Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 7/8/16

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Construction Sends PVC Prices Up; Solid PS, PP Prices Slide
Jul 7, 2016 | Plastic News
By Frank Esposito

Strong construction activity sent North American PVC resin prices up in June, while imports sent regional polypropylene prices down.

TSCA News

Chemical Reform Passes, But Tribal Nations Lose Step with States Under Revised Law
Jul 7, 2016 | Indian Country
By Terri Hansen

We are exposed to chemicals found in our homes, our cars, our cleaning and personal care products, the food we eat, and releases into the environment as a result of their manufacture, processing, use and disposal.
Implementation of Modernized TSCA Begins
Aug 1, 2016 | Legal Examiner
By Thomas C. Berger and Herbert Estreicher and Martha E. Marrapese and David G. Sarvadi

On June 22, 2016, "The Frank R. Lautenberg - Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," H.R. 2576, was signed by President Barack Obama.
SOCMA Webinar to Examine Impacts of TSCA Reform
Jul 7, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids

The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) is hosting a webinar on July 20 examining the impacts of recent reforms of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
EPA Gets More Muscle To Regulate Chemicals
Jul 8, 2016 | Cape Cod Times

Finally, Congress recently passed legislation overhauling the nation’s outdated chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Comments on the New York Times Article “A Call for Action on Toxic Chemicals”
Jul 7, 2016 | Science 2.0
By Laura Plunkett

The New York Times (NYT) article is discussing a recent publication in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives related to “Project TENDR”, which stands for “Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks”.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Finally, A Way To Get Every Last Drop Of Shampoo Out Of The Bottle
Jul 7, 2016 | USA Today College
By Allie Bice

If you thought squeezing ketchup out of a bottle was tough, a pair of Ohio State University researchers have tackled an even tougher problem: getting every last drop of shampoo out of the bottle.
Why We Need Real Environmental Reform, Not “Greenwashing”
Jul 7, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Rich Gurney

Does the “BPA-free” sticker on your water bottle mean it’s safe, or just well-marketed? Is building an athletic field out of recycled tires a green choice, or one that introduces more toxic material into our environment?
Chemical Companies Face Brexit REACH Compliance Questions
Jul 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner

British chemicals companies and companies that use the U.K. as their point of entry into the European single market could face years of uncertainty over their compliance obligations under the European Union's REACH regulation, in the wake of the U.K.’s Brexit referendum.

Energy News

North Dakota, Texas Regulators Tell Congress EPA Burdening Energy Industry
Jul 7, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec

Key state regulators from North Dakota and Texas told a House committee Wednesday that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has gone too far and its regulations are hurting the nation's oil and natural gas development.
Murkowski, Cantwell Plot Next Steps For Reform Bill Negotiations
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Hess

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) skipped a meeting with her party's presumptive presidential nominee yesterday morning to work on the framework for an energy reform conference committee.
Budget Chairman Aims To Constrain EPA
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Hess

In a move aimed at crippling the regulatory powers of federal agencies, including U.S. EPA, House Budget Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) plans to roll out legislation to create a separate appropriations system specifically for regulations.
Final Rule Issued on Offshore Arctic Drilling
Jul 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski

A final rule tailoring oil and natural gas exploration regulations to the rigors of the offshore Arctic environment was unveiled July 7 by Interior Department officials.

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

Transportation News

API Calls PHMSA's Proposed Pipeline Rules 'Arbitrary, Capricious'
Jul 7, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut

Hours before the deadline to submit its comments on proposed federal rules governing natural gas pipelines, the American Petroleum Institute (API) blasted the rules as "arbitrary and capricious" and urged regulators to go back to the drawing board, in part for overstating the benefits and underestimating the costs to the oil and gas industry.

Environment News

House Uses Financial Services Bill to Chip Away at Climate Regs
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly

The House voted yesterday to halt guidelines issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission for companies on reporting climate change risks.
House Members Propose More Riders on EPA Spending
Jul 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs

The House Rules Committee is set to convene a hearing July 11 on Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency funding legislation, and lawmakers flooded the committee with amendments July 7.
Late Air Standards Reviews Trigger Lawsuit
Jul 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio

The Environmental Protection Agency's failure to meet statutory deadlines for review of its national air quality standards triggered another lawsuit from environmental organizations, this time over missed deadlines for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide standards (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 3:16-cv-3796, 7/7/16).
Groups Sue EPA Over Air Pollution Standards
Jul 7, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

Conservation and public health groups are taking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to court in an attempt to force an update of two air pollution standards.
Greens Sue EPA Over Slow Reviews Of NO2, SO2
Jul 7, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly

Two environmental groups are suing U.S. EPA in a bid to force the agency to hurry up with fresh reviews of its ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Construction Sends PVC Prices Up; Solid PS, PP Prices Slide

Jul 7, 2016 | Plastic News

By Frank Esposito

Strong construction activity sent North American PVC resin prices up in June, while imports sent regional polypropylene prices down.
Regional prices for solid polystyrene resin also slipped in June, resulting from a combination of lower demand and falling feedstock prices.
June PVC prices ticked up an average of 2 cents per pound, marking the third time in four months that prices for that material have increased. Prices had been flat in May after climbing a total of 6 cents per pound in March and April.
An improving housing market has boosted U.S./Canadian PVC demand and paved the way for these price hikes. U.S. housing starts in May were at an annual rate of 1.16 million units. That’s up more than 9 percent vs. the same month in 2015.
The U.S. housing market continues to recover from the recession of 2008-09. Housing starts peaked at more than 2 million per year before the recession, but plummeted to around 500,000 when the market collapsed. The market bounced back above 1 million starts by 2014 and continued to grow almost 11 percent in 2015 to reach 1.112 million units.
Through May, U.S./Canadian PVC sales were up 8.6 percent, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic sales growth of almost 5 percent was boosted by a gain of almost 18 percent in export sales.
PVC’s flagship rigid pipe and tubing end market saw sales growth of 7 percent in the first five months of 2016. Sales of PVC into extruded windows and doors soared more than 17 percent and sales into fencing and decking mushroomed by more than 28 percent in the same comparison.
Construction-related uses accounted for almost 64 percent of U.S./Canadian PVC sales for the five-month period.
PP continues slide
Regional PP prices continued their slide in June, dropping another 4 cents per pound on average. Some buyers saw drops of 3 cents for the month, with others experiencing a 5-cent reduction. These amounts were in combination with the amount of decrease they had seen in previous months.
The June move is the fourth straight monthly decline seen by PP. Prices for the material had slid a total of 5 cents in March-April-May, with buyers seeing different amounts at different times. Growing supplies of PP imported from outside of North America have caused regional suppliers to drop their prices to meet competitive situations.
PP makers ExxonMobil Chemical Co. of Houston and Formosa Plastics Corp. USA of Livingston, N.J., had pre-announced PP price decreases for June in late May.
Import materials have found a home in North America as the region’s PP production has struggled to keep up with demand. This is partly the result of large amounts of PP production capacity being eliminated when demand fell during the recession. Operating rates for North American PP plants now are in the high 90s.
North American PP demand growth has been moderate in the first five months of 2016. Overall sales were up only 0.5 percent, as domestic growth of 1.5 percent was weakened by a 32 percent drop in export sales.
High regional prices have decimated exports of PP from North America in recent years. As a result, exports accounted for barely 2 percent of total 2016 sales through May.
For solid PS, the 2-cent June drop continues a bumpy pattern which saw prices flat in May after increasing by 5 cents in April. The June drop was connected to a 4 percent price decline for benzene feedstock, which is used to make styrene monomer. Benzene prices had seen a similar 4 percent drop in May, but PS makers were able to keep prices flat.
On the demand front, solid PS struggled a bit in the first five months of 2016, with sales falling 1.3 percent. Much of the sales decline came from reduced sales to resellers/compounders (down 10 percent) and into the consumer/institutional end market (down 7 percent).
Solid PS sales markets showing gains in North America through May included food packaging/food service (up almost 2 percent) and electrical/electronic (up 5 percent).
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160707/NEWS/160709886/construction-sends-pvc-prices-up-solid-ps-pp-prices-slide

Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

Chemical Reform Passes, But Tribal Nations Lose Step with States Under Revised Law

Jul 7, 2016 | Indian Country

By Terri Hansen

We are exposed to chemicals found in our homes, our cars, our cleaning and personal care products, the food we eat, and releases into the environment as a result of their manufacture, processing, use and disposal.
Newly signed legislation could help remedy this. President Barack Obama signed the much-anticipated overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) on June 22, the first update to the law in nearly 40 years. In expanding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to regulate chemicals that are introduced into the environment, the new law preserves some state regulatory power over industry. However, it does not do the same for tribes. But overall, proponents say, it is much more effective than the previous law.
According to theEPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, research shows that vulnerable groups, including low-income, minority and indigenous populations, are disproportionately impacted by, and thus particularly at risk from, chemicals. Moreover, Native Americans may be among those whose health is most affected by chemical exposures.
Adverse reactions to chemicals are evenly reported at16 percentamong all ethnic and racial populations in California and New Mexico Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Surveys, except among Native Americans, who report a higher prevalence of sensitivities to chemical exposures. (Similar studies omit the American Indian/Alaska Native population.)
The Indigenous Environmental Network was in part founded on the unusually high number of complaints from Native Americans in the 1990s about adverse health reactions to chemicals, Executive Director Tom Goldtooth told ICTMN in 2014.
A year prior, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) had pointed to needed provisions for tribal nations under the various reform packages being proposed.
The final version gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broad, new authority to regulate, test and ban chemicals, and mandates that the agency update its inventory of existing chemicals within six months. It requires that EPA deem a new chemical safe before it enters the market. The EPA will have to act on persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic substances, and ensure that chemicals are safe for vulnerable groups such as infants, seniors, and chemical workers.
The original TCSA was never acted on after its passage in 1976, meaning that tens of thousands of chemicals were never reviewed for their safety, while hundreds of new chemicals were introduced year after year with virtually no oversight. Companies hid their chemical formulas from scrutiny by claiming they were trade secrets, even from medical professionals treating patients potentially sickened by a chemical exposure.

Dianne Barton, chair of the National Tribal Toxics Council (NTTC), called the signing of TSCA “a huge step forward in keeping dangerous toxics out of commerce.”
The previous rule was notoriously ineffective, Barton told Indian Country Today Media Network.
“It did not give EPA much authority to effectively ban toxics in an efficient manner,” she said. “This is why individual states like California, Washington, Oregon and others stepped in to implement state bans. The new TSCA preempts the ability of states, but holds the promise of stronger federal control.”
The reformed TCSA gives industry new protections against state regulations, though it would preserve some of the state’s authority. But it failed to preserve any authority of tribal nations.
Tribal nations have become increasingly vulnerable to toxic chemical exposures from ecosystems that have been degraded by legacy contaminants, by ongoing authorized contaminant discharges, and by the continued release of recognized but unregulated chemicals such as flame retardants and endocrine disrupting compounds, the NCAI said in a 2015 resolution that urged Congress to modify the then proposed TSCA to incorporate Treatment-as-a-State status for tribal nations.
According to the NCAI, other federal laws include provisions designating Treatment-as-a-State status for qualified federally recognized Indian tribes. The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act are all examples.
The updated TSCA no longer recognizes tribes as equivalent to states, Barton said. The final bill failed to reserve the same or similar rights and authorities to tribal nations as it did to states, such as to receive confidential business information if needed for the protection of the environment, emergency response and law enforcement purposes, or to enforce federal standards within state boundaries, or to participate in grant monies under TSCA Section 28 State Programs, as the earlier version did.
Barton said an organization called the Environmental Council of States has asked Congress to fully fund programs for the states in lieu of state preemption under the reformed TSCA.
“The NTTC will need to advocate for equivalent programs for tribes,” she said.
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/07/07/chemical-reform-passes-tribal-nations-lose-step-states-under-revised-law-165059

Return to headline | Return to top
Implementation of Modernized TSCA Begins

Aug 1, 2016 | Legal Examiner

By Thomas C. Berger and Herbert Estreicher and Martha E. Marrapese and David G. Sarvadi

On June 22, 2016, "The Frank R. Lautenberg - Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," H.R. 2576, was signed by President Barack Obama. Effective the same day, the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) includes a new safety standard, extensive changes to existing chemicals management, and an aggressive implementation schedule. Amended TSCA also has an immediate impact on companies that have new chemical submissions pending before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
On June 30, 2016, EPA held its first webinar to lay out the Agency's plans to implement the new TSCA. EPA explained that it has decided to interpret the new law as resetting the 90-day review period clock for TSCA section 5 premanufacture notice (PMN) reviews pending before the Agency as of the date of enactment. The Agency further indicated that it would try to complete PMN reviews and make the newly-required determinations within the original review period deadlines, but that a timely notice review is not guaranteed. It is significant to note, however, that as soon as EPA makes its determination under the new TSCA that a PMN substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, the PMN submitter can immediately commence non-exempt manufacture or import, even if the Agency's determination is made before the expiration of the 90-day review period.
The Agency also made the following additional announcements:
Pursuant to its authority under section 26, EPA intends to issue section 6 rules for trichloroethylene (TCE) in spot cleaning, aerosol degreasing, and vapor degreasing applications and methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone in paint removers, consistent with risk assessments EPA has already completed for those uses.
The Agency anticipates proposing rules on the section 6 prioritization procedure and fees it will assess under TSCA by mid-December for finalization by June 2017.
EPA plans to identify and commence risk evaluations on the initial set of 10 Work Plan chemicals by mid-December, for release of the scoping documents by mid-June 2017.
Companies have until September 22, 2016 to request risk evaluations of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals, otherwise, EPA plans to proceed with rulemakings to reduce exposure to the extent practicable.
EPA is posting information on this and other Agency implementation efforts on its new TSCA reform webpage,https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/implementation-modernized-tsca-begins

Return to headline | Return to top
SOCMA Webinar to Examine Impacts of TSCA Reform

Jul 7, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids

The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) is hosting a webinar on July 20 examining the impacts of recent reforms of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Taking place from 1 pm to 2 pm EST, the webinar aims to assist specialty chemical manufacturers and small- and medium-sized companies prepare for changes under the new legislation.
The presenters – Dan Newton, senior manager of government relations at SOCMA, Jamie Conrad, of Conrad Law & Policy Counsel – will highlight changes in the act, potential impacts on new chemicals, and discuss handling of confidential business information, fees, and important deadlines.
SOCMA said that the webinar is geared toward principals, regulatory affairs and EHS&S staff, consultants, lawyers, students, and anyone else with an interest in the TSCA.
http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/SOCMA-Webinar-to-Examine-Impacts-of-TSCA-Reform-07-07-2016

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Gets More Muscle To Regulate Chemicals

Jul 8, 2016 | Cape Cod Times

Finally, Congress recently passed legislation overhauling the nation’s outdated chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act. The new legislation strengthens the EPA’s ability to regulate thousands of industrial chemicals and could have far-reaching effects on a wide range of consumer products, from household cleaners to flame retardants on sofas.This is a significant development for Cape Cod, which has been the subject of several studies on household chemicals by the Silent Spring Institute."Now that EPA has some new tools to regulate chemicals, we need to continue to provide the best possible science to help regulators find the 'bad actors,' those chemicals most likely to cause disease," wrote Ruthann Rudel, director of research at Silent Spring, in a press release.Twenty years ago, when Silent Spring first started measuring chemicals in homes on Cape Cod, EPA was focused on regulating outdoor pollution. "Our research showing that consumer products are the most significant contributor to chemical exposure in the general population eventually shifted the conversation and refocused EPA’s approach for consumer product chemicals," Rudel said.Although the legislation falls short in many ways — chemical safety laws in Europe require more thorough safety evaluations — the EPA will now have more authority to review new chemicals before they enter the market and to require additional testing of existing chemicals that have long evaded scrutiny under the old law.
http://www.capecodtimes.com/opinion/20160708/cheers-amp-jeers

Return to headline | Return to top
Comments on the New York Times Article “A Call for Action on Toxic Chemicals”

Jul 7, 2016 | Science 2.0

By Laura Plunkett

The New York Times (NYT) article is discussing a recent publication in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives related to “Project TENDR”, which stands for “Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks”. In the NYT piece, statements of the Project TENDR group presented in the published paper are summarized and it is pointed out that this publication comes at the same time as the signing into law of the overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The reporter states that the TENDR group wants the chemical industry to prove that a chemical is safe before it is marketed, in place of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to review all chemicals in commerce as stipulated under the updated TSCA law.
Unfortunately, the NYT’s article on the TENDR statement lacks scientific basis and is out of date. The reporter failed to discuss specific things that the new TSCA law accomplished, and how they relate to many of the concerns raised by the TENDR group. A prime example is that under the new law EPA will review all new chemicals and make an affirmative determination before they are allowed to enter commerce. In addition, all chemicals in commerce in the United States now will undergo a risk-based review by EPA for the first time. The EPA will be prioritizing chemicals for review, and there are strict deadlines that must be met by EPA in order to ensure compliance by chemical manufacturers. EPA will no longer consider costs and benefits when making a decision about the safety of a chemical; only health and environmental safety will be considered. Most importantly with respect to the issues raised by Project TENDR, EPA must consider whether vulnerable groups such as infants, pregnant women,children, the elderly, will be exposed to a chemical and, if exposure is expected to occur, then the risks to those specific groups must be assessed. Unfortunately, these provisions of the TSCA overhaul are not mentioned in the NYT piece, even though these changes to the existing regulatory system will require that both existing chemicals and new chemicals undergo scrutiny to determine if they might pose a risk to the brain of the developing organism.
The list of compounds described in the article and highlighted in the TENDR consensus statement includes some compounds well-recognized to pose a risk to neurodevelopment precisely because of the chemical testing and evaluation that was required as part of existing EPA regulations, an important point that is missing in the NYT article. For example, organophosphate pesticides have been around for many decades and have been required to undergo EPA registration since enactment of Unites States law in 1947 (i.e.., Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act or FIFRA). Similarly, among the other chemicals mentioned, lead, mercury and PCBs are already extensively regulated, while air contaminants such as PAHs, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter are also specifically regulated under current programs at EPA. With all of the existing EPA programs, as science has advanced in our understanding of the process of human development and risks to infants and children, the testing of chemicals has evolved. Over the last 20 years, specific advances in chemical testing and risk assessment requirements by EPA have focused on risks to infants and children within the auspices of FIFRA, the Clean Air Act, and even generally with implementation of the program to examine endocrine-disrupting effects of chemicals in commerce. As a result, it is hard to understand how the TENDR consensus can use such examples as evidence that the current regulatory system “is fundamentally broken”. In fact, with enactment of TSCA reform, EPA has the tools it needs to review both new and existing chemicals, with a requirement to focus on risks to vulnerable populations such as infants and children.
Unfortunately, when discussing the issue of chemical exposure and risks to the developing organism, the fundamental principle of toxicology that underpins the effects that chemicals can have on living organisms, dose-response, is often ignored or even not considered. It is the dose of the chemical, and the pattern of exposure, that determines whether a chemical produces an adverse effect on an organism, not simply the presence of a chemical, even for developmental neurotoxicity. Just as a critical concentration at the site of action is needed before a drug can produce its beneficial effects in humans, the same principle applies to toxicity produced by any chemical. Effects that might be reported at high doses will not occur at lower doses if the concentration at the site of action falls below the threshold for toxicity. Evidence-based toxicology and epidemiology dictates that the dose of chemical is the critical factor when examining the risk posed by a chemical, not just its presence, even in the human body. Given that many of the epidemiological studies investigating the relationship between exposure to specific chemicals and conditions such as autism and ADHD, and referred to in the NYT article and the TENDR consensus statement, often suffer from a lack of exposure information during critical periods of development, any conclusions that can be drawn from such studies are limited by the lack of dose-response information.
Although the issues of autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are clearly issues of concern in medicine today, improvements in diagnostic methods and criteria for such diseases are acknowledged by the TENDR group to account for part of the purported increase in different forms of developmental neurotoxicity. When considered in light of the changes in TSCA that are now signed into law, there is no scientific basis for the assertion that the system in the United States is “fundamentally broken” as stated by the TENDR group. Instead, with new scientific developments in our understanding of the processes that regulate neurodevelopment in humans, and the new emphasis on risks posed to vulnerable human populations as part of chemical risk assessment at EPA, the regulatory system in place going forward should prevent the occurrence of the types of compound-specific problems (e.g., widespread lead exposure through air, food, and water) encountered in the last century.
http://www.science20.com/laura_plunkett/blog/comments_on_the_new_york_times_article_a_call_for_action_on_toxic_chemicals-176008

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Finally, A Way To Get Every Last Drop Of Shampoo Out Of The Bottle

Jul 7, 2016 | USA Today College

By Allie Bice

If you thought squeezing ketchup out of a bottle was tough, a pair of Ohio State University researchers have tackled an even tougher problem: getting every last drop of shampoo out of the bottle.
The chemicals that make soap “soapy” (to use a very technical term) are also what make it stick to plastic, OSU researchers Bharat Bhushan and Philip Brown found. Which is bad news for us, the poor consumers. But have no fear: The duo also discovered that adding a special wax coating to bottles can help the shampoo slide right out.
But how does it work, you ask?
Well, it all boils down to surface energy (or tension, as it’s also often called), which measures the tendency of molecules of a substance to stick together, Bhushan, an Ohio Eminent Scholar and a Howard D. Winbigler professor of mechanical engineering, explains.
Substances like ketchup and other sauces, for example, are mostly made of water. And these water molecules tend to stick to each other more than they stick to the plastic bottle, he says. In other words, they have high surface tension. But thicker, soapy textures (like shampoo) are the opposite; they have low surface tension and therefore stick to plastic more easily. Which is why we end up wasting product because we can’t get it out of of the bottle.
“The surface you are trying to repel from has to have low surface energy, and liquid, as is, already has low surface tension or surface energy.” Bhushan says. “Very low surface energy is tough to repel.”
The lab, which has been developing this technology for nearly 10 years, aims to take things found in the natural world and mimic their functionality for commercial use. This wax coating, in particular, was inspired by the lotus leaf, which is self-cleaning and water-repelling, Bhushan says.
And it can be applied to polypropylene, a plastic commonly used to package foods and household goods, which means manufacturing companies that bottle their products in bottles made from polypropylene will be able to use it. We’re talking about a lot of products: According to theAmerican Chemistry Council, 177 million pounds of polypropylene were used to make bottles and lids in the U.S. in 2014 alone.
The plastic is recyclable and, in even better news, is being recycled more frequently. Some 45.6 million pounds was recycled in 2014 compared to the 44.2 million pounds recycled in 2013, the ACC report says.
Victoria Alesi, an OSU senior studying international studies, says the coating is both amazing and revolutionary.
“When there is still shampoo in the bottle, I don’t want to mess with emptying it, I’ll throw it away and buy a new one,” Alesi says. “I am so interested in how this can become universal for many bottles that are similar. I know it will be helpful to reduce waste.”
Although Bhushan says it make take a year or two to get shampoo bottles with the new wax coating on shelves in a store near you, he hopes the discovery inspires students to get more involved in science, technology, engineering and math.
says. “And possibly, it will attract them to come into science programs.”
http://college.usatoday.com/2016/07/07/ohio-state-shampoo-research/

Return to headline | Return to top
Why We Need Real Environmental Reform, Not “Greenwashing”

Jul 7, 2016 | Huffington Post

By Rich Gurney

Does the “BPA-free” sticker on your water bottle mean it’s safe, or just well-marketed? Is building an athletic field out of recycled tires a green choice, or one that introduces more toxic material into our environment?
These are the dilemmas we face as consumers. We make thousands of choices every day about what to put in, on and near our bodies. Even if we have the critical thinking skills to evaluate the merits of every product we simply don’t have the time. We often must rely on others to make decisions that we implicitly trust are in our best interest. But often the toxic materials that make headlines are replaced by well-intentioned but unproven alternatives — like replacing BPA with the chemically-similar and totally untested substance BPS.

The FDA currently does not have the budget to conduct extensive long-term research on many potentially harmful products. Industry is required to effectively self-regulate. Most consumers are completely unaware of this fact. This Spring my students raised a “Stink!“ upon previewing the documentary by Jon Whelan and took incremental steps in a less toxic direction with the Silent Spring Institute’sDetox Me App. The rest of us would be wise do the same.
Educators must ensure the STEM workforce be research-empowered to solve today’s problems without creating issues for tomorrow. In the interim, consumers can turn to the Skin Deep Database and Think Dirty App, while decision makers must use the best information available.

Recently, Simmons College partnered with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to develop Daly Field, a Boston athletic complex with dirt fields that had fallen into disrepair. Hopefully, our stewardship and development choices will protect both our athletes and our community.

Simmons is installing new synthetic fields that save up to a million gallons of water needed to maintain comparable natural grass fields — and help to eliminate existing erosion and reduce contaminants from fertilizers and pesticides.

Synthetic turf is an easy choice, but Simmons recently made a tougher call. As a result of an ongoing federal investigation into the safety of crumb rubber (made largely from recycled tires) as infill in synthetic fields, Simmons opted for a more expensive all-natural alternative at Daly Field. Geofill consists of 90% crushed coconut husks and 10% cork. It has been in use for more than 10 years. By choosing to install Geofill rather than crumb rubber, Simmons has assured that Daly Field will be the greenest and cleanest public playing field in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Long overdue reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act is headed for President Obama’s pen with bipartisan support. Whether the legislation will lead to much-needed consumer protections or future problems remains to be seen. With any luck, the reform will not follow the current trend of replacing a hazard with an alternative that later proves to be worse.
Let’s hope that the government looks to the future and funds the study and development of greener alternatives that are better for both our health and the environment. Our STEM students are up to the challenge.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rich-gurney-phd/why-we-need-real-environm_b_10858980.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Chemical Companies Face Brexit REACH Compliance Questions

Jul 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Gardner

British chemicals companies and companies that use the U.K. as their point of entry into the European single market could face years of uncertainty over their compliance obligations under the European Union's REACH regulation, in the wake of the U.K.’s Brexit referendum.
Legal and industry experts contacted by Bloomberg BNA emphasized that until the day the U.K. departs the European Union, REACH and other EU laws on substances will continue to apply. But beyond that, there are few certainties.
The preferred option for chemicals companies would be that business continues as usual to the greatest possible extent. Steve Elliott, chief executive of the U.K.’s Chemical Industries Association (CIA), told Bloomberg BNA that “the whole of the business community will want to retain tariff-free access to the single market.”
A pre-Brexit survey of the U.K. chemicals sector found that “not one company registered a wish to leave” the EU, Elliott added.
In the scenario of continued single market participation, REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) and other EU chemicals legislation will likely continue to apply in the U.K.
Continued EU single market participation for British chemicals companies, however, will likely be possible only if the U.K. continues to accept the EU principle of free movement of people and if the U.K. is prepared to continue implementing made-in-Brussels laws.
This would directly contradict the policy of the U.K.’s official Leave.EU campaign, which in the run-up to the June 23 referendum called for ending the automatic right of citizens of other EU countries to live and work in the U.K. and for repatriation of lawmaking powers.
REACH: Likely to Continue?
Even if the U.K. leaves the EU without a deal on single market access, REACH and other EU chemicals laws will continue to apply in the U.K. until they are replaced by other laws.
REACH is a regulation, or a law that applies directly in the EU member countries without the need for national governments to adopt implementing measures. Other EU chemical safety laws, such as the EU Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive (2004/37/EC), which regulates exposure to hazardous substances in the workplace, are directives, meaning EU countries are required to adopt national laws that implement their provisions.
Ruxandra Cana, a partner with Steptoe & Johnson LLP in Brussels, told Bloomberg BNA that although REACH has not been implemented in U.K. law via a U.K. legal instrument, it is “part of the national legal order” and “has become national law in the U.K.”
Outside the EU, however, although the obligations of REACH might continue to apply in the U.K., such as the obligation to register chemicals or to evaluate substances for their hazards, the EU-level decision-making on REACH might no longer have effect in the U.K., unless arrangements are put in place to allow continuity.
For example, decisions taken by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), such as on the listing of a chemical as a “substance of very high concern” (SVHC), might no longer apply in the U.K.
“Decisions by ECHA can only be addressed to EU companies,” Cana said.
Double REACH
In such a situation, the possibility for U.K. companies to challenge aspects of REACH could also be closed down.
With the U.K. outside the EU, and assuming no continuity arrangements are in place, companies would not be able to rely on EU-level interpretations of REACH, Laurens Ankersmit, a trade and environment lawyer with ClientEarth, told Bloomberg BNA. U.K. companies “could no longer go to the EU Court of Justice,” Ankersmit said.
Cana said in such a scenario, questions that U.K. companies raise on the interpretation of REACH would have to be decided by U.K. courts, which could lead to different interpretations of the same issue in the EU and the U.K.
A “worst-case scenario” could be that U.K. companies are required to comply with a U.K. version of REACH for their domestic business and the EU's REACH regulation for their exports to the bloc, Cana said.
She added that this could lead to “double counting, so to speak,” in which companies would be required to file substance registrations to a U.K. chemicals agency and also to ECHA, and those registrations could be subject to decision-making regimes—for example on information requirements—that ultimately could produce different outcomes for the same substance.
Cana stressed, however, that “no-one knows” what the outcome of the U.K.’s exit from the EU will be.
Reshad Forbes, a partner with Van Bael & Bellis in Brussels, told Bloomberg BNA that it was “just too early to say” what the compliance situation will be post-Brexit and it is possible that “the U.K. might not leave” the EU.
Chemical Regulation Uncertainty
Cana said the body of European Union law that applies to chemicals is so extensive that for the U.K. “there will certainly be a level of maintaining a large body of EU law.”
Other EU regulations pertaining to chemicals that currently apply in the U.K. include the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR, Regulation (EU) No 528/2012); Prior Informed Consent Regulation (PIC, Regulation (EU) 649/2012), which sets export notification rules for hazardous substances; and Classification, Labeling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures Regulation (CLP Regulation, (EC) No 1272/2008).
Decision-making on the ongoing implementation of these regulations is done by ECHA, whose decisions might not apply in the U.K. in future.
It would be “not defendable” for the U.K. to undertake a wide-ranging scrapping of EU chemicals laws and unrealistic to expect the country to quickly replace EU chemicals laws with its own laws, Cana said.
Marco Mensink, director general of the European Chemical Industry Council, told Bloomberg BNA that the U.K. “has been part of EU decision-making for a very long time,” which could mitigate against significant divergence in the future U.K. and EU chemical safety regimes.
“I'm not sure so much will change. To untangle yourself from the EU system will take quite some time,” Mensink said.
Exporter Concerns
Mensink added that the U.K. and EU chemicals sectors are “very export-driven, with an enormous amount of trade between the two,” and this pointed to “a higher administrative burden” for U.K. chemicals companies post-Brexit.
The CIA's Elliott said the U.K. chemicals sector is the country's “No. 1 manufacturing exporter” and the “largest export earner,” with 60 percent of U.K. chemicals and pharmaceuticals exports going to other European Union countries. Figures from the European Chemical Industry Council show that the U.K.’s annual share of total EU chemical sector revenues is 9 percent, or 46.3 billion euros ($51.35 billion).
Elliott said U.K. companies that export chemicals to other EU countries were concerned about the implications of Brexit for issues such as collaboration over the generation of substance data for the purposes of REACH and being able to buy into letters of access to share data generated by other companies within the single market.
“These sorts of costs can very quickly dwarf the tariff implications” of being outside the EU single market, Elliott said.
If the U.K. is outside the single market, then exporters also would be required under REACH to appoint within the EU agents, known as “only representatives,” who would be responsible for “accounting for compliance,” Cana said.
“Free movement of goods seems to be very much an objective and target” for the Brexit negotiations between the U.K. and the EU, but U.K. companies nevertheless “have to start at least assessing” the extra requirements they might face to continue selling to the single market, Cana said.
Non-EU Companies in the U.K
Brexit also will have implications for representatives of foreign companies currently located in the U.K. and for non-EU companies that use the U.K. as their gateway to the European single market.
U.S. companies, for example, could face different requirements post-Brexit for their exports to the U.K. and their exports to remaining EU countries.
Kira Matus, a senior lecturer specializing in chemical regulation at University College London, told Bloomberg BNA that non-EU chemicals companies that must comply with REACH for their exports to the EU would want the U.K. chemicals regime post-Brexit “to be as simple as possible” and ideally in line with REACH.
REACH is a “de-facto standard now” for international chemicals companies and post-Brexit, “the EU will continue to be the biggest market in the area,” Matus said.
U.S. companies “might not love it, but they've invested a lot in REACH. They would not be keen on a lot changing,” she said.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93234616&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93234616&jd=93234616

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

North Dakota, Texas Regulators Tell Congress EPA Burdening Energy Industry

Jul 7, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Richard Nemec

Key state regulators from North Dakota and Texas told a House committee Wednesday that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has gone too far and its regulations are hurting the nation's oil and natural gas development.
During a House Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing in Washington, DC, North Dakota's Lynn Helms, who directs the state’s Department of Mineral Resources, accused EPA of exceeding its authority. He cited, among other things, the draft 2013 underground injection control guidance for wells. Texas Railroad Commission Chairman David Porter echoed Helms’ sentiments.
Helms said North Dakota's existing laws and regulations also would be "adversely impacted" by the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), rules for hydraulic fracturing and the omnibus Waters of the United States, which would hurt state efforts in wellhead gas capture and building related infrastructure.
"The underlying themes in EPA rulemaking under the Obama administration have been the consolidation of increased regulatory power in the federal government to the detriment of state authority, and the circumvention of regulatory authority granted to EPA by Congress," Porter told subcommittee members. He said EPA overreach had resulted in:Minimal interaction/consultation with state regulatory authorities;Underestimating or ignoring compliance costs;Overestimating or exaggerating regulatory/environmental benefits;Placing increased regulatory and economic burdens on operating companies, particularly smaller ones; andCreating "one-size-fits-all" regulations that ignore regional differences in operating conditions and regulations.
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners President Travis Kavulla said that while individual state commissions vary on their responses to recent EPA regulations, his organization has advocated "unambiguously" for states' traditional regulatory oversight regarding utility resource planning. He said the CPP "represents a marked change in how and by whom utility regulation is conducted."
While traditional environmental regulations from EPA have focused on pollutants and the best available control technologies to reduce emissions at the facility level, the CPP "focuses on the complex machine that is the North American power system," said Kavulla. He said this means EPA is now essentially planning the U.S. resource mix for power generation under the Clean Air Act.
EPA's Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator in the Office of Air and Radiation, defended three rules she said would benefit public health and the environment: the CPP, methane emission reduction requirements and National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.
She emphasized that EPA has been responding to the environmental and public health challenges that come with climate change, acting under authority granted EPA in the Clean Air Act.
"Although the CPP has been stayed by the [U.S.] Supreme Court, we are confident it will be upheld because it rests on strong scientific and legal foundations," she said.
Regarding the methane emissions rules that drew the ire of Texas and North Dakota regulators, McCabe said the added regulations "build on 2012 rules by adding requirements that industry reduce emissions of greenhouse gases using readily available and cost-effective technology, and by covering hydraulically fractured oil wells."
She told subcommittee members the final standards reflect "significant stakeholder input," including pathways for companies to demonstrate meeting the requirements under comparable state rules.
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman supported McCabe's testimony, noting there have been benefits from recent EPA rules adopted under both the Obama and Bush administrations.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106987-north-dakota-texas-regulators-tell-congress-epa-burdening-energy-industry

Return to headline | Return to top
Murkowski, Cantwell Plot Next Steps For Reform Bill Negotiations

Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Daily News

By Hannah Hess

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) skipped a meeting with her party's presumptive presidential nominee yesterday morning to work on the framework for an energy reform conference committee.
Murkowski met Wednesday with ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to hammer out more plans. The two senators are working out "a process for how we can kind of get the conference going and started and kind of keep it moving along," Murkowski said.
The House appointed conferees weeks ago to merge its reworked energy package with the Senate's S. 2012, but the upper chamber has yet to follow through. Murkowski has been lobbying for a vote on launching the conference as soon as possible.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) is still angling to get his proposal to expand states' share of offshore drilling revenues added to the long list of controversial items negotiators will have to sift through as they craft the first broad energy policy update in nearly a decade.
Cassidy said yesterday that if his revenue-sharing bill, S. 3110, passes the Senate, it can be part of the conference.
But with Democrats threatening to derail the process over controversial House provisions, Murkowski may not want to add more acrimony to the mix. Democrats worry Cassidy's proposal would expand drilling.
When asked whether the revenue-sharing bill had been part of the pre-conference negotiations, Murkowski told E&E Daily that she and Cantwell are "not talking about it, whether it's Sen. Cassidy's specific issue or anybody else's individual items."
Murkowski said that "right now, what everybody is waiting for is, 'Is the Senate going to vote to go to conference?'"
With Congress scheduled to take a seven-week recess starting next Friday, pro-energy bill lawmakers hope their Capitol Hill staff can start to hash out some of the more controversial items while they are home campaigning ahead of the November elections.
And if President Obama could sign the sweeping legislation into law before the elections, it would be a big win for energy boosters in both parties.
"We've got one more week here before we break for August, so my hope is that we'll be able to see some resolve on this," Murkowski said. "There's a lot of legwork that has to go on that will entail staff, just kind of getting organized. We'd like them to be able to do that."
Cassidy knows his revenue-sharing provision, a policy he has pushed since his days in the House, has a better shot at becoming law if it's part of the sweeping energy package. However, he is not making demands or threatening to hold up progress on the broader talks.
"I think it's fair to say that the energy conference has had some challenges, right? And so to be realistic, this would probably increase those challenges, which is not to say it's not something that we're interested in. But we also, you know, are looking at the lay of the land, if you will," he said.
Cassidy also said he had no guarantee from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who sets the chamber's agenda, that his bill will get a vote in the next week.
"It's, as you might guess, a little bit kind of dependent upon other things," Cassidy said, but added that aides had assured his office the vote would be "timely, not kind of like the day before we [adjourn] sine die."
Asked whether she has been whipping lawmakers to support a conference, Murkowski said she has been asking her colleagues ever since the House's May vote: "Will you be there with us when we take a vote?"
Cantwell "has been talking with her colleagues, as well, kind of keeping them abreast of our discussions," Murkowski said.
Cantwell and Murkowski have also met with key House leaders on energy. But House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said last night negotiators had yet to schedule another gathering.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/08/stories/1060039953

Return to headline | Return to top
Budget Chairman Aims To Constrain EPA

Jul 8, 2016 | E&E News Daily

By Hannah Hess

In a move aimed at crippling the regulatory powers of federal agencies, including U.S. EPA, House Budget Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) plans to roll out legislation to create a separate appropriations system specifically for regulations.
Price convened a hearing yesterday to explore the best ways to draft a so-called regulatory budget. Among the big questions: Should Congress set an annual limit for how much each agency can regulate or take a more legislation-centric approach, allocating money to agencies whenever a new bill is signed into law? Even more contentious, who gets to score a rule's cost?
Patrick McLaughlin, a senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, suggested that lawmakers assign the job to a body without political or financial stake in the rule or create a peer-review process.
Kentucky Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth said he fears the "politicization" of the cost of regulations. He pointed to the widespread opposition in coal-producing states to EPA's Clean Power Plan. He said factors other than regulations, including competition from cheap natural gas, are the true reason for coal's woes.
"It should be political," replied George Washington University law professor Richard Pierce Jr. "You folks and the president are the politically accountable people."
Pierce argued that EPA has been "under tremendous pressure" since the administration of Ronald Reagan to calculate the costs of its rules. Then, he added, it has the oversight of the White House Office of Management and Budget "to keep them honest."
Pierce said of the administration's climate efforts: "EPA has no choice if it's going to try to reduce greenhouse gases."
But conservative scholar Clyde Wayne Crews, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, contradicted that theory. He argued that bipartisan score keeping is a good idea because nobody necessarily sees the same costs and benefits of any regulation. The current disclosure process, he said, is "worrisome."
Even though administration regulations have hurt coal, Crews pointed out that cleaner-burning natural gas is also a fossil fuel opposed my many environmentalists, adding complexity to the debate over the country's energy future.
"Sometimes an issue rises to the level of Congress needing to step in [and] pass a law," Crews said. A regulatory budget, he added, "might even help you tell more clearly when it's time to step in."
Republicans on both sides of Capitol Hill introduced legislation this spring to establish a cap on rulemaking and impose consequences for exceeding the cap (E&E Daily, May 26).
House Speaker Paul Ryan's Task Force on Reducing Regulatory Burdens also recommended a regulatory budget as part of a broader legislative agenda for the GOP to run on this fall and pursue under a Donald Trump White House (E&E Daily, June 14).
As the "party of government," Yarmuth said Democrats also have a big responsibility to make sure regulations are effective and make sense. They should "truly provide a public benefit, and not just jobs for bureaucrats."
But he acknowledged concerns that a regulatory budget "might be just a guise for cutting back on regulations whether they make sense or not."
Price has championed regulatory budgeting both in his panel's annual budget resolution and as part of its ongoing effort to improve the congressional budget process. Greater transparency means greater accountability, he says.
At $1.9 trillion, House Republicans estimate the nation's annual regulatory burden would qualify as one of the world's top 10 economies -- ranking between India and Russia -- if it were treated like an independent country.
Price exclaimed, "It is roughly equivalent to half of what the federal government spent last year in its entirety!"
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/08/stories/1060039956

Return to headline | Return to top
Final Rule Issued on Offshore Arctic Drilling

Jul 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Alan Kovski

A final rule tailoring oil and natural gas exploration regulations to the rigors of the offshore Arctic environment was unveiled July 7 by Interior Department officials.
The rule will standardize the rigorous requirements imposed on Royal Dutch Shell Plc in 2012 and 2015, said Janice Schneider, assistant secretary for land and minerals management.
The requirements include such expensive elements as a separate drilling rig stationed in the region to drill a relief well if necessary, and a spill containment system such as a capping stack or containment dome kept readily available.
Interior estimated the rule will cost industry $1.75 billion to $2.05 billion over 10 years.
Schneider said benefits were not quantified because of the difficulty of making such estimates, but she pointed to the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico as an indication of the high costs that can be avoided thanks to the strictures of the Arctic rule.
Little Action in Arctic Offshore
There are 42 leaseholders remaining in the Beaufort Sea and one (Shell) in the Chukchi Sea, but companies have no exploration plans ready for either sea, other than a Hilcorp Alaska LLC plan for drilling from a gravel island, which would not be governed by the new regulations.
The final rule will apply to work involving mobile offshore drilling units, meaning floating rigs, jackup rigs and drillships operating in the planning areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi.
The rule (RIN:1082-AA00) was developed jointly by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Special regulations for Arctic production—as opposed to exploration—are still to be developed by the two regulatory agencies.
It also remains to be seen how restrictive the BOEM will be in the final version of its next five-year program for offshore oil and gas leasing, expected to be completed this year. Environmental activists hope to see Arctic leasing left out of the plan entirely.
Short Drilling Season Allowed
Interior officials have explained that the Arctic rule was needed to cope with a region characterized by extreme environmental conditions, geographic remoteness and a relative lack of infrastructure to support operations.
The area has a short drilling season, typically late June to early November. The season becomes shorter still because of requirements that a problem be contained before the floating ice arrives to end the season.
The rule will require operators to have access to a separate relief rig staged at a location such that it could arrive on site, drill a relief well, kill and abandon the original well and abandon the relief well prior to expected seasonal ice encroachment at the drill site and in no event later than 45 days after the loss of well control.
The need to be able to do all that in such a time frame means that an operator cannot drill or work below the surface casing of a well right up to the last days before the ice arrives, because time must be left for a possible spill control operation.
The shortness of the season adds to the expense because it raises the prospect that at least two seasons will be needed to explore a site.
Trade Groups Critical of Rule
“This is an unfortunate turn by this administration and will continue to stifle offshore oil and natural gas production,” said Erik Milito, the American Petroleum Institute's director of upstream and industry operations.
Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, reacted similarly. He released a statement saying the rule “includes unnecessary requirements, such as same season relief wells, which may not be needed due to the availability of new response and containment equipment. Prescriptive requirements in the rule could thwart industry innovation and development of new technology, and may not actually increase operational safety.”
The rule is a mix of prescriptive and performance-based requirements.
In the final rule, the section on the relief rigs and spill containment systems was revised to more clearly state the standards operators must meet to satisfy the requirements while also providing that operators may request approval of an alternate technology if the operator can show the alternate technology will be as good or better than the requirements.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93235081&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93235081&jd=93235081

Return to headline | Return to top

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

Transportation News

API Calls PHMSA's Proposed Pipeline Rules 'Arbitrary, Capricious'

Jul 7, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Charlie Passut

Hours before the deadline to submit its comments on proposed federal rules governing natural gas pipelines, the American Petroleum Institute (API) blasted the rules as "arbitrary and capricious" and urged regulators to go back to the drawing board, in part for overstating the benefits and underestimating the costs to the oil and gas industry.
Last March, the Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a 549-page notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which could potentially add thousands of miles of gathering lines to its purview (see Daily GPI, March 21). Two months later, PHMSA extended the deadline to file comments to Thursday (see Daily GPI, May 10).
API Midstream Director Robin Rorick said that while the organization supports regulations to improve pipeline safety and is willing to work with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the NPRM "does not appropriately address the intent of the NTSB recommendations or appreciably advance pipeline safety, and is over-reaching" in its current form.
"API has no issue with regulations that further pipeline safety. But the proposals address unsubstantiated concerns and are not supported by established research," Rorick said at a press conference Thursday.
Rorick added that Congress -- through its passage of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 -- had asked PHMSA to study and collect data on gathering lines before developing regulations, but "it is API's opinion that this effort was not substantially completed, thus the justification for the vast number of proposed requirements on gas gathering line operators is unwarranted."
Not driven by risk-based approach
According to Rorick, PHMSA's proposal is contrary to its own statutory directives and existing regulatory framework. It is not driven by a risk-informed approach targeted at eliminating the most significant risks posed to public safety and the environment.
"For example, current rules prescribe safety requirements for pipeline facilities and the transportation of gas, to ensure that sensitive high-consequence areas [HCA] are protected," Rorick said. "PHMSA's proposed changes will fundamentally undermine the current risk-based philosophy necessary for a successful integrity management program to protect these HCAs.
"Never has PHMSA made such an expansive proposal to increase regulation. Moreover, we are not aware of any other federal agency that has proposed to double the length of existing regulations, or take on so many additional regulatory requirements in a single rulemaking, especially one with only 90 days to comment."
Underestimated costs, overestimated benefits
PHMSA estimated that over a 15-year period, the total cost to implement the rule changes would be approximately $597 million and provide $3.2-3.7 billion in benefits. But a study conducted by ICF International for the API estimates the costs to industry will be about $33.4 billion, with benefits ranging from $305.9 to $568.2 million.
"The regulatory impact assessment completed with NPRM significantly underestimates the costs that would be required to implement these proposed regulations," Rorick said. "The benefits provided are also grossly inaccurate...PHMSA accounting [found] roughly $3 billion of benefits are supposed cost savings to industry, not safety or environmental benefits."
More concerns over definitions
API also has issues with some of the technical merits of PHMSA's proposals. Specifically, Rorick said regulators want to abandon API Recommended Practice 80 (ARP80), also known as “Guidelines for the Definition of Onshore Gathering Lines.”
"They want to replace ARP80 with over-simplistic and expansive definitions that do not provide any additional safety benefits and extends PHMSA's jurisdiction over production assets, an area where they have no expertise," Rorick said. "Production assets are already effectively regulated by other agencies like state oil and gas offices.
"Additionally, PHMSA proposes repair criteria for certain pipeline conditions, but does not allow an operator to conduct proper engineering analysis to determine the actual threat to the pipeline, thus potentially forcing operators to unnecessarily dig up piping."
The abandonment of ARP80 and the new repair criteria, Rorick said, show "PHMSA's apparent lack of considering all consequences that could occur with such drastic changes to the regulations. For all of these reasons, API firmly believes that taken together the proposed changes are arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to the law.
"We encourage PHMSA to conduct the appropriate data collections and studies necessary to issue sound pipeline safety regulations, and then reissue proposals that successfully benefit the environment and the public."
An issue over inches
Rorick added that API believes PHMSA arbitrarily picked eight inches as the smallest diameter pipeline needing regulatory oversight. Sixteen inches in diameter makes more sense, he said.
"While we're comfortable with the pressures that they picked, eight inches is an incredibly small diameter and doesn't seem to have any sort of risk-based approach," Rorick said. "As an industry, we feel that addressing the risk appropriately would give you a 16-inch or larger diameter pipeline that should be regulated...
"Let's be clear. It's not that eight-inch gathering lines are not regulated. In fact, they are heavily regulated if they're in HCAs or heavily populated areas."
According to API calculations, Rorick said the cost of regulating eight-inch diameter gathering lines to its smallest member companies -- some 2,200 firms -- would roughly equal their estimated annual revenues from gathering fees. "The approach that they're taking could significantly curtail production growth in this country," Rorick said.
Another area of concern relates to maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), an important subject as regulators and the industry try to avoid another disaster such as the pipeline rupture and explosion in San Bruno, CA, in 2010 (see Daily GPI, Sept. 15, 2010).
"Their approach is very rigid," Rorick said. "If the industry doesn't have [material] records, they would like to just start digging up lines everywhere to be able to verify the MAOP. We think there are much more effective ways to get that information, [including] in-line inspection technologies and hydrostatic testing.
"The rule as proposed is establishing a one-size-fits all [solution]. We're going to end up impacting a lot of landowners and disturbing a lot of public areas as we dig up lines.
Lawsuit a possibility
During a Q&A session with reporters, Rorick declined to say that API wouldn't file a lawsuit against regulators over the proposed changes.
"I'm not going to take anything off the table," Rorick said. "Our hope is that we are able through the rulemaking process here to provide comments, that PHMSA takes our comments seriously -- which I believe they will -- and make significant changes to the rule, and that we can get a rule out that makes sense both to us as well as to the regulator."
AGA comments
Last month, officials with the American Gas Association (AGA) outlined several areas of concern over the proposed rules (see Daily GPI, June 23). But in a statement Thursday, AGA issued additional comments that echoed some of the concerns of API.
"AGA and its members believe that PHMSA's proposal fails to consider the extensive existing regulatory and voluntary safety initiatives in place and imposes prescriptive and burdensome requirements on operators that, in the end, will likely not address the perceived regulatory pipeline safety benefits," AGA said Thursday.
"The proposed rule represents a shift away from performance-based regulations, which recognize the unique characteristics of each pipeline system, to prescriptive regulations, which define how an activity is to take place regardless of the circumstances or the characteristics of the system. Natural gas utilities are concerned that these overly prescriptive and onerous requirements result in a proposed rule that is largely unworkable, would significantly increase costs to residential customers, and would significantly reduce the opportunities for operators to undertake voluntary initiatives targeted at advancing pipeline safety."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106996-api-calls-phmsas-proposed-pipeline-rules-arbitrary-capricious

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

House Uses Financial Services Bill to Chip Away at Climate Regs

Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Daily

By Amanda Reilly

The House voted yesterday to halt guidelines issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission for companies on reporting climate change risks.
The lower chamber voted 230-193 to attach an amendment that bars funding for the guidance onto a spending plan for financial services and government operations. The underlying fiscal 2017 spending bill passed last night by a vote of 239-185.
SEC issued the guidance in 2010 to guide publicly traded companies on disclosing climate-related risks in annual filings. It identified four broad areas of business risks related to climate: legislation and regulations, international agreements, indirect consequences of regulations, and physical impacts such as water availability.CONTINUING COVERAGE
The Fiscal 2017 Budget & Appropriations continuing coverage is a one-stop resource for tracking the fiscal 2017 spending process for environmental and energy accounts. Click here to view E&E's continuing coverage.
Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.), the sponsor of the amendment that passed last night, said the guidelines amounted to forcing an agenda on companies.
"The reality is that companies are already required to disclose all -- all -- material information," Posey said. "We shouldn't allow the disclosure system to continue to be used as a tool for special interests."
In recent months, Democrats have questioned the commission's enforcement of the guidance and have urged the agency to redouble its efforts on ensuring investors have reliable information on climate risk.
A report by the Government Accountability Office earlier this year also faulted the SEC's enforcement of the guidance, finding that climate change disclosures take a back seat at the agency (E&ENews PM, Feb. 8).
Advertisement
Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.) objected to the amendment on the House floor yesterday.
"Shareholders are increasingly craving this information," he said, highlighting climate-related shareholder resolutions that have come up this year at annual meetings for oil and gas companies.
The fiscal 2017 spending plan approved by the House includes other provisions that aim to chip away at the Obama administration's climate change agenda.
A provision in the legislation would bar any funding for a presidential energy and climate change assistant or "any substantially similar position."
Another policy rider would weaken a 2013 Treasury Department guidance to limit American support for multilateral development banks' funding for overseas coal projects.
The House yesterday also voted 236-188 to approve an amendment that halts any regulation issued under Section 1502 of the 2010 financial reform bill. That section requires the SEC to issue regulations mandating that companies disclose whether the components in their goods such as gold, tantalum, tin and tungsten, may have originated in conflict-ridden areas in central Africa.
Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) sponsored the amendment.
The House yesterday approved Republican amendments to the spending bill that would restrict agencies it covers from issuing, proposing or finalizing any regulations until Jan. 21, 2017 -- the day after the next president takes office -- and that restrict any regulations that cost more than $100 million.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/08/stories/1060039950

Return to headline | Return to top
House Members Propose More Riders on EPA Spending

Jul 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Brian Dabbs

The House Rules Committee is set to convene a hearing July 11 on Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency funding legislation, and lawmakers flooded the committee with amendments July 7.
More than 150 amendments, including a measure to eliminate funding for the EPA's Air, Climate and Energy Research Program, were submitted and posted on the committee website. The committee submission window closed early July 7.
The legislation is already weighed down by a range of controversial riders, but Republican lawmakers continued to try to tack more measures on despite nearly lock-step Democratic opposition.
The Appropriations Committee approved the bill (H.R. 5538) June 30 with only one Democratic supporter.
The Rules Committee will decide on the number of amendments that will get floor consideration at a meeting July 11, Sarah Minkel, committee spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA July 7.
Republicans Target EPA Regulations
Republican lawmakers submitted amendments to bar funding for new requirements on offshore drilling and hydraulic fracturing, as well as prohibitions on offshore financial assurance rulemaking.
Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) proposed an amendment to bar funds for any administration proposal that doesn't include cost benefit analysis information. Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) submitted a measure to ban regulatory actions of $100 million or more.
An amendment proposed by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) would bolster Forest Service wildfire prevention by redirecting “EPA bureaucracy funds” to the service's hazardous fuels account.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) proposed an amendment to shift $10 million from the EPA's environmental programs and management fund to the agency's inspector general.
Democrats Hit Back
Democrats also submitted a range of amendments despite weak prospects for approval on the House floor.
Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) proposed a measure to strike bill language that takes aim at the EPA's authority to regulate ozone-depleting substance under the Significant New Alternatives Policy.
A measure sponsored by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) would strike bill language to delay implementation of the EPA's coal ash rule, a regulation finalized in 2015.
One amendment would boost the EPA's Hazardous Substance Superfund by $7 million, while another would block funds designed to prevent rulemaking that would decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93234631&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93234631&jd=93234631

Return to headline | Return to top
Late Air Standards Reviews Trigger Lawsuit

Jul 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Patrick Ambrosio

The Environmental Protection Agency's failure to meet statutory deadlines for review of its national air quality standards triggered another lawsuit from environmental organizations, this time over missed deadlines for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide standards (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 3:16-cv-3796, 7/7/16).
The Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Environmental Health, in a complaint filed July 7, asked a federal district court judge to set a firm deadline for the agency to complete the reviews of those standards, both of which were last updated in 2010. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review, and, if necessary, revise its national ambient air quality standards every five years.
The agency typically is unable to meet those five-year deadlines, which triggers litigation from environmental organizations. Of the last 16 completed national ambient air quality standards reviews, 15 were completed under deadlines driven by citizen lawsuits.
Research published since the air standards were last reviewed in 2010 strengthened links between exposure to sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides to a variety of health problems, including heart disease, cancer and asthma, according to the environmental plaintiffs. Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity, told Bloomberg BNA that the new science is reflected in a pair of science assessments compiled by the EPA as part of its ongoing reviews of the standards.
“They each clearly show there is stronger evidence and stronger links to human health effects,” Evans said. “There is no reason to delay implementing stronger standards to reduce the harms and threats to people.”
The largest source of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is fossil fuel combustion at power plants and other industrial facilities, while vehicles and industrial facilities are leading sources of nitrogen dioxide pollution. If the agency were to set more stringent national standards for those pollutants, it would likely mean those sources would be required to further curb emissions.
EPA Working on Reviews
The agency's work plan for the review of the 2010 sulfur dioxide standard of 75 parts per billion projected that a final decision would be issued by July 2019. The work plan for the nitrogen dioxide standards projects a final decision by August 2017.
An EPA spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA in a July 7 e-mail that the agency had “nothing new to report on timing” for those reviews.
Evans said he hopes that the agency is “far enough” along in the review process that it could move ahead before the end of the year, or at least by mid-2017, if the court were to order them to do so.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93234624&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93234624&jd=93234624

Return to headline | Return to top
Groups Sue EPA Over Air Pollution Standards

Jul 7, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

Conservation and public health groups are taking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to court in an attempt to force an update of two air pollution standards.
The Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Environmental Health on Thursday sued the EPA over its handling of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, two pollutants regulated by federal clean air laws.
The groups say the agency has blown through its deadline for updating the federal standards on those pollutants. Their lawsuit looks to compel the EPA to update them faster than the agency is currently planning.
“There’s no reason to delay stronger protections for millions of Americans suffering from dirty air linked to coal and gas pollution,” said Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
“The Clean Air Act saves lives and cleans up our skies, but it only works when there are strict protections in place to hold polluters accountable and protect the most vulnerable people in our communities.”
The EPA last set standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide — pollutants generated at power plants — in 2010. The agency is required to review and potentially update those standards every five years, but it didn’t release new regulations last year, as it could have.
In a statement, the groups said the EPA should update the standards to protect public health.
“Children are especially vulnerable when they breathe in these toxic chemicals, so it’s essential to use the latest science in setting safety standards,” said Caroline Cox, research director at the Center for Environmental Health.
The EPA doesn’t respond to pending litigation against it. But a spokeswoman said the agency plans to propose an update for the nitrogen dioxide standard this November, and release a final rule next summer, with sulfur dioxide standards coming two years later.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/286905-groups-sues-epa-over-air-pollution-standards

Return to headline | Return to top
Greens Sue EPA Over Slow Reviews Of NO2, SO2

Jul 7, 2016 | E&E News PM

By Sean Reilly

Two environmental groups are suing U.S. EPA in a bid to force the agency to hurry up with fresh reviews of its ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.
Under the Clean Air Act, both reviews were legally supposed to be completed by last year, according to the lawsuit filed today by the Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Environmental Health, which seeks a judicial injunction compelling EPA to carry out its "mandatory duties" by specified dates.
In an email, an EPA spokesman declined to comment on pending litigation.
Under the Clean Air Act, agency officials are supposed to review -- and revise, if available scientific research warrants -- the standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and four other "criteria" pollutants every five years. For both NO2 and SO2, the latest reviews were completed in 2010, meaning that the follow-ups should have legally been completed last year, according to the lawsuit. In practice, however, EPA is often late.
Under the act's timetable, the next review for particulate matter, another criteria pollutant, is supposed to be wrapped up by 2017. In reality, it's just getting underway and is now scheduled for completion in 2021. The agency's tardiness has been one argument used by supporters ofH.R. 4775, a bill introduced by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) that would stretch the mandatory review cycle from once every five years to once every decade. The measure won House approval last month in the face of a White House veto threat; apart from a recent committee hearing on a companion bill, the Senate has not acted on it.
EPA uses NO2 and SO2 as stand-ins for broader classes of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides, respectively. Nitrogen oxides are a key ingredient in lung-damaging smog; sulfur oxides can worsen the symptoms of respiratory and heart ailments.
An EPA review of nitrogen dioxide research released this year found that its health effects "are worse than was known" when EPA last revisited the primary standard, which is designed to protect public health, the lawsuit said. For sulfur oxides, "the science behind the adverse health effects ... has become more certain," it added.
Children are particularly vulnerable, Caroline Cox, research director for the California-based Center for Environmental Health, said in a news release today announcing the lawsuit. "That's why it's disturbing that EPA is still relying on an outdated approach that fails to protect millions of American children," she said.
The two groups had formally notified EPA in late April of their plans to sue (Greenwire, April 28). Since then, they have had "some initial discussions" with the agency about potential deadlines for reviewing and updating the standards, Jonathan Evans, an attorney with the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity, said in an email this afternoon.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/07/07/stories/1060039942

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested