Preview Newsletter

ACC PM 6/2/16

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) New Technologies Increase Mixed Waste Recycling, Commodities Recovery, Report Says
Jun 2, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle

The main technologies used in modern recycling plants, also known as materials recovery facilities (MRFs), are being successfully integrated into new mixed waste processing facilities (MWPFs).
(ACC Mentioned) PeroxyChem Receives Canadian National Railway Company’s 2015 Safe Handling Award
Jun 2, 2016 | Military Technologies

PeroxyChem has been presented with the 2015 Safe Handling Award from the Canadian National Railway Company (CN). The award recognizes customers who make the safe handling of dangerous goods a top priority.
(ACC Mentioned) Ad Spending in Missouri Senate Race Revving Up
Jun 2, 2016 | St. Louis Post-Dispatch
By Chuck Raasch

The television ad campaign in Missouri’s U.S. Senate race is starting to rev up.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Advisors Urge Quick Action On Key Solvent, Call For Broader Review
Jun 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

EPA science advisors are generally praising the agency's draft human health risk assessment of the solvent 1-bromopropane (1-BP) and urging the agency to act quickly to reduce exposures, while also citing new biomarker reports on possible wide exposures in pressing EPA to reconsider its decision not to assess risks to bystanders.
Disrupted: The Endocrine Disruptor Debate
Jun 2, 2016 | EurActive
By Christopher Borgert

For nearly two decades, the European Union (EU) has been trying to navigate an incessant stream of allegations that common chemicals used in agriculture and consumer products interfere with hormones that compose the human endocrine system.
Male Exposure To Chemicals Linked To Longer Time To Conceive
Jun 2, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle

It’s well known that what a woman eats, drinks, breathes and puts on her body while she’s pregnant or nursing can all affect her reproductive system and the health of her baby. But new research reveals that a man’s exposure to harmful chemicals plays an important role, too.
Compromise (Gasp!) Fixes 'Worst Environmental Law'
Jun 2, 2016 | Poughkeepsie Journal
By John Ferro

Three years in the making, and decades overdue, Congress is poised to pass legislation revamping what some have called the "worst environmental law on the books."
Summary of New Safety Act
Jun 2, 2016 | Martinsville Bulletin
By Paul Collins

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act aims to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), improve chemical safety and the safety of products that contain them, encourage continued innovation and economic growth while protecting public health and the environment, according to the Congress.gov website.
Locals Support Congressional Overhaul of Hazardous Chemicals
Jun 2, 2016 | Martinsville Bulletin
By Paul Collins

The U.S. House of Representatives recently approved by a 403-12 vote the first major overhaul of the nation’s primary chemical safety law, and the Senate also is expected to approve it, according to Science magazine, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other news media reports.
EPA Proposes Adding HBCD to EPCRA List of Toxic Chemicals
Jun 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch

The US EPA has proposed to add hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) to its list of toxic chemicals, subject to reporting requirements under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
EPA Receives 58 Pre-Manufacturing Notices in April
Jun 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch

The US EPA received 58 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) in April. Of these, 39 have their manufacturer or importer protected as confidential business information.
Nike Supply Chain Carried Out Almost 500,000 Chemical Tests in 2015
Jun 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

The supply chain of global sportswear company Nike carried out 479,000 chemical tests in 2015. These were performed to ensure that the company's finished products do not contain restricted substances.
Food Packaging Damages Children's Teeth -- Study
Jun 2, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

Early exposure to two chemicals commonly found in food packaging could cause irreparable damage to children's teeth, a new study found.

Energy News

U.S. Chamber Rips Fracking Rule for Economic Impact
Jun 2, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer

The nation's most powerful business group is joining the fray in the protracted legal battle over hydraulic fracturing on public lands.
Federal Environmental Regulators Dispel Fracking Fears
Jun 2, 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 ruling found no significant environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing off the California shores.
Air Agency Group Releases Model Plans, Legislation
Jun 2, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden

An association of air agencies yesterday released sample carbon-cutting plans and legislation that would allow states to implement U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Doubling Down on Energy Innovation
Jun 2, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Secretary Ernest Moniz

Last year in Paris, President Obama and 19 other world leaders announced Mission Innovation, an effort to expand the clean energy innovation pipeline by doubling research and development and then turning innovation into transformation.
Energy Infrastructure Investments Vital to Economic Growth
Jun 2, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Robin Rorick

Roads, bridges, high speed rail, airport modernization – when politicians promise to fix the nation’s “crumbling infrastructure” and put Americans to work building shovel-ready projects, transportation is usually at the top of the list.
Cost to Cut Methane Higher Than Estimates -- Industry
Jun 2, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly

A new study commissioned by a group of oil and gas companies found that the cost of reducing industry methane emissions is higher than previously estimated.
California Proposes Methane Emission Rule; SoCalGas Calculates Aliso Leak at 4.62 Bcf
Jun 2, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec

California air pollution regulators on Tuesday issued proposed regulations for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for all oil and natural gas facilities, including methane emission requirements for gas storage facilities.
Iowa Greenlights Bakken Shale Pipe Despite Federal Issues
Jun 2, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee

Iowa regulators will allow construction to start on a $3.7 billion pipeline connecting the Bakken Shale to markets in the Midwest, while the project's owners finish obtaining permits and right of way.
FERC OKs Elba Island LNG Export Terminal, Pipeline Project
Jun 2, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher

FERC has approved Kinder Morgan Inc.'s (KMI) plan to add liquefaction and export capability to the existing Elba Island LNG Terminal near Savannah, GA, as well as make modifications to existing pipelines in support of the project.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

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

Environment News

D.C. Circuit Rejects Rehearing Of Time-Barred NSR Suit
Jun 2, 2016 | Inside EPA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected environmentalists' petition for rehearing by the full court of their suit seeking to overturn a decades-old EPA Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permitting rule, after a three-judge panel of the court earlier rejected the case as being time-barred.
EPA Backs CWA Groundwater Permits Ruling But Sees Flaws In Decision
Jun 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo

EPA is urging an appeals court to uphold a decision that found pollutants reaching jurisdictional waters through a groundwater conduit can be subject to Clean Water Act (CWA) discharge permits, though the agency is disagreeing with parts of the court's reasoning on when a groundwater connection can make waters jurisdictional.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) New Technologies Increase Mixed Waste Recycling, Commodities Recovery, Report Says

Jun 2, 2016 | Environmental Leader

By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle

The main technologies used in modern recycling plants, also known as materials recovery facilities (MRFs), are being successfully integrated into new mixed waste processing facilities (MWPFs). As such, they are increasing diversion from landfills and maximizing recovery of marketable materials, according to a report released by the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division.
While both types of facilities divert materials from landfills by increasing the recovery of marketable commodities, MRFs require recyclable materials to be removed from the waste before being processed, usually through curbside collection programs.
MWPFs, on the other hand, extract recyclables directly from municipal solid waste. This can increase recycling rates, according to some in the industry.
“Technologies for recycling and recovering post-use resources are constantly evolving as is the waste stream — which creates opportunities to consider new strategies and innovations,” Craig Cookson, ACC’s senior director of recycling and energy recovery, told Environmental Leader. “Our shared goal is to direct more valuable post-use plastics from the waste stream toward greater circularity.”
The report also says some MRFs have been converted to MWPFs, so additional municipal solid waste materials can be diverted from landfill through recovery as marketable materials, transformed into a feedstock for solid engineered fuels or used in waste-to-energy processes.
Authored by solid waste management consulting firm Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Supplemental Report: The Evolution of Mixed Waste Processing Facilities—Technology and Equipment Guide examines 10 types of equipment including optical sorting systems; bag openers, which free materials from closed plastic trash bags; air separation systems and densifiers, which compact the material streams into a smaller, more transportable form. The report evaluates the quality of the finished product, the volumes that are captured versus lost, and the speed at which the processing equipment works.
For example, optical sorting systems, which use optical near-infrared light and sensors, have been used in MRFs since the early 2000s and more recently in MWPFs, the report says. This recycling technology uses a light source to illuminate unsorted materials, which reflect different wavelengths. Sensors determine if the material can be recycled based on those wavelengths, and then the materials are “ejected” into separate bins, or ejection housing, with an air nozzle.
One of the challenges associated with optical sorting systems, the report says, is that there is a materials size limit on what the unit can read and eject. For most municipal solid waste applications, this means plastic pieces must be at least 1 or 2 inches or the machine will miss it.
Meanwhile in Indianapolis…
The report comes just months after the city of Indianapolis and Covanta reached an agreement to suspend Covanta’s $45 Advanced Recycling Center, a mixed waste processing facility that was supposed to open this year.
Covanta had said the new facility would increase recycling by five times the current rate and recover up to 80 percent to 90 percent of resources such as recyclable paper, cardboard, plastics and metals, at no cost to the city or its residents.
“In contrast, a citywide curbside program would require tens of millions of dollars in new recycling bins, trucks, labor, fuel and maintenance, in addition to other expenses,” Covanta’s Scott Holkeboer told Recycling Today in an interview last year.
The project was suspended after drawing controversy for its single-bin approach, collecting recyclables and municipal solid waste in a single container to be sorted at the facility. It also locked the city into a $112 million commitment through 2028 and would force the city to pay a $4 million annual penalty if it implemented a recycling program, Waste Management World reports.
While Covanta’s financial lock-in may have been its ultimate undoing in its deal with Indianapolis, it also illustrates the concern that a single-bin approach, common with MWPFs, will contaminate the recycling stream. But as technology advances continue to improve MWPFs recovery capabilities, as illustrated by the ACC’s report, those concerns may not hold as much weight.
As Harvey Gershman, report author and president of Gershman, Brickner & Bratton writes in a Renewable Energy from Waste column, “MWPFs offer an opportunity for increased recyclables diversion, including organics, and production of a cleaner, higher-quality fuel residual product…If moving from source separation allows more materials to be recycled and converted to a fuel feedstock, resulting in even higher diversion from landfills, aren’t we better off?”
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/06/02/new-technologies-increase-mixed-waste-recycling-commodities-recovery-report-says/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) PeroxyChem Receives Canadian National Railway Company’s 2015 Safe Handling Award

Jun 2, 2016 | Military Technologies

PeroxyChem has been presented with the 2015 Safe Handling Award from the Canadian National Railway Company (CN). The award recognizes customers who make the safe handling of dangerous goods a top priority.
To be eligible for the award, companies must have managed at least 100 shipments from a CN location during the year with no non-accidental releaSES (NAR) associated with the rail cars, whether as a loaded car or as a residue car on the return. PeroxyChem far exceeded the minimum requirement of 100 shipments.
"We are thrilled to have been named a recipient of the 2015 Safe Handling Award. Winning this award speaks volumes for our team, and is a testament to our unyielding dedication to safety in every aspect of our operations," said Bruce Lerner, CEO, PeroxyChem.
The Safe Handling Award is an integral part of the Responsible Care® Program – an ongoing performance improvement initiative in which CN is a partner, both in Canada and the U.S. The Chemistry Industry Association of Canada (CIAC) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) established this initiative.
About PeroxyChem
PeroxyChem is a global leader in peroxygen and adjacent chemistries. The company employs approximately 550 people throughout the world, with facilities in North America, Europe and Asia. With an unyielding commitment to safety at its core and backed by an exceptional team, the company prides itself on exemplary customer service, product quality, reliability and technical service. PeroxyChem manufactures high quality products and innovative applications developed as a result of innovation and superior technical expertise. We supply customized chemistries for electronics, energy, environmental, food safety, pulp, paper, polymer, and other industrial and consumer markets.
http://www.military-technologies.net/2016/06/01/peroxychem-receives-canadian-national-railway-companys-2015-safe-handling-award/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Ad Spending in Missouri Senate Race Revving Up

Jun 2, 2016 | St. Louis Post-Dispatch

By Chuck Raasch

The television ad campaign in Missouri’s U.S. Senate race is starting to rev up.
A report from the Center for Responsive Politics and the Wesleyan Media Project tracking campaign advertising in federal elections said that through May 8, just under $2 million had been spent on advertising. Of that amount, $1.6 million was to benefit incumbent Sen. Roy Blunt. R-Mo.
About $300,000 had been spent to benefit Democratic Secretary of State Jason Kander, who opposes Blunt, according to the study.
All of the spending had come from outside the candidates’ campaigns, through political committees. By law, those committees must act independently of the campaigns, according to the study.
The three most active in Missouri so far have been political committees One Nation, a conservative group based in California; the Washington, D.C.-based American Chemistry Council, which supports Republicans by a roughly 3-1 margin; and the liberal group, End Citizens United, which opposes the Supreme Court decision opening campaign spending to corporations.
The Center for Public Integrity says that as of the latest reports, End Citizens United has raised almost $12 million and spent almost $8 million in federal elections since last year.
The spending in Missouri so far has been dwarfed by other states important in control of the Senate and have had or will have contested Senate primaries, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Television advertising spending in Illinois’ Democratic U.S. Senate primary, won by Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Schaumburg, was about $7.3 millon, 44 percent of it from outside groups not directly affiliated with a campaign. About $1.8 million had been spent through May 8 on pro-Republican Senate ads in Illinois, where Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., is trying to keep his seat. Just under 14 percent of that pro-Republican spending came from groups not directly tied to Kirk’s campaign, according to the study.
The Center for Responsive Politics-Wesleyan study found that spending on advertising in the presidential campaign has more than doubled the 2012 pace, to over $408 million through May 8. About $270 million of it was by Republican candidates and Republican-leaning groups.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ad-spending-in-missouri-senate-race-revving-up/article_2fd9f05c-1148-52b8-b231-ea0d6b631b17.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Advisors Urge Quick Action On Key Solvent, Call For Broader Review

Jun 1, 2016 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

EPA science advisors are generally praising the agency's draft human health risk assessment of the solvent 1-bromopropane (1-BP) and urging the agency to act quickly to reduce exposures, while also citing new biomarker reports on possible wide exposures in pressing EPA to reconsider its decision not to assess risks to bystanders.
The agency's new Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC), met for the first time May 24-25 in Arlington, VA, to peer review the draft assessment of the solvent, also known as n-propyl bromide.
EPA's draft assessment finds that the chemical poses risks to workers and pregnant women. It is part of EPA's work plan risk assessment program, per its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorities, one of several ongoing federal reviews regarding the solvent that has seen increased use in recent years.
At the meeting, CSAC members urged EPA officials to quickly address the chemical, which several noted has been marketed as a "green" alternative to other solvents that have been phased out for dry cleaning and other uses, such as trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene.
In response to a question from panelist Holly Davies, a senior toxicologist with Washington State Department of Ecology, regarding how the assessment will be used, EPA's Tala Henry replied that the chemical faces a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) petition, noting that the assessment team has "worked very closely with" staff in the air office.
But Henry, director of the toxics office's risk assessment division, said that the assessment is designed primarily to inform how the agency's toxics office could address the chemical through its existing TSCA authority. "We're already thinking about which risk-reduction" measures could be taken, she added.
Davies also questioned Henry about the amount of time the assessments take agency staff to complete, noting that the TSCA reform bill that cleared the House 403-12 on May 24 and now awaits action in the Senate, allows just two years for the agency to complete an assessment.
In response, Henry noted that the bill is not yet law -- though if the measure makes it to President Obama, the White House has signaled he will sign it into law.
At the CSAC meeting, panelists also expressed concerns that there is evidence of widespread general population exposures that are not addressed in the occupational exposure and hobbyist scenarios included in the risk assessment. The concern is also raised in recent remarks from several environmental and labor groups, who argued in their May 9 comments that "the Draft Assessment does not mention, let alone attempt to explain, the fact that biomonitoring studies have found a urinary metabolite of [1-BP -- N-Acetyl-S-(n-propyl)-L-cysteine -- in a large proportion of the population."
The groups cite EPA's recent rule adding 1-BP to the Toxics Release Inventory, in which they say EPA refers to the metabolite "as the 'major metabolite' of 1-BP, and noted that it has been detected in the urine of exposed workers at levels that increased with increasing levels of 1-BP in ambient air."
One panelist noted that use of a biomarker could strengthen the draft assessment, which like many assessments of industrial chemicals, has data gaps. "It's clear EPA is facing an issue with noted . . . data gaps. The risks calculated appear to be quite substantial," Panos Georgopoulos a professor with Rutgers University's public health and medical schools. "What's missing is linking this information to biomarker data to ensure this exposure is happening."
One of the assessment authors, Andrea Pfahles-Hutchens, replied that "some of the new biomarker data that just came out is not included [in the assessment], as you noted. We'll have to look at that in the next iteration."
She said that according to recently released National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) "it looks more ubiquitous."
One of the panelists, Lesliam Quiros-Alcala, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, College Park's public health school, clarified that data published from the National Children's Study (NCS) in March detected the biomarker in 99 percent of the 488 pregnant women tested in their third trimester. She also pointed to the latest NHANES data, released by the Centers for the Disease Control and Prevention, where the biomarker was detected in all age groups of the nationally-representative biennial survey.
Another panelist, Kathleen Gilbert, a microbiology and immunology professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said she was struck by the figure from the NCS, especially given the short half life of 1-BP, a volatile chemical. "How do you reconcile that data?" she asked the EPA assessment team.
"We'll have to consider it," Pfahles-Hutchens replied, noting again that the study was recently published. "It comes down to is it the appropriate biomarker and can we chase it back to" 1-BP?
Another panelist, Jaymie Meliker, an associate professor at Stony Brook University focusing on exposure science and environmental epidemiology, also suggested that the biomarker data raises questions about the assessment. "The question about biomarkers of exposure, it sounds like it is a metabolite of 1-BP, but how specific is it? If so, then it really does . . . present a lot of challenges to this risk assessment because it seems there really is a much wider exposure."
But another panelist, Daniel Schlenk, a professor of environmental toxicology at the University of California Riverside, questioned the biomarker's specificity. Noting that his background is in metabolism, and said that the metabolite is one that will respond to any halopropane, such as disinfection byproducts in water. "I think there are other possibilities that you need to weed out," he said.
Still, panelists added that they do not wish EPA to delay action on the chemical while determining risk to the general population, which is not presently in the assessment.
"It seems to me that they've already got a lot of work with the occupational exposures and the hobbyists . . . presumably if they deal with these issues they will also deal with [general population exposures.] I hate to see a delay when they already have" so much to work with, Gilbert said.
"I thought about that too, we don't want to delay [action] on this chemical in my view," said panelist Melanie Marty, recently retired as acting deputy director for the Science Division of California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. But she added that unfortunately, often "when you decrease worker exposure you increase venting out [increasing general exposures] . . . it's a catch-22."
Marty later suggested what she described as a quick approach to inform agency assessors on general population risks, by "targeting a site-specific risk at a site. It could help you describe the risk to the general public and it would be fast," she said.
The panelists heard comments from Christina Franz, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), who reiterated comments that the trade association sent the advisory committee earlier in the month, arguing that the assessment is not sufficiently refined to be the basis for regulatory action.
"EPA acknowledged studies selected [for use in the assessment] were . . . driven by the lowest exposure and the highest hazard . . . this approach is not consistent with the best available science . . . and further refinement is necessary before EPA moves forward with" rulemaking on 1-BP, she said.
Franz also noted that Stan Barone, recently appointed acting director of the EPA toxics office's Office of Science Policy and Coordination, was formerly a management lead on the draft assessment. "His new role does create a conflict," Franz said. "We hope he will keep at arm's length."
Barone, who attended the peer review meeting, did not respond to Franz's comment.
Franz also reiterated concerns that ACC first sent to EPA toxics chief Jim Jones in April, arguing that the peer review panel did not have the correct expertise to review the 1-BP assessment.
Franz suggested that the endpoint of concern had changed since the agency sought peer reviewers for the document, and she urged the panel to "seek additional expertise."
The panelists did not respond to Franz's suggestion, but they did quiz her on arguments that she and ACC toxicologist Nancy Beck made that the assessment team had incorrectly based the cancer risk calculation on a toxicology study where mice exposed to 1-BP developed lung tumors.
Franz and Beck argued that these tumors are caused by an enzyme that is more active in mice than humans, meaning that they are not relevant to human health risk. Similar arguments have been made about these tumors in other chemicals, and Beck noted that EPA's IRIS program hosted a workshop on the topic in 2014, focusing on the chemicals ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and styrene. Beck said the concluding report said that the tumors should not be used for human health risk assessment.
"I didn't see any general conclusion in the workshop report," commented Kristina Thayer, a panelist and the director of the National Toxicology Program's Office of Health Assessment and Translation. Beck replied that Thayer should look at the report.
As the panel wrapped up its discussion of charge questions, Schlenk opined on the subject at the request of another panelist. Schlenk said that the lung tumor data is transferable to humans because they share the enzyme, but that "quantitatively, it's much trickier." Schlenk added that to follow the precautionary principle, he would use the lung tumor data as the basis for the cancer risk estimate calculations. His opinion was quickly backed by Marty and Thayer.
In her comments, Franz also argued that while the draft assessment concluded that 1-BP was mutagenic, resulting in a stringent linear cancer risk modeling, "there does not appear to be strong evidence of mutagenicity of 1-BP."
But panelists disagreed, with Gilbert noting that while the evidence wasn't conclusive in her view, it most likely indicated mutagenicity.
http://insideepa.com/inside-epa/epa-advisors-urge-quick-action-key-solvent-call-broader-review

Return to headline | Return to top
Disrupted: The Endocrine Disruptor Debate

Jun 2, 2016 | EurActive

By Christopher Borgert

For nearly two decades, the European Union (EU) has been trying to navigate an incessant stream of allegations that common chemicals used in agriculture and consumer products interfere with hormones that compose the human endocrine system. These so-called “endocrine-disrupting chemicals” (EDCs) have been claimed to cause an array of disparate health problems such as birth defects, obesity and autism. A plan to identify EDCs and assess their impact on human health was scheduled for completion two years ago under the EU’s Plant Protection Products Regulation and Biocidal Products Regulation, but disagreements over the science have prolonged the decision-making process. Earlier this month, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) issued a consensus statement intended to inform the European Commission’s decision regarding scientific criteria for EDC identification. It is worthwhile to consider why the scientific disagreements arose, how “scientific” the consensus might be, and most importantly, how the criteria for identifying EDCs could affect the health of Europeans and their financial markets.
Disagreement is common to all areas of science and essential for scientific progress. But unlike other realms of human inquiry, science does not achieve consensus through discourse and persuasion, but by narrowing the range of interpretations consistent with an increasingly probative data set. When the data is inconsistent, as it is with EDCs, competing interpretations can become skewed by agendas that run counter to the pursuit of scientific truth. Financial and political security play a stronger role than most would like to admit. NGO watchdog groups ply for financial support and political standing by sounding public alarms over the issues they promote. Academic researchers drive funding toward their areas of interest by raising issues to regulatory agencies, politicians and the public. Regulatory agencies justify their existence and performance by responding to the concerns of politicians and the public. Corporations seek to limit regulatory compliance and litigation costs and to preserve product viability and marketability.
In the debate over EDCs, especially in the EU, scientific and political disagreements have centred around definitions. In short, the broadest, least precise definitions of “EDCs” and “endocrine hazard’ favour the self-interests of EDC researchers, NGOs and some governmental agencies because a lack of specificity increases uncertainty and opens opportunities to raise new concerns that keep the EDC issue alive and ostensibly relevant in the public and political arenas. Narrower definitions favour the self-interests of industry and the economy because specificity limits the scope and increases the predictability of regulations; industry can adapt to nearly any regulatory environment, provided it is predictable. Despite their prevalence, personal attacks over bias and conflicts of interest neither disqualify nor validate either side of a scientific debate. Instead, such allegations should compel a dispassionate look past the narratives to examine the underlying facts.
The facts are as follows. The BfR consensus regarding criteria for identifying EDCs was steered primarily by politics, not science; there is no new data to narrow the range of interpretations to a unified position. The consensus statement does not address scientific criteria at all, only definitions. That is to be expected, of course, because the EU’s “roadmap” for EDCs lays out four optional sets of “criteria” – all of which address different combinations of definitions. Neither contains a meaningful discussion of actual scientific criteria, such as which laboratory tests must be conducted or how data should be interpreted for identifying EDCs.
The only specific scientific criterion often discussed in the consensus statement is the one it effectively dodged: potency. One side of the debate argues – and the other apparently acquiesced – that potency is too complex to include as a criterion. This argument is difficult to take seriously since potency is at the core of how the biological effects of chemicals are determined in the first place. Besides, potency is not all that complex. Potency is simply the strength of effect produced by a certain amount of a substance. Take acids, for example. Sulphuric acid is very strongly acidic and can burn the skin and mouth; in contrast, milk is very weakly acidic. Should milk be identified as an acidic hazard? How about coffee, tomato juice and vinegar, which are all more acidic than milk? Like labelling these common foods acidic hazards, the BfR consensus statement would allow chemicals to be labelled endocrine hazards in the EU, despite lacking sufficient potency to affect anyone’s endocrine system. By such standards, caffeine or cocoa would be endocrine hazards. That hardly seems consistent with the views of most Europeans, nor is it health-protective.
If adopted by the European Commission, the BfR consensus statement will have several consequences. First, it will ensure continued debate about how to identify endocrine hazards and what science should be used to do so. This will please NGO activist groups who rely on continued controversy to raise funds. Second, it will help to ensure continued funding for the broadest imaginable scope of research on alleged EDCs. That will please researchers whose laboratories are heavily invested in this topic. Given the number of scientists with a vested self-interest in EDCs on the consensus panel, it is no surprise that the consensus statement includes an appeal for continued research funding. Third, it will create an unpredictable regulatory environment wherein manufacturers are left without any useful compass for steering products to the marketplace. Some regulatory agencies will welcome this because it places their authority at the helm. Other agencies may be less enamoured of such a political consensus in the EU. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, for example, invested two decades and hundreds of millions of dollars developing, validating and implementing a scientific screening program to identify potential EDCs that weighs whether a chemical’s endocrine potency poses an actual risk. The agency’s investment could be undermined by a European approach that ignores this central aspect of the science.
If adopted, the BfR consensus statement will ensure that consumers, corporations and the marketplace are disrupted, but not in the ways forewarned by activist scientists and NGOs. Instead of protection from EDCs, consumers will be disrupted in their ability to choose among products, confused by phantom hazards identified as if they were real. The wide range of products currently available will be reduced, disrupted by irrational hazard labels, and consumers will pay more for the favour. Disrupted by regulatory standards that differ on opposite sides of the Atlantic, corporations will be unable to predict product marketability and will lose revenue. The EU’s tendency to elevate the politics of endocrine disruption over the science isn’t encouraging, but at this point, a political change of direction may be the only hope for a less disruptive solution.
http://www.euractiv.com/section/science-policymaking/opinion/disrupted-the-endocrine-disruptor-debate/

Return to headline | Return to top
Male Exposure To Chemicals Linked To Longer Time To Conceive

Jun 2, 2016 | Environmental Working Group

By Megan Boyle

It’s well known that what a woman eats, drinks, breathes and puts on her body while she’s pregnant or nursing can all affect her reproductive system and the health of her baby. But new research reveals that a man’s exposure to harmful chemicals plays an important role, too.
A recent study found that the concentration of heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and phthalates in a man’s body had more effect on how long it took a couple to conceive than the concentrations of those chemicals in the woman.
The researchers looked at data from the Longitudinal Investigation of Fertility and the Environment (LIFE) Study at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The study explored the relationship between environmental chemicals and fertility by following 501 couples for up to a year while they tried to conceive, tracking such factors as time-to-pregnancy, miscarriages, infertility, birth size and more.
The research, led by the Institute’s Germaine Buck Louis and published in the April edition of the journal Andrology, measured the amounts of certain chemicals in the urine and blood samples of both partners. Male exposures were associated with as much as 30 percent reduction in “couple fecundity,” as measured by the amount of time it took them to conceive.
Most problematic were the men’s exposure to lead, benzophenones, PCBs and some phthalates – a finding supported by earlier laboratory and observational studies that found that men with greater exposures to environmental contaminants have poorer sperm quality. Only two of the 86 chemicals studied – both PCBs – negatively affected the reproductive systems of both sexes.
Each of the couples in the LIFE study eventually became pregnant, and for many, the road to conception can be long, paved with a variety of obstacles such as family history, parental age and even stress. The study’s findings emphasize the importance of helping both parents – not just the mom – avoid harmful chemicals that can stymie healthy fertility and pregnancies. Here are some easy tips for potential moms and dads to avoid the common chemicals identified in the study:Lead gets into our bodies from drinking water, paint, cosmetics, toys and other sources. It is unsafe at any level, especially for fetuses and children. To avoid it, filter your water and check your home for old paint.Phthalates – industrial chemicals used in plastics, solvents and artificial fragrances – are linked to male reproductive problems and birth defects. To avoid them, don’t store or microwave food in plastic, choose wooden toys for your kids and skip products with artificial fragrance. EWG’s Skin Deep Cosmetics Database and EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaning can help you find safer products.PCBs – considered probable human carcinogens by the Environmental Protection Agency – are all around us as a result of widespread use in manufacturing from the 1930s until they were banned in 1976. Today we’re exposed to PCBs mostly through food, especially the fatty issues of meat. To avoid them, cut back on red meat, trim away fat from meat and fish andchoose fresh or wild-caught salmon rather than farmed.
For more information about how to avoid chemicals that can disrupt your hormones, check out EWG’s Dirty Dozen List of Endocrine Disruptors.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/06/male-exposure-chemicals-linked-longer-time-conceive

Return to headline | Return to top
Compromise (Gasp!) Fixes 'Worst Environmental Law'

Jun 2, 2016 | Poughkeepsie Journal

By John Ferro

Three years in the making, and decades overdue, Congress is poised to pass legislation revamping what some have called the "worst environmental law on the books."
That's how Scott Faber, of the nonprofitEnvironmental Working Group, recently describedthe 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.
The universally disparaged piece of legislation has done little to regulate the tens of thousands of chemicals found in everyday products from baby pacifiers and clothing, to furniture and household cleaners.
Of the 60,000 chemicals and toxic substances in existence when the law was approved, and the more than 80,000 that have been introduced into the marketplace since then, only 200 have been tested for safety by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Of those, only five have been subjected to restrictions.
Yes, five.
Consider this: The EPA banned asbestos in 1989, only to have the ban overturned two years later by a federal appeals court, its ruling based on the law's flawed standards.
On May 24, the House overwhelmingly approved a measure that significantly strengthens federal regulation of chemicals.
The vote was 403-12 in favor. Both local representatives, Sean Patrick Maloney, D-Cold Spring, and Chris Gibson, R-Kinderhook, voted for the measure, an indication of its bipartisan support.
"This bill," Gibson said, "affirms what I told the EPA Administrator earlier this year: We need more regular testing of commercially used chemicals to keep pace with scientific advances and provide consumers with the best information possible."
The Senate was expected to approve the bill last week under rules that allow for an expedited vote, so long as no senator objects. But Rand Paul put a hold on the bill, saying he wanted time to read it.
However, most expect the measure will be approved when the Senate returns from its recess this week.
The Obama administration has also expressed support. "While not perfect," the White House said in a statement, "the bill meets the high goals set by the administration for meaningful reform."
Barring an unexpected turn of events, the EPA will be able to craft rules to evaluate new and existing chemicals against new, risk-based safety standards. Those standards include considerations for at-risk populations such as children and the elderly.
New chemicals entering the market will have to prove they are safe. Under the old standard, the EPA had to prove they were dangerous.
Chemical companies will have a harder time concealing information about their chemicals by claiming disclosure would reveal trade secrets.
And the measure will not preempt existing rules that some states had adopted to fill the gaps created by the lax federal oversight.
Among the harmful chemicals to be regulated is trichloroethylene, or TCE, one of the contaminants in the Hopewell Precision Superfund site in the Town of East Fishkill.
Other possible carcinogens to be regulated include:
Dioxane, used in inks, adhesives, resins, waves and dyes.Formaldehyde, used in resins, fabrics and automobile components. Styrene, used in plastics and Styrofoam.
The legislation is being supported by environmental and trade groups, including the North America's Building Trade Unions, the March of Dimes, the National Wildlife Federation, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
Some are opposed. Faber, of the Environmental Working Group, said it does not go far enough.
"The bill does not provide EPA with the resources or clear legal authority to quickly review, and if needed, ban dangerous chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health problems," Faber said in a statement.
But imperfect as the bill may be, it is an example of the sort of incremental compromise that marks the best kind of governance.
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/tech/science/environment/2016/06/02/toxic-chemicals-safety-act/85196790/

Return to headline | Return to top
Summary of New Safety Act

Jun 2, 2016 | Martinsville Bulletin

By Paul Collins

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act aims to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), improve chemical safety and the safety of products that contain them, encourage continued innovation and economic growth while protecting public health and the environment, according to the Congress.gov website.
Dr. Jody Hershey, director of the West Piedmont Health District, gave this summary of various aspects of the bill:
"This purpose of this bill is to amend and strengthen Title I of the … TSCA, which dates back to 1976. Many individuals, including me, consider the existing current TSCA and its chemical safety regulations outdated and ineffective — mainly because these regulations have not been updated in about 40 years. Since 1976, many chemicals have been developed and are found in industrial settings and household products. Also, scientists have tremendously increased their knowledge and understanding of chemicals and their impacts on people and the environment over the last 40 years.
"This legislation will provide a clearer framework and consistent federal standards for assessing, evaluating, and regulating toxic chemicals in an effort to better protect the public — including our most vulnerable populations (i.e., children, pregnant women, elderly, and workers). Essentially, this bill promotes public safety and preserves public health by protecting all of us from potentially hazardous/toxic chemicals.
"These dangerous substances can be found in everyday household products, as well as in the workplace. We know that exposure to hazardous chemicals can lead to numerous health issues such as asthma, autoimmune disorders, cancer, diabetes, low birth weight and obesity. Environmental exposure prior to and during pregnancy can also profoundly affect both the mother and her child…and can lead to childhood developmental and behavioral problems. Therefore, this legislation protects the consumer and the factory worker by helping federal and state agencies effectively look at both the human and environmental health hazards of industrial chemicals.
"This legislation strengthens the existing regulations by giving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) greater authority to protect public, employee, and environmental health through an improved chemical management system that mandates timely reviews of new/existing chemicals and increases safety information about potentially hazardous industrial chemicals."
According to a fact sheet on the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee website, the TSCA was enacted in 1976 to manage hazardous chemicals in commerce, but TSCA has proven to be ineffective in providing adequate protections and facilitating U.S. chemical manufacturing and use, especially today in the face of interstate advancements and increased interstate commerce. "Modernization of the law is necessary to improve protections for public health and the environment, to provide the public greater confidence in the safety of U.S. chemicals, and to promote further innovation and economic growth."
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act will: "Provide EPA the tools to ensure chemicals in commerce are safer for consumers. "Create a new system for EPA to evaluate and manage risks associated with chemicals already on the market. Either EPA or a manufacturer (who is willing to pay the cost) may designate a chemical for risk evaluation. The risk evaluation must stand up to rigorous scientific standards set out in the legislation. If unreasonable risk is determined, EPA must immediately draft a rule to manage the risk. "Set deadlines for EPA to take action. Risk evaluations must be completed within three years. Risk management rules must follow completion of risk evaluations by 90 days. "Ensure user fees paid to EPA are used for chemical management activity. User fees will be deposited in a separate fund in the Treasury, and the fees charged and collected will match the cost of carrying out the specific purposes. "Provide limited preemption of state law. Once EPA makes a final decision on whether a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, EPA action would generally apply in all states. Prior state laws and private rights of action under tort or contract law are preserved. "Maintain protection of confidential business information. Certain state, local and tribal government officials and health care professionals will now have access. Confidentiality claims must be reclaimed after 10 years."
The Associated Press reported May 19 that a bipartisan agreement had been reached by House and Senate negotiators that would set new safety standards for asbestos and other dangerous chemicals, including tens of thousands that have gone unregulated for decades. It said the bill has won backing of industry officials.
Chemicals used in everyday products such as household cleaners, clothing and furniture have been linked to serious illnesses, including cancer, infertility, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. Under current law, only a small fraction of chemicals used in these products have been reviewed for safety, the AP reported.
Under the agreement, if the federal government does not complete the regulatory process for a chemical within 3½ years, then states would be free to regulate that chemical, the AP reported.
http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/townnews/economics/summary-of-new-safety-act/article_6efda658-2861-11e6-98e8-db8aa8f2f939.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Locals Support Congressional Overhaul of Hazardous Chemicals

Jun 2, 2016 | Martinsville Bulletin

By Paul Collins

The U.S. House of Representatives recently approved by a 403-12 vote the first major overhaul of the nation’s primary chemical safety law, and the Senate also is expected to approve it, according to Science magazine, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other news media reports.
The proposed reform has gotten or is getting a lot of support locally, in Virginia and nationally.
In a letter urging Congress to support the bill, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act would provide much-needed reforms to the Toxic Control Substances Act (TSCA), improve protections for public health and provide clarity for industry and manufacturers.
Amanda Witt, president of the Martinsville-Henry County Chamber of Commerce, said: "Businesses want a level playing field without undue regulations, but having a safe work environment is paramount to a growing thriving economy. Making sure all of the products we use and produce are safe is of the utmost importance."
Candy Eslinger, a spokesperson for Eastman, said: "Eastman supports the legislative reform currently before Congress to the … (TSCA). Consumers deserve to have confidence that the products they buy are safe for their families and the environment. We encourage improvements that will enable the various regulatory agencies to work cooperatively in the management of chemicals and products for the protection of human health and the environment. In addition, any revisions to TSCA should facilitate innovation and support the U.S. chemical industry’s efforts to be a world leader in developing new products that benefit society. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is an effective compromise that provides for protection while enabling innovation."
John Parkinson, chief executive officer of Drake Extrusion, said, "We don’t think for our particular business it will have any significant impact…. We’re fairly relaxed about it."
He thinks businesses in the chemical industry are pretty much onboard with it.
"It’s not a big deal for us," he said.
Dr. Jody Hershey, director of the West Piedmont Health District, said: "A more effective national hazardous chemical policy will help to better protect our families and the public’s health, as well as improve industrial safety in our region. Ultimately, this chemical safety legislation can help support the creation of jobs through the expansion, innovation, and growth of the U.S. chemical industry, manufacturing, construction, and other industries in the City of Martinsville and Henry County."
Elizabeth Harris, director of marketing for Memorial Hospital, said: "The biggest challenge I see facing our hospital and the healthcare industry, in general, from this new legislation is our use of and reliance on cleaning and disinfecting agents. Based on guidance from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), we utilize these agents all day, every day to control and limit the spread of infection, but there may not be extensive data on the long-term health impacts of frequently using them. Increased EPA regulation will mean that the agency will have to work with the CDC to ensure that hospitals and clinics have access to adequate cleaning and disinfecting agents.
"But for us, it always comes down to what is safest and best for our patients and employees, and increased oversight of chemicals will probably benefit both. While it could limit access and increase cost of some supplies, it could have added safety benefits."
Harris added. "From a public health perspective, it is encouraging that provisions of the bill would encourage federal agencies to study ‘cancer clusters’ as we see unusually high numbers of certain cancers, like breast cancer, in our area."
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) praised the U.S. House of Representatives for passing the bill, saying it strengthens federal oversight over the use of tens of thousands of chemicals in commercial use and contains provisions to minimize and in some cases replace animal testing to evaluate chemical safety, according to a news release.
Nicole Harris, executive director of SPCA of Martinsville and Henry County, said: "The bill is an attempt (to) broaden the EPA’s authority: It removes the major legal barriers that prevented EPA from evaluating substances and implementing restrictions when needed. I feel it reduces the abuse of ‘confidential business information,’ where chemical information isn’t always fully disclosed, and though weak, it gives an enforceable schedule of the EPA chemical reviews, while preserving existing state restrictions on chemical use. It requires manufacturers who perform chemical testing to learn more about the substances of concern, while setting a policy that should overall reduce the use of animal testing altogether over time.
"HSUS tells us that tens of thousands of animals are killed each year testing industrial chemicals. Is this a perfect bill? No, the animal advocate in all of us would like to see an end to all toxic testing on animals , but today we celebrate the language that certainly goes further than any other and (curbs) the development and use of non- animal methods to meet U.S. regulations. Ten chemicals per year doesn’t sound like a lot but one chemical or class of chemicals can have immeasurable reach, impacting our health, economy and thousands of animals’ lives. Factory health and industry growth are very important to Martinsville- Henry County. Our state has ample restrictions on chemical use. This bill provides clear ‘grandfathering’ (legal protection) of many existing state laws. I look forward to the provisions of reducing needless animal (suffering). For many of us in this industry (animal welfare), any progress toward that is positive!"
Brian Williams, program manager of the Dan River Basin Association, said: "It’s a good step forward for the environment and for public health. Given it’s the first update of the Toxic Substances act of ’76, it’s long overdue. It shouldn’t put any undue burdens on manufacturing due to the fact that it attempts to inform the public of current toxic substances that are currently not classified as such, as well as giving states time to comply with any new regulations after review of the chemicals."
He added: "It calls for review of substances that are not currently regulated. That does not mean they will be pulled from use, but it does mean a review is needed and that it the first step. If we keep on manufacturing new chemicals without understanding the possible negative effects on the environment and public health, then we jeopardize our future. Considering the host of new chemicals developed since the act, it’s overdue."
Ninth District U.S. Morgan Griffith said in statement: "This legislation is a much-needed update to outdated chemical safety laws. The last consequential update of this law was 40 years ago. Among the updates are this bill’s efforts to improve public health and safety by protecting people from unsafe chemical exposure and its new standards for the Environmental Protection Agency. Also important, the legislation was supported across the board as significant steps to fix the law, and was supported by both small and large manufacturers in the Ninth District."
According to Science magazine, many industry groups and some environmental groups support the final bill, but some, such as the Breast Cancer Fund, have opposed it, and some others, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, were noncommittal.
http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/news/locals-support-congressional-overhaul-of-hazardous-chemicals/article_232ecea0-2861-11e6-82f7-2fd4000134a8.html

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Proposes Adding HBCD to EPCRA List of Toxic Chemicals

Jun 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch

The US EPA has proposed to add hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) to its list of toxic chemicals, subject to reporting requirements under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
This would require facilities that manufacture, process or use HBCD to report the substance’s environmental releases and other waste management quantities, as well as its pollution prevention and recycling data.
The primary use of HBCD is as a flame retardant in expanded and extruded polystyrene foams (EPS and XPS). It is also used as such in textiles, including in upholstered furniture, vehicles, draperies, and other applications.
According to a notice in the Federal Register, the substance is being proposed due to EPA’s belief that HBCD “can reasonably be anticipated” to cause developmental and reproductive effects in humans, and because it is highly toxic to aquatic and terrestrial organisms.
Comments on the proposed listing will be accepted until 1 August.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47829/epa-proposes-adding-hbcd-to-epcra-list-of-toxic-chemicals

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Receives 58 Pre-Manufacturing Notices in April

Jun 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch

The US EPA received 58 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) in April. Of these, 39 have their manufacturer or importer protected as confidential business information.
These include:
several coating components;
industrial adhesives and adhesive components;
a fragrance ingredient; and
additives for various applications.
During the same period, the agency received 31 notices of commencement (NOCs) to manufacture new chemicals.
This subscription/free trial has now expired. Please contact us if you require assistance, or visit oursubscription information page.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47820/epa-receives-58-pre-manufacturing-notices-in-april

Return to headline | Return to top
Nike Supply Chain Carried Out Almost 500,000 Chemical Tests in 2015

Jun 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

The supply chain of global sportswear company Nike carried out 479,000 chemical tests in 2015. These were performed to ensure that the company's finished products do not contain restricted substances.
The testing efforts – executed by the company’s material vendors, finished goods contractors and independent third parties – come under the company's goal of achieving "zero discharge of hazardous chemicals for all products across all pathways in our supply chain by 2020."
Together with other leading fashion brands, Nike was a founding member of the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) initiative in 2011. Progress toward the company's 2020 zero discharge goal was outlined in its recently released 2014-15 Sustainable Business Report.
The report indicates that of the nearly half million tests, 95% of materials passed. Those that fail the company’s restricted substances list (RSL) test are "considered defective and prevented from entering production".
Nike has had an RSL in place since 2001, and adopted the ZDHC manufacturing restricted substances list (MRSL) last year.
The RSL, updated at the beginning of 2016, highlights areas where Nike's substance restrictions exceed legislative requirements. These include:
more stringent limits for formaldehyde;
limits to encourage the eventual phase down of alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs) and alkyphenols (APs) from a statutory 1,000mg/kg to 100mg/kg;
"strict guidance" on the use of any antimicrobial or biocidal product; and
a non-detect limit for PVCs.
The sustainability report says it also phased out long-chain (C8) perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) as of 1 January 2015.
Additional efforts toward the zero discharge goal reported by the company include:
81% of apparel material vendors and 51% of footwear vendors committing to the green chemistry practices outlined in the Nike materials sustainability index (MSI);
building a tool base to address dyeing and finishing operations, that aims to "enable the targeted deployment of programmes to minimise risk, optimise manufacturing and spur innovation"; and
reducing by 96%, since 1995, the use of petroleum-derived solvents (PDSs) in footwear, achieved through adoption of water-based adhesives.
Greg Rossiter, a company spokesperson, told Chemical Watch that Nike has made "meaningful progress" toward its 2020 goal of zero discharge of hazardous chemicals (ZDHC).
But he said the company recognises there's "more work to be done by Nike and in collaboration with ZDHC and member brands".
https://chemicalwatch.com/47800/nike-supply-chain-carried-out-almost-500000-chemical-tests-in-2015

Return to headline | Return to top
Food Packaging Damages Children's Teeth -- Study

Jun 2, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

Early exposure to two chemicals commonly found in food packaging could cause irreparable damage to children's teeth, a new study found.
The chemicals bisphenol A (BPA) and vinclozolin could disrupt the hormones that help dental enamel grow, according to a new study by researchers from the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research.
A condition known as MIH can develop as a result of exposure to these chemicals. MIH affects a child's first permanent teeth, most commonly the molars and incisors. Once the enamel is damaged, it does not grow back.
Children with MIH typically experience tooth sensitivity and are at greater risk for dental troubles. The ailment can also cause discoloration in teeth.
In conducting the study, leader author Katia Jedeon discovered that exposure to BPA and vinclozolin alters certain gene expressions that determine enamel mineralization.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/02/stories/1060038185

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

U.S. Chamber Rips Fracking Rule for Economic Impact

Jun 2, 2016 | E&E Energywire

By Ellen M. Gilmer

The nation's most powerful business group is joining the fray in the protracted legal battle over hydraulic fracturing on public lands.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce yesterday slammed the Obama administration's fracking rule as "an intrusion into an already heavily regulated field."
"States have been at the vanguard of shale energy development," Chamber lawyers wrote in a legal filing. "The mere fact that state regulations may differ in some respects does not justify federal intrusion."
The rule, which sets new requirements for well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure on public and tribal lands, has been tied up in litigation since its release more than a year ago. Several Western states, industry groups and an Indian tribe are challenging the rule in federal district court in Wyoming and simultaneously urging the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to keep the rule from taking effect while the suit is ongoing.
The Chamber of Commerce filed a friend-of-the-court brief yesterday urging the 10th Circuit to uphold the preliminary injunction that froze the rule last year. The group says implementation of the fracking rule will threaten oil and gas operators, tribes, and taxpayers.
"The shale revolution has created unprecedented economic opportunities by increasing U.S. GDP [gross domestic product], job growth, manufacturing investment, and government revenues," the group said. "Hydraulic fracturing has increased disposable income, lowered the cost of living, and improved U.S. energy security. By arbitrarily implementing a costly and unnecessary rule that overlaps with existing state regulations, the rule threatens to cause yet further significant harm to a vital sector for the U.S. economy that is already suffering from historic price declines."
While Interior estimates the cost of complying with the rule at $11,000 per well, industry says the true cost will be much higher. Worse, the Chamber of Commerce says, those costs yield no real environmental or public health benefit -- a claim also made by the Western Energy Alliance and Independent Petroleum Association of America -- because states already regulate the industry closely.
The Chamber did not respond by publication time to a request for comment.
Another industry group, the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, is also planning to file a friend-of-the-court brief this week.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/02/stories/1060038168

Return to headline | Return to top
Federal Environmental Regulators Dispel Fracking Fears

Jun 2, 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 ruling found 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”) reaffirmed the 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 SAB found 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/#6aceda2a58b3

Return to headline | Return to top
Air Agency Group Releases Model Plans, Legislation

Jun 2, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

By Emily Holden

An association of air agencies yesterday released sample carbon-cutting plans and legislation that would allow states to implement U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The 438-page report by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies took two years to complete and includes a model plan for states that choose to cap carbon emissions from existing and new power plants. The document also explores step-by-step considerations for other types of plans.
Bill Becker, the group's executive director, said even if the Clean Power Plan is invalidated by the courts, the report could be useful for writing state-driven, rather than federally required, clean energy policies. The work builds on a broader "menu" of carbon-cutting options NACAA released last year (Greenwire, May 21, 2015).
Becker said states can take advantage of a slowdown in planning since the Supreme Court has stayed enforcement of the federal regulation.
Regulators can sit down with staff, other agencies and stakeholders inside and outside the state, to "quietly learn more without the clock ticking," Becker said. That way, "if and when the stay is lifted and the rule proceeds, they will be in a much better place to charge ahead more quickly than they otherwise would."
The model plan is not necessarily approvable by EPA, Becker cautioned. NACAA held technical calls with EPA when the rule came out but did not run the report by the agency.
Becker said NACAA did not want the state model to be "in any way shaped by EPA." He said his association was mindful that some states wanted to keep "an arm's length from EPA" for political reasons. Governors and attorneys general in many of NACAA's member states are challenging the rule.
The report includes sample regulations and legislation states might need to enact in order to implement their chosen strategies under the Clean Power Plan.
In initial discussions with state energy officials and electric regulators, NACAA found that some states did not have legislative authority to move forward and "might be constrained by the relatively limited time period" of the rule, Becker said. Some state legislatures meet only every other year, for example.
The sample legislative language is meant to speed efforts to prepare for the rule. Depending on the state, lawmakers might need to provide statutory authority for air agencies to aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to implement carbon trading systems.
But conservative state legislatures do not appear eager to help smooth the process. Even as many agencies in states opposed to the rule continue to weigh various Clean Power Plan strategies, some lawmakers have sought to confine their work.
Becker blamed that on a conservative political group, the American Legislative Exchange Council.
"There's been such a strong effort by ALEC and some of the opponents of the Clean Power Plan to strip states of their authorities to fund or implement this program," Becker said. "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. Let's try to make things easier for you to adopt the necessary legal authority.'"
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/02/stories/1060038165

Return to headline | Return to top
Doubling Down on Energy Innovation

Jun 2, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Secretary Ernest Moniz

Last year in Paris, President Obama and 19 other world leaders announced Mission Innovation, an effort to expand the clean energy innovation pipeline by doubling research and development and then turning innovation into transformation. At the same time, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and more than two dozen investors from ten countries pledged to invest significant private capital in clean energy, with the patience needed to introduce new energy technologies into the marketplace at large scale.

Today in San Francisco, I will join energy leaders from Mission Innovation countries and the European Union to announce how we plan to meet our target of doubling clean energy R&D to a total of nearly $30 billion per year by 2021.
Clean energy innovation is central to reducing the cost of clean energy technologies and in turn rapidly increasing their deployment. These efforts are critical to combating climate change, supporting economic growth, enabling life-changing energy services to the poor and enhancing global energy security.

While the whole world will share the benefits of widespread clean energy use, the United States must also recognize that there is also an element of healthy competition. The nations and businesses that invent clean energy solutions stand to win a large and growing clean energy market share.

The Paris climate agreement commits most of the world’s nations to dramatically increased deployment of clean energy over the next fifteen years, simultaneously responding to an environmental imperative and creating a multi-trillion dollar global economic opportunity. For example, India has committed to 100,000 megawatts of solar energy by 2022. And China is significantly increasing its new nuclear power generation.

Supporting American innovation will position American companies as major players in the global energy technology marketplace. Innovation is a hallmark of American economic leadership, but if we choose not to invest adequately in energy innovation, we will leave the clean energy breakthroughs to others.

That’s why the Administration has committed to work with Congress to double our own domestic clean energy R&D funding to $12.8 billion by 2021. President Obama’s budget request for fiscal year 2017 puts us on pace to meet that commitment by investing $7.7 billion for clean energy R&D.

Every source of clean, low carbon energy must be enabled. This includes renewables like solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass; efficiency; cutting-edge technologies in nuclear energy, carbon dioxide capture, utilization and underground storage; electricity storage; efficient advanced manufacturing; and 21st century electrical grids that are resilient, integrate renewable and distributed generation, and enable new consumer service delivery. Indeed, carbon-negative technologies could become practical.

This breadth of energy solutions will serve the varied needs, natural resources and innovative capabilities in different regions. President Obama’s budget proposes Regional Innovation Partnerships, a new approach that acknowledges the critical role regional energy innovation ecosystems – universities, national laboratories and private research, economic development organizations, investors, industry and labor – will all play in meeting America’s clean energy needs.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have planted the seeds needed to accelerate the pace of energy research and development, but more must be done if we want to capture the benefits of the clean energy economy. The President’s 2017 budget proposal to Congress prioritized clean energy innovation within agreed budget constraints.

A few weeks ago, the United States Senate passed their first appropriations bill of the year by a vote of 90-8, which explicitly endorses doubling clean energy research and development, but includes only modest increases in actual funding. When the House and Senate ultimately send an appropriations bill to the President, it should include significantly more funding for innovation if America hopes to not diminish its lead in this emerging economic revolution.

As I travel across the country to discuss Mission Innovation, from San Francisco to Boston, to the heart of Kentucky coal country, to the agricultural bounty and wind of Iowa, and to the gas fields of Texas and Pennsylvania, the message I hear is clear: America has the workers, the entrepreneurs, the scientists, the engineers, the business people, and the desire to lead the world in energy production and innovation. But we are leaving too much innovative capacity untapped through underinvestment. The American Energy Innovation Council, a group of CEO’s of major American companies, has advocated more clean energy investment for many years. The global clean energy commitment means than now is the time to deliver. A bipartisan commitment to American innovation will yield tremendous economic and environmental rewards.
Moniz is the U.S. Secretary of Energy.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/281874-doubling-down-on-energy-innovation

Return to headline | Return to top
Energy Infrastructure Investments Vital to Economic Growth

Jun 2, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Robin Rorick

Roads, bridges, high speed rail, airport modernization – when politicians promise to fix the nation’s “crumbling infrastructure” and put Americans to work building shovel-ready projects, transportation is usually at the top of the list. We all notice infrastructure needs when we drive over a pothole or get stuck in traffic back-ups caused by the latest bridge repair. But flipping a light switch, turning up the thermostat, gassing up the car – and, crucially, what we pay for these essentials – also rely on infrastructure. The difference is, updating energy transportation infrastructure promises major economic gains without costing a dime of consumers’ tax dollars.
More than 199,000 miles of liquid petroleum pipelines and 305,000 miles of gas transmission pipelines crisscross the United States. That may seem like a lot of pipeline capacity, but we actually need more. A lot more – and not just pipelines, but energy infrastructure investment across the board, including storage, processing, rail and maritime development.
Domestic oil and natural gas production soared in the past decade, and it’s soared in areas our energy transportation grid wasn’t designed to accommodate. Prior to an energy resurgence that has made American the world’s leading producer of oil and natural gas, the priority was to transport imported energy from the coasts to points inland. Now that production is surging in places like North Dakota and Pennsylvania, infrastructure needs have changed.
Updating energy infrastructure will keep energy moving efficiently, ensuring reliable access for homes and for businesses. Access to affordable energy gives U.S. manufacturers a competitive edge, reducing power and materials costs for producers of steel, chemicals, refined fuels, plastics, fertilizers and numerous other products. According to a recent study from the Boston Consulting Group, U.S. industrial electricity costs are 30-50 percent lower than those of our foreign competitors. American manufacturing costs are now 10 to 20 percent lower than those in Europe and could be 2 to 3 percent lower than China’s by 2018, bringing even more jobs back to American shores on top of the estimated 400,000 manufacturing jobs already supported by shale energy.
Greenhouse gas emissions are also dropping. Greater use of clean-burning natural gas for power generation has driven carbon emissions to the nation’s lowest levels in more than 20 years, making the United States the world leader in both reduction of emissions and production of oil and natural gas.
That’s the good news. The bad news is bureaucratic roadblocks impose costly infrastructure constraints in some parts of the country. New Englanders pay up to 53 percent more than the national average for electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Northeastern states are well-positioned to benefit from affordable natural gas produced in the nearby Marcellus shale -- but not without pipelines. Unless the region invests in natural gas and electricity infrastructure, a study from the New England Coalition for Affordable Energy indicates higher energy costs could undermine the competitiveness of area businesses, costing the region 52,000 private sector jobs between 2016 and 2020.
Besides lowering energy costs for homes and businesses, infrastructure investment in and of itself boosts the economy. Essential infrastructure investments in just the oil and natural gas sector could spur up to $1.15 trillion in new private capital investment over the next 10 years, support 1.15 million new jobs and add $120 billion on average to national GDP.
Eighty percent of American voters support increased development of our national energy infrastructure. Pipelines, usually the most high profile kind of energy infrastructure, have a stellar safety record, transporting 16.2 billion barrels of crude oil and petroleum products at a safety rate of99.999 percent, according to the latest data from the Pipeline Safety Excellence initiative.
Both House and Senate have passed bipartisan energy legislation that would make the pipeline permitting process more efficient. By moving the bill through conference and getting it to the president’s desk, Congress can achieve bipartisan progress toward affordable energy and job creation.
Energy companies are ready to invest in the infrastructure we need, and skilled construction workers are ready to build it. When candidates tout shovel-ready projects to boost the economy and give U.S. manufacturers a competitive edge, energy infrastructure should be at the top of the list.
Rorick is API director of midstream and industry operations.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/281939-energy-infrastructure-investments-vital-to-economic

Return to headline | Return to top
Cost to Cut Methane Higher Than Estimates -- Industry

Jun 2, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

By Amanda Reilly

A new study commissioned by a group of oil and gas companies found that the cost of reducing industry methane emissions is higher than previously estimated.
The study released today by the Our Nation's Energy Future, or ONE Future, Coalition found that, excluding the distribution segment, the oil and gas industry could reduce a total of 88.3 billion cubic feet of methane for a cost of $296 million annually.
Formed in 2014, ONE Future is a coalition of eight companies in the natural gas industry that have agreed to voluntarily reduce methane emissions.
Richard Hyde, interim executive director of the coalition, said the study was meant to help member companies achieve a goal of reducing their methane emissions rate to 1 percent or less of total natural gas production.
"It gives them a road map as to the costs of a particular technology," Hyde said. "Since we're a performance-based approach, it allows them to make decisions within their own individual companies as to where is the best place and where is the most effective place for them to deploy their capital."
Environmentalists are already questioning the new results, arguing that the assumptions of the new study inflate the costs of methane reductions.
The study's results equate to an average cost of $3.35 per thousand cubic feet of reduced methane. A prior study commissioned by the Environmental Defense Fund found that the cost would be 66 cents per thousand cubic feet of methane reduced, or just a penny per thousand cubic feet of natural gas sold.
"It's ironic: After two years of arguing voluntary initiatives will get the job done, the oil and gas industry proudly crafts a report that shows why it's not in industry's economic self-interest to reduce methane emissions," said Mark Brownstein, vice president of EDF's climate and energy program. "This report is exhibit A for why regulations are necessary to require the oil and gas industry to significantly reduce the nearly 10 million metric tons of methane they waste every year."
ICF International conducted both studies. The new study is based on the model that the firm developed for the 2014 EDF study. It used EPA's 2012 greenhouse gas inventory as a baseline for methane emissions and incorporated data from ONE Future's eight member companies.
While it found an average cost of $3.35 per thousand cubic feet of methane reduced, the study found that costs varied depending on the segment of the natural gas supply chain. Costs ranged from nearly $9 per thousand cubic feet for technologies in the gas storage and transmission sectors to below $1.
The costs for local distribution companies of replacing cast-iron gas mains were "literally off the charts on a cost reduction basis" and not included in the analysis, said Joel Bluestein, senior vice president of ICF. But the study estimated that technologies in the distribution sector could reduce methane by 8.9 billion cubic feet.
The study also does not include in its average cost estimate green completion technologies that hydraulically fractured gas wells have had to put in place because of regulations issued in 2012.
Bluestein said the goal of the study was not simply to re-create the 2014 analysis it did for EDF.
"It was not designed as a direct comparison to the study that we did two years ago for EDF, but we expect that people will compare the two," Bluestein said. "There are some differences between them."
The EDF study used a baseline year of 2018 and took into account estimates of future gas production growth by the International Energy Agency. As a result, it showed a larger potential reduction of methane emissions.
In the EDF study, ICF also assumed that oil and gas companies would be able to offset costs by monetizing recovered gas in the gathering and processing segments of the industry. In the new study and using information provided by ONE Future member companies, ICF did not assume that companies could use the recovered gas in those segments.
The new study also takes into account lower gas prices and higher technology costs than the EDF study.
"We had the benefit of the members' direct experience with some of these technologies, and in particular the cost of inspecting and repairing leaks," Bluestein said. "Based on the company experience, the cost of that process in this study was significantly higher than in the EDF study."
The new study comes as EPA is scheduled to tomorrow publish a request for more information on emissions and technologies from oil and gas companies that will be published in theFederal Register. EPA tomorrow is also scheduled to publish its methane regulations covering new and modified oil and gas operations.
Also tomorrow, the agency will publish its source determination rule that clarifies when oil and gas equipment is deemed a single source for permitting regions and a final federal implementation plan for New Source Review on Native American lands.
In unveiling the report, Hyde said he hoped the analysis would inform the policy debate over methane regulations, which industry generally believes are unnecessary.
"ONE Future believes that combining performance targets with a flexible pathway, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, [provides] the best tools to meet methane emissions reduction targets," Hyde said. "This analysis supports that position."
The American Lung Association, on the other hand, today released polling finding that a majority of Americans favor EPA's new regulations.
According to the poll, conducted by Global Strategy Group and Princeton Survey Research Associates International, 60 percent of Americans favor the regulations over methane emissions from new sources. Support remained comparable after respondents heard arguments both for and against the rules.
"In the minds of an overwhelming majority of American voters," said Andrew Baumann, vice president of Global Strategy Group, "an argument touting the health and economic benefits of the new methane limits clearly outweighed the industry's claims that these regulations would cost jobs and increase energy costs."
The poll also found that two-thirds of Americans generally want to see EPA issue stricter limits on air pollution; only 26 percent of poll respondents were opposed.
The survey of 1,002 adults was conducted May 19 to May 22. Of the respondents, 764 people were registered voters. The margin of error is 4.3 points.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/02/stories/1060038207

Return to headline | Return to top
California Proposes Methane Emission Rule; SoCalGas Calculates Aliso Leak at 4.62 Bcf

Jun 2, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Richard Nemec

California air pollution regulators on Tuesday issued proposed regulations for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for all oil and natural gas facilities, including methane emission requirements for gas storage facilities.
A public hearing is scheduled July 21 in Sacramento.
"The proposed regulation covers GHG emissions, predominantly methane, from oil and natural gas production, natural gas gathering and boosting stations, and natural gas processing, as well as from natural gas storage and transmission compressor stations," said the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
The proposal includes both "active and idle" equipment and components, which would include the Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas) Aliso Canyon underground gas storage facility in Los Angeles, now shuttered, as storage wells are being tested (see Daily GPI, April 21).
The Sempra Energy gas utility said last Friday it was working on a mitigation plan for the methane released during the four-month Aliso leak (Daily GPI, Feb. 18).
SoCalGas calculated that 4.62 Bcf of gas escaped over the four-month period, or 84,200 metric tons (mt) of emissions. The calculation is lower than the preliminary estimate by CARB of 5.22 Bcf, or 94,500 mt, which were "rough estimates" based on 11 days of flyover measurements at the 3,600-acre storage field site.
"SoCalGas has signed letters of intent with several California dairies to manage methane emissions, and will finalize its mitigation plan in the coming months," a spokesperson said. The ultimate plan would be consistent with CARB guidance that multiple sources be included, including dairies and landfills.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an advocate for national research and planning on methane emissions, lauded the CARB for the methane proposal but criticized a "serious loophole" that it said may provide industry with a disincentive longer term to seriously address the problem.
"If finalized, it will give California one of the most comprehensive methane standards in the world, encompassing both new and existing facilities both on land and offshore," an EDF spokesperson said. EDF is critical of a proposed "step-down" provision allowing operators to shift to less rigorous methane monitoring requirements if they fail to find leaks over a specified number of inspections.
EDF's Tim O'Connor, California oil and gas director, said the step-down provision would "give oil and gas companies strong motivation not to find or report their leaks; that's a huge step backward."
Under the provision, operators could receive an exemption from a quarterly requirement to conduct leak detection/repair work. Instead, they would be allowed to comply with inspection requirements only once a year.
"Research has shown that leaks from equipment malfunctions and poor maintenance lead to significant emissions that are not reflected in emission inventories," said O'Connor. He urged California to have a permanent mandatory quarterly inspection schedule.
Separately, CARB, the California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission are hosting a two-day workshop on Monday and Tuesday in Sacramento on methane emissions, which is to include presentations by federal/state government, environmental, academic and think tank experts.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106605-california-proposes-methane-emission-rule-socalgas-calculates-aliso-leak-at-462-bcf

Return to headline | Return to top
Iowa Greenlights Bakken Shale Pipe Despite Federal Issues

Jun 2, 2016 | E&E Energywire

By Mike Lee

Iowa regulators will allow construction to start on a $3.7 billion pipeline connecting the Bakken Shale to markets in the Midwest, while the project's owners finish obtaining permits and right of way.
The Iowa Utilities Board made the decision to allow some work on the Dakota Access pipeline to proceed after an hourlong meeting yesterday.
The three-member utility board told their staff to prepare an order allowing construction to start in areas where Dakota Access already has permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and has acquired the right of way. The work will be limited to tree clearing and other activities.
The Bakken Access pipeline, being built by Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, could carry 570,000 barrels a day from North Dakota's oil fields to a pipeline junction in Patoka, Ill. That's roughly half the state's daily production.
The 30-inch pipeline will cross through four states. The Iowa board approved the project in March, contingent on the pipeline receiving other state and federal permits.
Construction was held up last week after the Iowa state archaeologist was informed about a possible American Indian site in the Big Sioux River Complex Wildlife Management Area, near the Iowa-South Dakota border (EnergyWire, May 31).
The Big Sioux River site is one of three where the pipeline hasn't gotten pre-clearance notifications from the Army Corps of Engineers. Energy Transfer is also still working on acquiring easements across 168 parcels, some of it through court proceedings, according to testimony yesterday.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/02/stories/1060038170

Return to headline | Return to top
FERC OKs Elba Island LNG Export Terminal, Pipeline Project

Jun 2, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Joe Fisher

FERC has approved Kinder Morgan Inc.'s (KMI) plan to add liquefaction and export capability to the existing Elba Island LNG Terminal near Savannah, GA, as well as make modifications to existing pipelines in support of the project.
KMI's Elba Liquefaction Co. LLC and Southern LNG Co. LLC received authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the $2 billion Elba Liquefaction Project [CP14-103]. The first of 10 liquefaction units is expected to be placed in service in the second quarter of 2018, with the remaining nine units coming online before the end of 2018.
The project, which is supported by a 20-year contract with Royal Dutch Shell plc, received a favorable environmental review earlier this year (see Daily GPI,Feb. 8). When the liquefaction project is complete, the terminal will have the capability to both export and import liquefied natural gas (LNG). The liquefaction project is expected to have a total capacity of 2.5 million tonnes per year of LNG for export.
Additionally, Elba Express Co. LLC (EEC) and Southern Natural Gas Co. LLC (SNG) received FERC certificates for the EEC Modification Project [C14-115] and SNG Zone 3 Expansion Project [CP14-493], respectively. Together, these projects would cost about $306 million and include additional compression and related work for north-to-south capacity expansions on Elba Express Pipeline that will supply additional gas to industrials and utilities in Georgia and Florida and to Elba Island for liquefaction.
Facilities for these pipeline projects are expected to be placed in service late in the fourth quarter of this year.
The SNG Zone 3 project would add about 235 Bcf/d of firm capacity in Rate Zone 3 of the existing pipeline system. Zone 3 encompasses nearly all of Southern's system in Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina and Florida. Southern told FERC the project would provide seamless transportation from interconnections with Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC (Transco) and Elba Express to the shippers' delivery points in Southern's Zone 3. The Zone 3 Expansion Project is supported by precedent agreements for firm service with 10 new and existing customers for all the capacity to be created.
To provide incremental service to Zone 3 customers, Southern has entered into a precedent agreement with affiliate Elba Express for 235 Bcf/d of firm capacity. The SNG Zone 3 project is dependent upon the EEC Modification Project. EEC Modification is fully subscribed, and will give shippers access to new markets and supplies, FERC said. "Further, the project will facilitate the bidirectional flow of natural gas on the Elba Express Pipeline and thus enhance flexibility and reliability for new and existing customers."
In 2012, the Elba Liquefaction Project received authorization from the U.S. Department of Energy to export to free trade agreement (FTA) countries. An application to export to non-FTA countries is pending but is not required for the project to proceed, KMI said.
Last year KMI bought Shell's equity interest in Elba Liquefaction Co. (see Daily GPI, July 16, 2015); however, earlier this year KMI executives said they were in talks to sell a stake in the
Elba project (see Daily GPI, Jan. 28). On Thursday a KMI spokesman said there was no update on that.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106622-ferc-oks-elba-island-lng-export-terminal-pipeline-project

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

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

Environment News

D.C. Circuit Rejects Rehearing Of Time-Barred NSR Suit

Jun 2, 2016 | Inside EPA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected environmentalists' petition for rehearing by the full court of their suit seeking to overturn a decades-old EPA Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permitting rule, after a three-judge panel of the court earlier rejected the case as being time-barred.
In a June 2 per curiam order, 12 judges on the D.C. Circuit reject without further explanation Sierra Club's April 18 petition for en banc review of the court's March 4 ruling that dismissed the group's case, Sierra Club de Puerto Rico, et al., v. EPA.
The case involved application of the NSR rule, dating from 1980, to the air permit of a waste incinerator in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Environmentalists say the incinerator will contribute more lead emissions to an area already classed in “nonattainment” for EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead.
The 1980 rule holds that industrial facilities need only obtain nonattainment NSR permits with respect to pollutants they emit above “major source” thresholds -- 100 tons per year in the case of the incinerator in question -- for pollutants for which the area they are located in is designated “nonattainment” with NAAQS.
Sierra Club argued that this is an unlawful interpretation of the air law and allows the Arecibo incinerator to escape obligations to purchase “offsets” to compensate for its lead emissions. Because there is only one other industrial source of lead emissions in the area, this would effectively preclude construction of the incinerator.
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit in its initial ruling from March rejected the case, saying that Sierra Club raised its objections to the 1980 NSR rule years too late, and the incinerator permit dispute cannot serve as “after-arising grounds” to reopen the rule to judicial review.
Judge Robert Wilkins in his opinion on behalf of fellow panelists Senior Circuit Judges Harry Edwards and David Sentelle wrote, “Simply put, Sierra Club presents us with something closer to the mere application of an old regulation . . . as opposed to a subsequent factual or legal development creating new legal consequences for petitioners."
Therefore, the standard Clean Air Act 60-day time limit for litigants to file suit over an agency rule applies, Wilkins found. Advocates then filed their unsuccessful petition for en banc review which EPA opposed.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Backs CWA Groundwater Permits Ruling But Sees Flaws In Decision

Jun 2, 2016 | Inside EPA

By Bridget DiCosmo

EPA is urging an appeals court to uphold a decision that found pollutants reaching jurisdictional waters through a groundwater conduit can be subject to Clean Water Act (CWA) discharge permits, though the agency is disagreeing with parts of the court's reasoning on when a groundwater connection can make waters jurisdictional.
Justice Department (DOJ) attorneys on behalf of EPA in a May 31 amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Hawaii Wildlife Fund, et al., v. County of Maui side with environmentalists in backing a lower court's May 2014 ruling requiring the Lahaina Wastewater Facility on Maui, HI, to seek discharge permits under the CWA for injection wells that eventually discharged into the Pacific Ocean.
DOJ says that a CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required in this instance because the discharges from the county's wastewater plant are from a point source -- the injection wells -- to waters of the United States, echoing the court's decision that a permit is necessary.
But the brief clarifies EPA's position that groundwater is neither a point source nor a jurisdictional water under the CWA as the lower court found in its ruling. "The United States therefore agrees with the district court's conclusion that a NPDES permit was required here, but only to the extent that the court's analysis is consistent with the above-stated principles regarding groundwater," the brief says.
Moreover, EPA disagrees with the way in which the district court judge applied the "significant nexus" standard for determining jurisdiction, which was established in Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in the high court's 4-4-1 decision from 2006 in Rapanos v. United States. EPA relied heavily on Kennedy's test in its CWA jurisdiction rule rather than a test set in a competing opinion by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
'Longstanding Position'
In the Hawaii Wildlife Fund case, the DOJ brief says, "It has been EPA's longstanding position that discharges moving through groundwater to a jurisdictional surface water are subject to CWA permitting requirements if there is a 'direct hydrological connection' between the groundwater and the surface water."
The county of Maui, which operates the injection wells at issue in the litigation, is asking the 9th Circuit to reverse the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii's May 30, 2014, ruling finding requiring the Lahaina Wastewater Facility on Maui to seek NPDES permits under the CWA though the wells were already regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act's permitting regime.
The lower court said the wastewater facility discharged pollutants into the Pacific Ocean via underground springs in violation of the CWA, finding that a dye tracer test showed effluent migrating from the plant to the ocean.
The appeal could revisit the 2007 9th Circuit ruling, Northern California River Watch v. City of Healdsburg, which is seen as upholding the possibility of regulating groundwater under the CWA when it serves as a medium through which pollutants are channeled into jurisdictional waters.
But DOJ in the brief urges the 9th Circuit to clarify that "Although the court's ultimate conclusion was correct, the court's alternative explanation for the County's liability under the 'significant nexus' standard from Rapanos andHealdsburg was erroneous."
While those cases involved a jurisdictional question over receiving waters, in contrast, the Maui suit involves the Pacific Ocean, on which there is no dispute that it is a navigable water under the CWA, DOJ says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-backs-cwa-groundwater-permits-ruling-sees-flaws-decision

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested