pipeline that President Barack Obama rejected last year—an alliance between Native American tribes and environmental groups proved formidable.
Overall, five of the six export projects proposed in the Pacific Northwest in recent years have been shelved by developers or rejected by government regulators. The other project, near Longview, Wash., is awaiting approval.
The Cherry Point project, proposed in 2011 by port company SSA Marine, was initially for a wider range of exports. But with coal prices high at the time, the developer secured contracts chiefly with coal companies.
“The project was quickly redefined in the public’s mind as simply a coal port,” said Craig Cole, a local consultant who has worked on behalf of the project since 2010.
Coal projects face the biggest challenges, but oil and natural-gas companies are also facing headwinds. One natural-gas pipeline proposed for the Northeast was scrapped and another rejected in recent months.
Gordon van Welie, president and CEO of ISO-New England, the region’s power grid operator, said such projects are badly needed. Residential consumers in New York and New England paid between 5% and 41% more than the national average for natural gas in March, the latest month for which data were available. They also paid more for electricity, which itself is increasingly made with natural gas.
But finding ways to move gas into the Northeast has proven difficult. Matthew Piatek, an associate director at consulting firm IHS Energy, said some natural-gas pipeline projects have been delayed by more than a year-and-a-half.
Without new infrastructure, Mr. Piatek said, “certain areas will need to rely on higher-cost sources.”
In late April, Kinder Morgan abandoned a roughly $3 billion project that would have ferried gas to Boston and elsewhere, saying it couldn’t get buy-in from utilities. The project, Northeast Energy Direct, had attracted intense opposition from local activists.
A few days later, New York regulators refused to issue a water quality permit for Constitution, a pipeline to move natural gas out of Pennsylvania to New York, as well other New England markets.
Pipeline builder Williams Cos. and its partners, including Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., proposed the 124-mile, $1 billion project in 2012. Constitution’s backers called the denial by regulators arbitrary and unjust and appealed to the courts on May 16. Cabot said recently it still hopes the line will be in service within two years.
Still, the experience will likely prompt developers to move with caution on other pipeline plans. “We’re hopeful that what New York is doing doesn’t happen in other states,” said Frank Ferazzi, general manager of Williams’ Transco Pipeline.
To be sure, some fossil-fuel projects have come to fruition in recent years despite the headwinds.
The federal government has approved a handful of plans for exporting liquefied natural gas since 2012. Dozens more are pending, though analysts say many will probably not be built even if the government approves them, given the current natural-gas glut. Two proposed natural-gas export terminals in Oregon fell through earlier this year.
From 2009 to 2014, U.S. companies added nearly 14,000 miles of crude-oil pipelines, a 27% increase, as the industry sought to catch up to a boom in domestic oil production. But most of the new pipelines were built in areas where that production was concentrated, such as North Dakota and Texas, rather than heavily populated areas, according to John Stoody, a spokesman for the Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
Meanwhile, natural-gas pipeline mileage dropped 6,640 miles, or 2%, from 2009 to 2015. Operators either retrofitted existing lines with wider pipe or increased a pipe’s compression to allow it to move more gas as natural gas production rose.
In Cherry Point, it is now unlikely anything new will be built on the 1,200 acres owned by SSA Marine. The only thing there for the indefinite future will be what has existed for decades: a rusted, dilapidated conveyor belt for cement used to build Interstate-5, the main West Coast highway constructed in the 1950s.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fossil-fuels-unpopularity-leaves-a-mark-1464827381?mg=id-wsj
-
PHMSA Addresses Transport of Acetylene in Final Rule
Jun 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
National Transportation Safety Board recommendations for the transport of acetylene cylinders would be incorporated under a final rule by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration scheduled to be published June 2.
The rule (PHMSA-2013-0225) would incorporate by reference a compressed gas industry document on mobile acetylene trailers that address two National Transportation Safety Board Safety Recommendations for the trailers, which are used to transport the highly flammable compressed gas used for welding and for coating metals and ceramics.
The board recommendations would require more stringent mounting and protection requirements for the cylinders and require fail-safe equipment that ensures proper unloading procedures are followed.
The board made the recommendations after a string of accidents involving the vehicles, including a 2007 incident in which three people were injured when a mobile acetylene trailer caught fire while being prepared for discharge at a Southwest Industrial Gases facility in Dallas.
The safety administration said those recommendations were included in the Compressed Gas Association's pamphlet “G–1.6, Standard for Mobile Acetylene Trailer Systems, Seventh Edition.”
In addition, the 174-page rule, proposed in January, incorporates by reference an updated railroad industry document on tank car standards, clarifies certain portions of the hazmat rules on poison by inhalation products and pressure relief devices, and makes certain miscellaneous amendments and corrections (16 DEN A-5, 1/26/15)..
“These amendments are designed to promote safer transportation practices, address petitions for rulemaking, respond to facilitate international commerce, make editorial corrections, and simplify the regulations,” the agency said in the rule.
The rule becomes effective 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90831941&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90831941&jd=90831941
-
Freight Railroads in Wis. Move Ahead on Safety
Jun 1, 2016 | Green Bay Press-Gazette
By Michael J. Rush
Railroads play a crucial role in the Badger State, with the thousands of employees who call Wisconsin home operating on approximately 3,400 miles of track.
The Wisconsin rail system connects the state’s farmers, manufacturers and resource producers to markets in other states and around the world. In a typical year, 175 million tons of freight is carried in the state.
Moving this freight safely is the industry’s highest priority, and based on the three most common safety measures used by the Federal Railroad Administration — train accident, employee injury, and grade-crossing collision rates — recent years have been the safest in railroad history.
The railroads are not resting on their record. They are constantly investing in infrastructure, technology, and training to make their already-safe operations even safer. In recent years, railroads have spent more than $26 billion annually — their own funds, not taxpayer funds — on upgrades and maintenance of their infrastructure and equipment, enhancing their ability to operate safely and reliably.
A major initiative is the implementation of positive train control (PTC), a technology that will automatically stop a train before certain types of accidents caused by human error occur. Other innovative technologies include drones for inspecting bridges and improved ultrasonic inspection systems that identify track defects so they can be repaired before accidents occur.
Another important aspect of the industry’s safety program is to ensure railroad and state and local emergency responders are prepared for hazardous materials accidents.
Railroads have an outstanding record of transporting crude oil and other hazardous materials safely — more than 99.999 percent of hazardous materials shipments reach their destination without incident. Nevertheless, the railroads recognize the importance of being able to respond to accidents when they do occur.
Railroads train tens of thousands of first responders annually to ensure they are prepared to react quickly and effectively in the event of an accident. Some of this training takes place at the Security and Emergency Response Training Center (SERTC) in Pueblo, Colo., operated by the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. In 2015 alone, nearly 2,000 first responders learned how to handle derailments first hand at SERTC, and more than 800 others received online training.
Should a railroad accident involving hazardous materials occur, it is vital that state and local responders have access to information on the materials in the train. One source of information is a new program developed by the railroad industry, the AskRail app. This app provides another way emergency responders can identify those cars in a train carrying hazardous materials and obtain relevant emergency response information. Firefighters around the country have spoken highly about the app.
It is vitally important for Wisconsin and the nation that the country’s nearly 140,000-mile freight rail network operate safely and efficiently. With the help of advanced technologies; cooperative efforts with employees, customers, and the communities they serve; and sensible public policies, railroads will continue to serve the public interest.
Michael J. Rush is senior vice president of safety and operations at the Association of American Railroads.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/opinion/columnists/2016/06/01/freight-railroads-wis-move-ahead-safety/85248258/
-
Environmental, Industry Groups Disagree on Haze Air Rule
Jun 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Environmental groups urged the Environmental Protection Agency to not follow through on an April proposal that would delay submittal deadlines for state regional haze plans by three years, while power generators called the proposal an “extension” that would enable them to comply with the rule's requirements.
“The deadline for state implementation plans should remain at 2018” instead of 2021 as the EPA proposed in revisions to the regional haze rule, Bill Corcoran, western director of the Sierra Club's “Beyond Coal” Campaign, said at a public hearing on the proposed revisions June 1 in Denver. “A siren song of delaying pollution cleanup so that affected industry can supposedly address Clean Air Act regulatory obligations in unison will, inevitably, result in delays piling up on delays.”
Other environmental groups presented similar remarks on the proposed revisions, which the EPA proposed April 25 with the goals of streamlining, strengthening and clarifying aspects of the agency's program to reduce regional haze, which is visibility impairment caused primarily by emissions of particulate pollutants.
Coordinating Major Air Rules
The EPA said the proposal (RIN:2060-AS55), which was published May 4, would allow states to coordinate their regional haze planning with implementation of other major air regulations, including the Clean Power Plan for carbon dioxide reductions and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (81 Fed. Reg. 26,942; 81 DEN A-1, 4/27/16).
The Clean Air Act established the program to improve and protect clear views in federal Class 1 areas, which include national parks and wilderness areas such as the Grand Canyon. The program requires states to incorporate measures to reduce particulate pollution into their state implementation plans. Stationary sources, vehicles, road dust, wood-burning, wildfires and other sources contribute to particulate pollution.
Delay Called Unnecessary
“EPA's proposed extension would unnecessarily delay a program that has already suffered from decades of delays,” said Earthjustice attorney Matthew Gerhart. Congress enacted the regional haze provisions in the Clean Air Act in 1977, then added new provisions with the 1990 amendments to the act “out of frustration” with the EPA's slow progress towards the program's goals, he said.
“Past experience has shown that many states will not meet any deadline EPA sets, and that EPA will have to fill in the gap by issuing a FIP [federal implementation plan],” Gerhart said. “Even today, there are four states which lack complete, final haze plans for the first planning period.”
Extending the “second planning period” submittal deadline will not change the 2028 deadline for achieving measurable reductions in emissions and improvements in visibility since the EPA left that deadline, required by the current rule, in place, said Mary Uhl, executive director of the Western States Air Resources Council, an association of 15 state air quality management agencies.
Providing states with additional time to prepare their revised regional haze plans will enable a “full accounting of planned reductions from federal controls, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, the 2020 sulfur dioxide standards, the 2012 fine matter particulate (PM-2.5) standards, and the 2015 ozone standards, she said.
“It has long been recognized that the better we integrate planning to take account of federal control measures, the more efficient our regulatory development processes will be,” she said.
Industry Supports Extension
Lyle Witham, manager of environmental services at Basin Electric Power Cooperative, who testified at the hearing on behalf of Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, said the association supports the extension of the next phase of the regional haze program. Tri-State is an association of non-profit generation and transmission cooperatives in Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Nebraska.
“This will allow Tri-State and other Western utilities time to complete installation of phase 1 regional haze controls and address other issues under other recent Clean Air Act rulemakings,” Witham said. “By 2021, the picture will become clearer concerning how phases 1 and other rulemaking reductions will impact Class 1 Area visibility and what other steps are needed to attain the next 10-year glide path goals.”
Before moving forward with a final rule, the EPA should consider unique differences that result in Western stakeholders being “disproportionately affected” by regional haze issues, Witham said.
“International wildfires and dust storms, especially those originating in Canada and Mexico, and anthropogenic emissions originating in Canada, Mexico and Asia have a greater impact in the Western United States than other regions,” he said.
The EPA is taking comments on the proposal until July 5.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90831951&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90831951&jd=90831951
-
New Pacific Coast Pact Signed to Battle Climate Change
Jun 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The governors of California, Oregon and Washington, British Columbia's premier and the mayors of six West Coast cities signed a pact to collaborate on efforts to address climate change and build a regional clean energy economy.
Announced June 1 at a side meeting of states, provinces and cities held during the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM7) in San Francisco, the Pacific North America Climate Leadership Agreement builds upon commitments in an agreement the three U.S. states and Canadian province signed in 2013.
The new pact also serves as a model for collaboration to help the 135 “subnational” jurisdictions that agreed during climate change talks in Paris in late 2015 to control greenhouse gas emissions as part of the international effort to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, the three governors said.
Key provisions in the new Pacific Coast agreement call for developing and sharing a database for energy use in large buildings; expanding public and private sector use of electric vehicles and related charging infrastructure; accelerating the deployment of distributed, community-scale renewable energy and integrating it into the grid; reducing the carbon intensity of heating fuels; and reducing carbon emissions from food waste.
The three U.S. states and British Columbia are founding signatories of the Subnational Global Climate Leadership Memorandum of Understanding, also called the Under2MOU, which commits the states, provinces and cities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to two tons per capita or by 80 percent to 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (97 DEN A-19, 5/20/15).
Collaboration Important in Battling Climate Change,
Collaboration is key to battling climate change and decarbonizing the global economy, the governors said.
“This interest in decarbonizing our economy is encouraging,” California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said at the event. Brown is credited with spearheading the subnational movement at Paris.
Reducing carbon emissions will be a challenge, especially for smaller jurisdictions, he said.
“Two tons per capita—that's radical,” Brown said. “You need to gird yourself for the battle.”
Parties to the pact also signed an action plan agreeing to serve as leaders in advancing regional, national and international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build low-carbon economies.
Plan specifics call for improving access to clean energy technologies and solutions in disadvantaged communities; demonstrating low carbon economies can thrive and attract investors; advancing the West Coast's carbon pricing programs; creating a robust regional market for low carbon transportation fuels; accelerating the deployment of zero emission vehicles in West Coast fleets; integrating regional electricity grids; increasing accessibility to renewable energy; increasing climate resilience; boosting support for clean energy research; and reinforcing insurance and regulatory efforts to highlight the economic risks of inaction on climate change.
States to Implement Clean Power Plan
Another provision commits California, Oregon and Washington to implement the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33), which limits carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector, through state policies and programs that can serve as models for other states.
Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland are the California cities signing the Pacific Coast leadership agreement. The mayors of Seattle, Wash., Portland, Ore., and Vancouver, B.C., also signed the pact.
“Oregon can play a vital role by leveraging the impact of our individual efforts,” the state's Gov. Kate Brown (D) said.
To reduce Oregon's carbon footprint, the state is accelerating the use of renewable power and has adopted a low carbon fuel standard and a coal-to-clean-energy law, she said.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) also touted his state's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as that state released June 1 a revised draft of its proposed carbon cap rule that would require large greenhouse gas emitters to demonstrate every three years that they have reduced their emissions by an average of 1.7 percent annually (see related story).
“This is not the only thing we're doing to attack this beast,” Inslee said.
Washington, B.C. Actions
Washington, like California and Oregon, has adopted ambitious renewable energy goals and is encouraging the deployment of electric vehicles, he said
“We know we need massive investment in research and development,” and Washington is attracting investments in clean energy technologies, Inslee said.
Implementing British Columbia's tax on all fossil fuels in 2008 took “guts,” especially because it coincided with the economic recession, Mary Polak, the province's environment minister, said.
“Although initially contentious, it is now accepted,” she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90831955&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90831955&jd=90831955
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested