Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/19/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Entropex Forced To Close
Jul 18, 2016 | Recycling Today
By Recycling Today Staff
Entropex, a Sarnia, Ontario-based plastics recycling company, has closed down and laid off close to 160 employees. The company cited difficult market conditions as the reason for shuttering the facility. -
The Best Defense Is a Good Offense: Complying With the New Toxic Substances Control Act
Jul 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Judah Prero
Companies can face daunting compliance challenges when existing regulations are changed, especially when the entire regulatory structure gets a major overhaul. A good example are the major changes that will be coming with the chemical reform bill that President Obama just signed into law, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act). -
California to Regulate Kids' Foam Mats With Flame Retardants
Jul 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California launched a rulemaking to identify children's foam-padded sleeping mats containing two chlorinated flame retardants as the first priority product under the state's Safer Consumer Products Program. -
California Agency Kicks Off First Priority Product Rulemaking
Jul 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has begun its first priority product rulemaking under its Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme. -
North Dakota First to Sue EPA Over Methane Regulations
Jul 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Environmental Protection Agency standards aimed at curbing emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry should be thrown out, according to a petition from the State of North Dakota (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir. , No. 16-1242 7/15/16). -
N.D. Asks Court To Review EPA Methane Rule
Jul 18, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly,
North Dakota has fired the first shot in the legal battle over U.S. EPA regulations limiting methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. -
Fracking Wells May Increase Asthma Attacks, Study Says
Jul 18, 2016 | CNN
By Aria Hangyu Chen
Ever wondered if your asthma attacks can be tied to the fracking wells near your house? You are probably right. -
Third LNG Project in South Texas Files With FERC
Jul 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Annova LNG filed an application with federal regulators to build a liquefied natural gas export terminal in South Texas, the third such project proposed for a relatively undeveloped part of the state's coast. -
Why Geographic Cancer Clusters Are Impossible To Prove
Jul 18, 2016 | Newsweek
By Linda Marsa
Some 15.5 million Americans alive today have beaten cancer; that number is projected to rise to more than 20 million by 2026. -
GOP Platform Aims To Turn EPA Into Commission
Jul 18, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The party platform issues a new call to turn EPA into a commission made up of bipartisan members, like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. -
EPA, North Carolina Seek Halt in Downwind Ozone Lawsuit
Jul 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ben Remaly
he Environmental Protection Agency and North Carolina jointly asked a North Carolina District Court to suspend a lawsuit to compel the agency to respond to a petition brought by Northeastern states seeking additional pollution controls from nine Southern and Midwestern states until September 12 (van der Vaart v. McCarthy, E.D.N.C., No. 5:16-cv-138-D, motion filed 7/15/16). -
Emissions Trading California Democrats Seek Support to Extend Trading Program
Jul 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's Democratic leadership is rallying climate policy supporters to press lawmakers for legislation extending the state's carbon trading program beyond 2020. -
Refiners To Spend $425M To Settle Pollution Charges
Jul 18, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henrey
Two oil refiners will spend $425 million to settle federal pollution-related charges made against them.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Entropex Forced To Close
Jul 18, 2016 | Recycling Today
By Recycling Today Staff
Entropex, a Sarnia, Ontario-based plastics recycling company, has closed down and laid off close to 160 employees. The company cited difficult market conditions as the reason for shuttering the facility.
MNP Ltd., the court-appointed receiver for Entropex, says it will seek a buyer for the plastics recycling company. According to the Sarnia Observer, the process to market and sell the company could take between 4-6 weeks. The news report adds that the company closed down after banks called in loans they had made to the company.
MNP is seeking to find a buyer willing to reopen the facility.
According to a press release issued by Entropex, it had been struggling for several months with financial challenges caused by declining oil prices and a competitive business environment.
The release said the company had worked to reduce expenses but the cost of operating remained “prohibitively high and unsustainable.”
While the company has struggled over the past several years with challenging markets, it had generated a significant amount of attention from both government entities and industry organizations. The company had received sizable funding from a number of Canadian organizations to demonstrate its ability to recycle hard-to-recycle plastics. The company was one of 16 companies to receive funding from the Canada’s federally funded Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) program, which is tasked with growing innovative technologies in Canada.
Several years ago the company also received recognition from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which awarded Entropex as one of the three company’s given the Innovation in Plastics Recycling Awards in 2013. The ACC recognized Entropex for creating its RigidReclaim technology, which recovers non-bottle plastic containers. The technology integrates plastics sorting, cleaning and processing to upgrade the quality of recycled mixed plastics.
Entropex is a privately owned Canadian company involved in the reprocessing of post-industrial and post-consumer plastics. Entropex was involved in the reprocessing of post-industrial and post-consumer recycled polyethylene and polypropylene for a variety of consumer and industrial applications. At its peak Entropex was ranked as the eighth largest post-consumer recycler and the 18th largest plastic recycler in North America.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/entropex-closing-polypropylene-auction/
-
The Best Defense Is a Good Offense: Complying With the New Toxic Substances Control Act
Jul 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Judah Prero
Judah Prero is Counsel in Sidley Austin LLP's Environmental group where he focuses on chemical management laws and regulations, including the Toxic Substances Control Act, Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Standards, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Plan program. This article does not represent the opinions of Bloomberg BNA, which welcomes other points of view.
Companies can face daunting compliance challenges when existing regulations are changed, especially when the entire regulatory structure gets a major overhaul. A good example are the major changes that will be coming with the chemical reform bill that President Obama just signed into law, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act). With the enactment of these sweeping changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act, any company that manufactures, processes or uses chemicals needs to become aware of potential obligations under the “new” TSCA which ultimately are also new enforcement opportunities for EPA.
As the saying goes, the best defense is a good offense. The best way for companies to protect themselves from a potential enforcement action is to take measures to ensure that one never arises. Therefore, the new requirements need to be understood and compliance strategies developed and implemented.
Basic Requirements
Under the Lautenberg Act, EPA will need to implement a new structure to: (a) identify the chemicals that are in active commerce, (b) screen those chemicals to determine which need a full risk evaluation, (c) perform risk evaluations of those selected chemicals, and (d) develop risk management measures or use restrictions for chemicals when needed. This new structure does not replace or affect the obligations a manufacturer has when seeking approval for a new chemical or complying with a new use notification requirement. Under both regimes, “manufacturer” means importer as well, so importers of chemicals, and the overseas manufacturers of those imported chemicals, also need to be cognizant of the changes.
Below are suggestions for making sure you stay in compliance with the new requirements:
1) Know your products
2) Know what you know—and what you want to know—about your products
3) Don't wait for EPA safety evaluations—be proactive
4) Identify potential partners for cost-sharing
5) Ensure your confidential business information is protected
6) Stay attuned to EPA enforcement trends
1) Know your products
EPA's identification of the chemicals in active commerce will require chemical makers to identify the chemicals they have manufactured during the 10-year period prior to the enactment of the Lautenberg Act. (EPA has discretion to include processors as well.) In order to comply with this requirement, companies will need to know exactly what it has manufactured in the past 10 years, and be able to identify those products in a timely fashion.
Why is this important? If a chemical is not “active,” it cannot be manufactured or processed until EPA receives a notice as to the change in status. If that notice is not received by EPA and manufacturing commences, a violation of TSCA has just occurred. Also, if you are not aware of what chemicals are in the products you manufacture, you have no way of tracking when EPA takes an action that will affect the use of that chemical, and potentially impact your product.
2) Know what you know—and what you want to know—about your products
Once active chemicals have been identified, EPA will start the prioritization process. EPA will ask for all available relevant information about the chemicals it has selected for prioritization. A company might ask “Should I be forthcoming?” The answer is yes.
Why? As EPA does have authority to order limited generation of information, forcing EPA to resort to issuance of an order creates an unnecessary compliance requirement. Second, EPA needs sufficient information to conclude that a chemical does not meet the criteria for a high priority designation. That designation will create new compliance obligations and could cast a cloud of suspicion over the safety of that chemical. Therefore, a company should not only be forthcoming with information in the first instance, it should strongly consider whether it may be more beneficial to voluntarily generate more information so that regulation down the road could potentially be avoided.
3) Don't wait for EPA safety evaluations—grab the bull by the horns
As mentioned, the next step in the process is EPA's selection of chemicals deemed “high priority” to undergo the risk evaluation process. EPA has greater authority to order the generation and submission of new information needed for this process, which creates a compliance obligation to develop the information EPA has specified. Using the information it has combined with the information that is generated under orders issued, EPA will conduct the risk evaluation to determine if the chemical is safe, and whether any use restrictions or risk management is required.
There are two mechanisms that industry should consider for this process: Company funded EPA evaluations and company conducted evaluations.
A completed risk evaluation could determine that a chemical is indeed safe, and could clear the way for greater marketability of the chemical and eliminate any doubts that customers, consumers or regulators may have had regarding safety. On the other hand, the findings could result in restrictions and new compliance obligations that a company would prefer to see settled and addressed sooner rather than later. Therefore, there could be a benefit in utilizing the procedures authorized under the Lautenberg Act for “nominating” a chemical for risk evaluation which requires the company making that request to fund the evaluation.
The Lautenberg Act also allows interested persons to develop their own risk evaluations for EPA's consideration. These evaluations are an opportunity for industry to generate sound evidence that would support a finding of safety for a chemical, and to discover any potential safety issues before EPA does, and then address those issues. In both cases, being proactive can reduce the possibility of additional compliance requirements and enforcement challenges.
4) Identify potential partners for cost-sharing: consortia and fees
The authority that EPA is granted under the Lautenberg Act to order the generation of new information is not limited to TSCA purposes: EPA can order the generation of information to meet regulatory testing needs under another federal law. Chemical testing is a costly proposition, and compliance with an order presents its own cost considerations and enforcement dangers. New costs are also imposed under the Lautenberg Act's new fee structure, whereby industry will pay EPA for certain activities it undertakes under TSCA.
Costs can be shared or reduced through formation of consortia, or entering into cost sharing or data compensation agreements with other manufacturers. Although any of these options will require the negotiation and execution of legal agreements, there is most definitely potential for reducing the costs required to comply with EPA requirements.
5) Ensure your confidential business information is protected
TSCA and the Lautenberg Act recognize that there is confidential business information in the EPA's possession and that information should be protected from disclosure by EPA. However, claims for protection of certain information must be asserted and substantiated, and the protection period expires unless subsequently renewed and resubstantaited. Manufacturers who secure confidential business information protection must take great care to track those claims to ensure that renewal, if needed, is done in a timely fashion. Otherwise, valuable intellectual property could be lost.
6) Stay attuned to EPA enforcement trends: Next Gen
Recently, EPA has been focusing on a new model for its compliance programs: Next Generation Compliance (Next Gen). Next Gen is the EPA's integrated strategy to modernize its approach to compliance that relies on information gathering, streamlined reporting and modern data analysis methods for targeting. As, under the new TSCA, EPA will have much more information about chemicals, and in particular chemical uses and exposures, industry should expect EPA to utilize this information in the context of the Next Gen compliance strategy. The increase in available information combined with an increase in compliance requirements under TSCA will mean increased enforcement activity. Be prepared.
Be prepared!
Over the next year or so, EPA will be spending significant time laying the foundation for the new TSCA program. That time should be utilized by industry to prepare for what is yet to come. Industry has the opportunity to take stock of the new requirements, determine the resources needed to meet those requirements, and strategize how to make best use of the new regulatory structure and tools at the disposal of both EPA and industry. With good industry planning, the new TSCA program can be incorporated in a fashion that will allow both EPA and industry to benefit.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94127785&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94127785&jd=94127785
-
California to Regulate Kids' Foam Mats With Flame Retardants
Jul 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California launched a rulemaking to identify children's foam-padded sleeping mats containing two chlorinated flame retardants as the first priority product under the state's Safer Consumer Products Program.
The state's Department of Toxic Substances Control scheduled a hearing Aug. 29 in Sacramento to gather public input on draft regulations released July 15. Written comments will be accepted through Aug. 29.
If the rules become final, they would require the 35 to 50 companies that make and sell the mats and other polyurethane foam padded children's products treated with Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) and Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) in California to conduct a lifecycle alternatives analysis to determine how the products can be made safer.
Should the alternative analysis show no safer alternatives are available, the state could issue a range of regulatory actions, including banning the products.
Also, the rules would officially list TDCPP and TCEP as “chemicals of concern,” under the program.
So-called priority products are product-chemical combinations the state identifies as posing a substantial harmful threat to public health or the environment.
State toxic regulators previously determined the products posed a potential health threat to children in their homes, and children and employees at day care centers and schools. Exposure to both flame retardants has been linked to cancer, developmental harm and other adverse health effects, the department said.
Flame retardant-free foam is available and costs less, the department said in its hearing notice. Many companies already removed chemical flame retardants from their products, but other products still contain the chemicals, the agency said.
Manufacturers could spend an estimated $1,750 to $40,000, based on the number of products they produce, the department said. Industry reports indicate that many companies now are using flame retardant-free foam.
The rules would apply to companies that make and sell nap mats, soft-sided portable cribs and play pens, play yards, infant travel beds, bassinets, baby pillows and other infant and children's foam padded sleeping products.
California proposed naming the foam pads as a priority product in March 2014, at the same it identified paint strippers with methylene chloride and spray foam with methylene diphenol diisocyantes as draft priority products. The state has yet to launch formal rulemakings on the paint strippers and spray foam.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94127815&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94127815&jd=94127815
-
California Agency Kicks Off First Priority Product Rulemaking
Jul 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has begun its first priority product rulemaking under its Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
A rulemaking is underway concerning children's foam-padded sleeping products containing the flame retardants TDCPP and TCEP. The aim is to name them a product-chemical combination under the SCP.
It is the first of three proposed priority products for which the department will ask manufacturers to find a safer alternative. It covers polyurethane foam-padded products such as nap mats, bassinet foam, crib mattresses, and play pens. It has an estimated completion date of 1 January 2017.
Meredith Williams, deputy director for the DTSC's Safer Products and Workplaces Program, told Chemical Watch that all stakeholders – including those not immediately covered by the first product/chemical grouping – are welcome to provide feedback.
"Our comment process allows us to gather technical and market information about the impacts of the chemicals and the presence of the chemicals in the marketplace," she said. But "comments directly related to this specific rulemaking action are the most important to [the DTSC]".
Dr Williams said the agency is in the process of finalising materials for the rulemakings of the other product-chemical combinations named as potential priority products. These will cover spray polyurethane foam containing unreacted di-isocyanates (dg), and paint and varnish removers containing methylene chloride, "as soon as possible".
The agency is, she said, likely to have concurrent rulemakings and does not plan to wait until the foam-padded products rule is complete to begin the others.Alternatives analysis
Once a priority product regulation is enacted, manufacturers will be required under the SCP programme to perform an alternatives analysis (AA). This will ascertain if a chemical is "necessary in a product or if there is a safer alternative, while avoiding regrettable substitutions".
The DTSC issued a Stage 1 draft guidance document for performing such an analysis last year. A coalition of industry stakeholders raised concern that the draft did not provide enough clarity to ensure "certainty for compliance" by responsible parties.
Dr Williams said that the DTSC intends to release the full guide – including the as yet to be released Stage 2 portion of the guidance – for public comment in the fall.
She said that the agency intends to address comments on the AA guidance before the first priority product rule is finalised. "At this point in time we don’t anticipate a need to delay the AA requirements," she added.Flame retardants
Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) has been listed as a carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65 since October 2011. Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) has had such a designation since 1992.
The DTSC also links the substances to reproductive toxicity, endocrine toxicity and several other hazard traits.
Both substances are included in the chlorinated phosphate ester cluster of flame retardants being assessed by the US EPA. The agency released a problem formulation and initial assessment of the cluster last August.
Earlier this year Washington, DC and Washington state passed laws to ban the flame retardants from upholstered furniture and children’s products. Minnesota approved a similar measure last year.
Public comments on the priority product rulemaking will be accepted until 29 August. The agency will hold a hearing on the comment period closing date.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48668/california-agency-kicks-off-first-priority-product-rulemaking
-
North Dakota First to Sue EPA Over Methane Regulations
Jul 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Environmental Protection Agency standards aimed at curbing emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry should be thrown out, according to a petition from the State of North Dakota (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir. , No. 16-1242 7/15/16).
That petition, filed late July 15 with the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit, makes North Dakota the first entity to challenge the EPA's first-ever methane performance standards, formally published by the agency in early June.
“North Dakota seeks a determination by this court that the EPA final rule challenged herein exceeds EPA's statutory authority, goes beyond the bounds established by the United States Constitution and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law,” the petition states.
Any additional challenges to the standards (81 Fed. Reg. 35,824) would be due August 2.
Published in June
EPA's first-ever standards for methane emissions, published June 3 under the Clean Air Act, require new and modified oil and gas wells to develop leak monitoring plans and an initial leak survey within a year or within 60 days of startup and twice annually after that.
The regulation (RIN:2060-AS30) targeting emissions from new sources comes as the Obama administration looks to curb methane emissions by 45 percent from 2012 levels within the oil and gas sector in the next decade.
Under the rule, companies would have to install monitoring technologies at those sources and conduct more frequent inspections. The standards require new and modified wells to develop leak monitoring plans and an initial leak survey within a year or within 60 days of startup and twice annually after that.
The agency has also taken the first steps toward regulating emissions from existing sources. On July 15, the EPA published a notice seeking better information on methods to monitor and detect methane leaks from oil and natural gas systems.
Paul M. Seby of Greenberg Traurig LLP serves as a special assistant attorney general to North Dakota in the litigation.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94127792&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94127792&jd=94127792
-
N.D. Asks Court To Review EPA Methane Rule
Jul 18, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly,
North Dakota has fired the first shot in the legal battle over U.S. EPA regulations limiting methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
The state asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday to review EPA's final rule, which covers new and modified oil and gas operations. North Dakota is seeking a decision from the appeals court that the rule exceeds the agency's authority.
Announced in May, EPA's Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards require oil and gas companies to check for and repair leaks of methane, a greenhouse gas that is more than 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
EPA tightened the requirements in several areas in the final rule compared with a proposal, including increasing the frequency of leak-detection requirements and eliminating an exemption for low-producing wells.
The rule is part of the Obama administration's pledge to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas industry between 40 and 45 percent by 2025 compared to 2012 levels. It's also a component of the administration's broader climate change agenda and of agreements with Canada and Mexico to address heat-trapping emissions.
EPA has separately begun the process to regulate methane from existing oil and gas operations (Greenwire, May 12).
EPA's critics, including the oil and gas industry, say the standards are unnecessary because companies are already taking voluntary steps to reduce methane.
The North Dakota attorney general's office did not provide any comment on the state's petition.
Members of the Texas Railroad Commission have urged Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) to also file suit against the methane regulations (EnergyWire, June 8).
Click here to read North Dakota's petition.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/07/18/stories/1060040442
-
Fracking Wells May Increase Asthma Attacks, Study Says
Jul 18, 2016 | CNN
By Aria Hangyu Chen
Ever wondered if your asthma attacks can be tied to the fracking wells near your house? You are probably right.
Asthma patients are 1.5 to four times more likely to have asthma attacks if they live near bigger or a larger number of unconventional natural gas development wells, according to a study published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine.
The researchers at Johns Hopkins University partnered with Geisinger Health System and conducted the study using electronic health records from 2005 to 2012 in north and central Pennsylvania.
Among the 27,000 identified asthma cases with patients age 5 to 90 that met the study's criteria, about 20,000 were categorized by the researchers as having mild attacks (new oral corticosteroid orders), 1,800 were moderate attacks (emergency room visits), and 4,700 suffered from severe attacks (hospitalizations).
Pennsylvania has seen rapid unconventional natural gas development in recent years, with more than 6,200 wells being drilled from the mid-2000s to 2012. The study researchers assigned each well metrics based on location, depth, number, developmental phases and production volume and length data obtained from state departments.
They then mapped out the wells and the location of the asthma patients and compared them with patients who did not have asthma attacks in the same year.
The study found associations between increased risks of asthma attacks and living close to more or bigger natural gas wells across all four stages of development: well pad preparation, well drilling, stimulation (the stage commonly referred to as fracking) and production. Asthma patients who live near wells that are in the production phase, which can last for years, are at greater risks.
The findings are robust even after taking into consideration factors such as family history, smoking, socioeconomic status and proximity to major roads.
The current study does not explain the exact medical causes behind their findings, explained the study's lead author, Sara Rasmussen, a Ph.D. candidate at Johns Hopkins University. Residents living near natural gas wells are exposed to a variety of negative influences, such as psychosocial stress, noise, heavy truck traffic, sleep disruption and air pollution.
She said more research needs to be done to find out how stress and air pollution affect the relationship between the worsening of asthma and nearby fracking wells.
But she said the study adds to a growing body of evidence that links unconventional natural gas development to adverse health outcomes, such aspreterm births, low birth weight and skin and respiratory problems. "This is the first study of objective respiratory outcomes and its relationship with unconventional natural gas development," Rasmussen said.
Rasmussen said that since the research project did not single out how far away residents live from development wells as a separate factor, "we can't really give recommendations on a safe distance." She suggested concerned patients speak with their doctors about their condition.
"Going forward, everyone can learn from Pennsylvania's experience," said Brian S. Schwartz in anews release, the study's co-author and a professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at Johns Hopkins. "State regulatory bodies should use the growing number of health studies to understand the possible environmental and public health impacts of this industry and how to minimize them."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/18/health/fracking-increased-asthma-attacks/
-
Third LNG Project in South Texas Files With FERC
Jul 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Annova LNG filed an application with federal regulators to build a liquefied natural gas export terminal in South Texas, the third such project proposed for a relatively undeveloped part of the state's coast.
The company, whose majority shareholder is Exelon, filed its application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on July 13 [FERC docket CP16-480]. It joins two other proposed LNG terminals in the formal FERC application process for the Port of Brownsville, Rio Grande LNGproject, which filed an application on May 19, and the Texas LNG project, which filed on March 31.
If built, the Annova LNG project would drastically affect the health and safety of the bays, beaches and wetlands on which many local economies depend, the Sierra Club said in a statement issued after Annova's application was filed.
The Annova and two other LNG projects have drawn criticism from environmentalists and nearby by tourist towns, such as South Padre Island, Texas. While the Port of Brownsville does have a shipping industry, there is not much other industry such as refineries in the area, unlike many parts of the Texas coasts. Opponents worry that the facilities will harm local wildlife as well as the tourism industry.
Annova LNG began its pre-filing process in early 2015 [FERC docket PF15-15]. If approved and constructed, the project will include six liquefaction trains, each with nameplate capacity of 1.0 million tons per year, the application said.
Supply, Economic Considerations
Exelon's commitment to the project not only depends on FERC approval but also electricity and gas supply, economic considerations, firm customers and community support, the company said in its project description. Exelon plans to make a decision in the second quarter of 2018.
The other two LNG export facilities planned for the area also began their pre-filing process in early 2015. The Rio Grande LNG facility will consist of six liquefaction trains with a total capacity of 3.6 Bcf per day, four LNG tanks capable of storing 15.26 Bcf of LNG, marine and truck loading facilities and ancillary and support facilities, its application notice said. The Texas LNG project will have a planned capacity to produce up to 2 million ton per year of liquefied natural gas from about 0.28 Bcf per day of feed gas, the project description said.
“The Annova LNG facility would irrevocably scar the Valley if it is built. No minor shift in its footprint will change the fact that it will damage the local economies, from fishing to tourism, that depend on a pristine and accessible coast and waterways,” Rebekah Hinojosa, chapter organizer for the Sierra Club, said in a statement July 15.
Texas LNG filed a response with FERC addressing comments and protests of its project on May 20. The Sierra Club didn't offer “quantifiable” evidence of adverse environmental impacts that can't be mitigated from its project, the filing said.
Additionally, environmentalists would like FERC to consider the cumulative impact of all three LNG projects and as well as a planned pipeline.
That would be inappropriate, Texas LNG said in its filing. Each project is unique and Texas LNG has no influence on other projects to affect their siting decisions and their resulting environmental impacts and therefore, FERC should conduct separate environmental impact studies for each project.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94127797&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94127797&jd=94127797
-
Why Geographic Cancer Clusters Are Impossible To Prove
Jul 18, 2016 | Newsweek
By Linda Marsa
Some 15.5 million Americans alive today have beaten cancer; that number is projected to rise to more than 20 million by 2026. Those figures are a testament to the huge advances made in medicine. But breakthroughs in science are useless when patients are shunned by society and denied the care they need. This week, Newsweeklooks at how factors such as race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, geography and income can determine whether a cancer patient lives or dies, in a special issue, “Curing Cancer.”ADVERTISEMENT
Danielle Bailey-Lash had agonizing headaches. The pain radiated from her neck to the top of her head and after weeks became so excruciating that she finally went to the emergency room. There, a scan revealed a tumor the size of a juice box on the right side of her brain. The then-35-year-old mother of two always prided herself on being healthy—she got plenty of exercise and never smoked or drank, so she was shocked to hear the diagnosis: Stage III astrocytoma, a rare and aggressive form of brain cancer. Doctors told her she had six months to live.
“I was devastated,” says Bailey-Lash, now 41. After surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, Bailey-Lash is now in remission, but the brush with death prompted her to question why she got sick—and why so many others who lived in her sleepy lakeside community in Belews Creek, North Carolina, in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, were stricken with cancer too.
The likely culprit seemed to be right in front of her: Just 100 yards from her house is a storage pond used by Duke Energy to collect waste from its coal-fired power plant 4 miles down the road. The man-made lake contains 4 billion gallons of coal ash slurry, a mixture of water and ash produced from burning coal.
According to an inventory Duke Energy filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 2010, the plant released more than 800,000 pounds of toxic pollutants into the air, as well as 32,000 pounds of arsenic, 7,333 pounds of chromium, 4,000 pounds of cobalt and other toxic heavy metals into the pond, all of which residents worry is seeping into the groundwater. This is especially significant in Belews Creek, where many locals rely on wells for their drinking water.
More than 1,700 people, around a quarter of whom are below the poverty line, live within a 3-mile radius of the Duke Energy power plant and coal ash pond. “If you drive down the road that leads to the plant,” says local activist David Hairston, “in every single house, there’s someone living with cancer or who has died of cancer.” Yet in 2015, when the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry looked at cancer cases in counties with coal ash storage facilities, including Belews Creek, it didn’t find the incidence of malignancies to be any higher there than in other parts of the state.
Critics say there was a key flaw in the registry’s study: It looked at county-wide numbers, a data set large enough to subsume and hide the high number of cancer-stricken residents living right near the coal ash pond. This deficiency is representative of a larger problem that characterizes most attempts to uncover what’s behind suspected but unconfirmed geographical cancer clusters: Often, researchers can’t get the granular data they need for proof. “With environmental exposures, it’s much more difficult to measure at the individual level,” says Hal Morgenstern, a University of Michigan epidemiologist who studies cancer clusters. “Even with people living in the same neighborhoods, some may be exposed while others aren’t.”
So Duke Energy’s plant keeps on chugging. “Despite extensive study by independent experts, there continues to be no evidence that the Belews Creek ash basin has impacted neighbors’ well water or health,” says Zenica Chatman, a spokeswoman for Duke Energy. “We operate under very strict state and federal permits that are designed to protect public health and the environment.”
What happens in communities like Belews Creek exposes the racial and economic fault lines in America, where poor rural towns and communities of color often become the dumping ground for our nation’s toxic waste. Residents of affected areas claim state regulators are slow to respond to their complaints—if they do anything at all—because their communities are poor and black. But even when the state health department dispatches a flotilla of epidemiologists to knock on doors, track down former residents, scour medical records and dutifully take samples of air, soil and water, they’re usually stumped. “Epidemiologists have this terrible batting average,” says Dr. Raymond Neutra, former chief of the Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control with the California Department of Public Health. “The investigations of cluster towns have been very unproductive—yet this is the kind of study the public always wants us to do.”
Clusters may be a statistical fluke, a run of bad luck like flipping a coin that comes up heads 10 times in a row. Sometimes, there are other confounding variables, such as higher concentrations of smokers or rates of obesity, which can up cancer rates in an area. Worse still, “the agencies that collect cancer data don’t have the capacity to investigate whether people are exposed to a particular carcinogen,” says Steven Wing, an epidemiologist at UNC–Chapel Hill who studies occupational and environmental health. “Consequently, you don’t know who is actually drinking the contaminated water or breathing the bad air. So you’re shooting in the dark.”
The cause and effect with cancer clusters seem obvious. A plant opens, emitting noxious chemicals, and within the next several years, every other house nearby has someone who’s stricken with cancer. Yet in case after case, cluster studies “rarely, if ever, produced an important finding,” according to a 2012 review by Emory University researchers. In an exhaustive examination of 428 investigations in 38 states since 1990, they found an increased incidence of cancer at 72 of the sites, but at only three did they find “at least some evidence” of a link to the exposures, and only one investigation revealed a clear causal connection—a cluster of shipyard workers in the Charleston, South Carolina, area had developed lung cancer after long-term asbestos exposure.
“The smoking gun can be elusive, particularly when exposures may have happened 10 or 20 years before,” says Thomas Burke, deputy assistant administrator in the EPA’s Office of Research and Development and an expert in cancer cluster investigations. In some cases, cancers first appear decades after an exposure. In the meantime, individuals come in contact with all kinds of other chemicals in the workplace, in their homes, in the water and the air. Plus, people move away from the original sites, so it’s hard to document their exposures, and it’s almost impossible to know the precise magnitude of the incidence and whether the rates in the so-called cluster are unusual.
For an agent to cause cancer, exposure usually has to be at really high and repeated doses, like smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 20 years, or daily contact with asbestos in a factory. That’s why occupational clusters are simpler to prove: When workers breathe the fumes for years, it’s easy to document the doses and identify the cause. With community cancer clusters, scientists are handicapped: They aren’t able to measure in real time how much of these pollutants the community is inhaling—and which neighborhoods or even streets are most exposed. “If an agent doesn’t leave a trace in the body or stick around in the environment,” says Neutra, “we don’t have the tools to detect them.”
E ven when the circumstantial case seems obvious, hard evidence can be elusive. In 1985, for instance, Marine Shale Processors began incinerating oil field waste, coal tar and creosote in a poor area of rural Louisiana. The plant operated round-the-clock, spewing clouds of heavy black smoke. Local residents complained of inhaling the noxious vapors from many miles away. Within 18 months, five children in nearby Morgan City, a town of about 12,000, were diagnosed with neuroblastoma, a rarechildhood cancer. Not long after, similar cancer clusters were identified in Taylorville, Illinois, where exposures were linked to coal tar. Yet a 1989 study found no connection between the cancers and Marine Shale. The facility wasn’t shuttered until 1996, after government regulators charged the company with numerous violations of federal laws because it improperly disposed of the hazardous wastes.
“We linked these exposures at the Marine Shale to the facility in Illinois—it absolutely matched,” says Wilma Subra, an environmental chemist in southern Louisiana who assisted the Morgan City residents. “But the missing piece was that we didn’t have enough data to trace the chemicals that were being released to the actual exposures and how much is absorbed by the body. When you come in after the fact, the body has already excreted the chemicals, so there is no trace.”
Public health officials are keenly aware of the inherent difficulties in studying cancer clusters. Scientists have devised more sensitive tools to measure exposure, and new computerized methods of reconstructing residential history and utilizing electronic data sources, along with advances in our understanding of the development of cancers—and the biological markers that indicate the presence of malignancies—should helpimprove detection.
Plus, the development of national cancer registries can now establish the baseline of cancer incidence so that deviations from the norms can be spotted more easily. In addition, a recently passed overhaul of the nation’s primary chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, should help. The bill, signed into law on June 22, gives the EPA the regulatory clout to stop potentially dangerous chemicals from entering the marketplace and to more swiftly remove those deemed toxic. Companies will no longer be able to hide behind “trade secret” claims to avoid identifying the chemicals they use, which should give the agency better tools to identify environmental causes of cancer. The law also specifically encourages federal agencies to investigate cancer clusters.
In the meantime, people all over the U.S. have to deal with the consequences of living in unconfirmed community clusters. Jessica Gesell, for example, believes she is a casualty of a nuclear accident near her home in Simi Valley, California, more than half a century ago. Diagnosed with thyroid cancer at age 4 in 1984, she spent the next two years undergoing four courses of radiation and seven surgeries. “One of the first questions my doctor asked my mother was, ‘When was your child exposed to high levels of radiation?’” says Gesell. (Radiation exposure is a proven risk factor for thyroid cancer.)
Gesell thinks it happened in utero, when her mother drank water contaminated by a meltdown at the nearby Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) in a Los Angeles suburb. Founded in 1947 to test experimental nuclear reactors and rocket systems, the laboratory was operated by private aerospace companies, such as Rocketdyne and Rockwell International, which were doing contract work for federal agencies, chiefly NASA. In 1989, the Department of Energy finally admitted there was a partial nuclear meltdown in 1959 that emptied more than 1 million gallons of trichloroethylene—an industrial solvent and suspected carcinogen—and significant quantities of radioactive iodine into the ground. Radioactive materials used at the site have half-lives of decades or more.
The Boeing Company, which acquired 2,400 acres of the Santa Susana site in 1996, has been involved in cleanup and remediation efforts with the aim of preserving the land as undeveloped open space. “To date, we have not found evidence of off-site contamination from SSFL that would pose a risk to human health or the environment,” says Megan Hilfer, a spokeswoman for Boeing. “Based on the findings of numerous independent health studies and the proactive measures we’ve taken to ensure continued community safety, there is no evidence that past facility operations have affected the health of the local community.”
But Gesell, who recovered from her initial bout of cancer only to be stricken in 2014 with endometrial stromal sarcoma, a rare form of uterine cancer, is unconvinced. A 2007 study by University of Michigan researchers seemed to back Gesell up, showing those living within 2 miles of the Field Laboratory were 60 percent more likely to be stricken with cancers of the thyroid, upper digestive tract, bladder, blood and lymph tissue than those who lived more than 5 miles away. But even so, Morgenstern, the University of Michigan epidemiologist who led these studies, isn’t sure proximity to the laboratory is to blame. “Not everyone is exposed in the same way, and we can’t measure an individual’s exposures,” he says. “It’s extremely hard to tease out all the variables.”
Gesell believes she has all the proof she needs. “The scars on my body from countless surgeries could have all been avoided had measures been taken to keep people in our city safe,” she says. “But there has never been any cleanup—just a cover-up.”
http://europe.newsweek.com/geographic-cancer-clusters-industrial-polluters-481423?rm=eu
-
GOP Platform Aims To Turn EPA Into Commission
Jul 18, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The party platform issues a new call to turn EPA into a commission made up of bipartisan members, like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
“We propose to shift responsibility for environmental regulation from the federal bureaucracy to the states and to transform the EPA into an independent bipartisan commission, similar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with structural safeguards against politicized science,” the platform says.
Such a proposal was not included in the party’s 2012 platform, though the idea has been floated before, including in 2013 by Steven F. Hayward, a Pepperdine University professor of public policy and conservative blogger.
The new platform also takes more typical Republican shots at EPA, including seeking a prohibition on carbon dioxide regulations. It also calls for an end to the so-called “sue and settle” practice in which outside groups sue EPA and reach a deal in court, and it says Congress, not EPA, should set national air quality standards.
“The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists,” the platform says. “The environmental establishment has become a self-serving elite, stuck in the mindset of the 1970s, subordinating the public’s consensus to the goals of the Democratic Party.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/2016/07/gop-platform-would-turn-epa-into-commission-074882
-
EPA, North Carolina Seek Halt in Downwind Ozone Lawsuit
Jul 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ben Remaly
he Environmental Protection Agency and North Carolina jointly asked a North Carolina District Court to suspend a lawsuit to compel the agency to respond to a petition brought by Northeastern states seeking additional pollution controls from nine Southern and Midwestern states until September 12 (van der Vaart v. McCarthy, E.D.N.C., No. 5:16-cv-138-D, motion filed 7/15/16).
The July 15 request for the court to hold the lawsuit in abeyance was issued to allow the EPA time to finalize an update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule currently under final review by the White House.
The agency's November proposal would require 913 power plants across 23 states to curb emissions that affect air quality in downwind areas. The agency projected its proposal would cost industry about $93 million a year while generating as much as $1.2 billion in annual public health benefits.
North Carolina's lawsuit asked the court to compel the EPA to respond to a December 2013 petition filed by several Northeastern states that argue upwind pollution transported from nine Southern and Midwestern states, including North Carolina, interferes with their ability to meet federal air quality standards for ozone.
North Carolina disputed the claim that its emissions are degrading air quality in the downwind Northeastern states and in its lawsuit filed March 30 said the EPA failed to “undertake their mandatory, non-discretionary duty to either approve or disapprove” the December 2013 petition within the 18 months required by the Clean Air Act.
Ozone Transport Region
The 2013 petition aims to add nine Southern and Midwestern states to the Ozone Transport Region. This would ultimately require they submit state plans within nine months to administer new source review permitting and reasonably available control technology requirements for emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which contribute to ozone formation.
The December 2013 petition was filed by Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont of the Northeast Ozone Transport Region. Their petition asked that Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia be added to the Ozone Transport Region.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94127799&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94127799&jd=94127799
-
Emissions Trading California Democrats Seek Support to Extend Trading Program
Jul 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's Democratic leadership is rallying climate policy supporters to press lawmakers for legislation extending the state's carbon trading program beyond 2020.
At a recent event in Sacramento, State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De León (D) urged clean energy businesses and workers to help push for a bill that ensures the cap-and-trade program and other key climate policies become permanent.
“We're going to push, push and push to make sure we can make these policies permanent and codify them into law,” De Leon said at a recent event highlighting the employment benefits of California's renewable portfolio standard.
“There are very strong, powerful special interests who are hard at work in the courts, in our legislature, in the political arena buying influence to bankroll candidates to avoid changes that improve their method of doing business and to halt implementation of our clean air policies,” he said.
“If, in fact, we want to continue down a path to a more prosperous, a more equitable and sustainable economy, we need to redouble our efforts with long term greenhouse gas reduction targets. California's ground-breaking cap-and-trade system, which limits emissions of carbon and other global warming gases, is set to expire in four years, 2020. Employers as well as investors need the certainty to build, to hire and to invest in the burgeoning clean energy sector if we truly want to expand and diversify our energy sources and, quite simply, create more jobs.”
Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia (D), one of the authors of a bill package (A.B. 197 and S.B. 32) that seeks to set a 2030 target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, said extending climate policies is important to spur jobs in his district's desert communities.
“Senate leadership and other key members of the Legislature are committed to an approach that businesses support and we look forward to helping push this strategy to the finish line,” Susan Frank, director of the California Business Alliance for a Clean Economy, told Bloomberg BNA. “The business community needs certainty to plan for the future. So it's of paramount importance that California move forward to codify its post 2020 climate strategy.”
Administrative Rule Not Enough
The lawmakers' call for support comes as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) readies arulemaking proposal designed to establish a new statewide emissions target for 2030 and update and continue the economywide greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program past 2020.
The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), a group that represents Chevron and other oil companies, said in a written statement that the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (A.B. 32) “does not authorize the Governor or the CARB to establish a greenhouse gas emissions limit below the 1990 level and nor does it grant the extension of authority after 2020.”
CARB's administrative proposal would set a total statewide emissions target for 2030 of 258.6 million metric tons, consistent with the governor's directive to cut carbon emissions to a level 40 percent below 1990 emissions. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (A.B. 32) mandates the state reduce emissions only to the 1990 level, or 431 million metric tons.
Legislation would help avoid legal challenges to the CARB rules if they are adopted in March as planned, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA.
In the works since late 2015, the draft rules focus largely on changes to the carbon trading program. Along with setting a statewide emissions target, they would establish annual emissions allowance caps, from 2021 through 2030, for entities regulated under the cap-and-trade program.
Other proposed changes to the program would facilitate linkage with other carbon markets, provide provisions to demonstrate compliance with the federal Clean Power Plan and streamline administrative procedures, including the issuance of offsets.
CARB plans on submitting its proposal to the Office of Administrative Law July 19.
Rules Signal Governor's Determination
The proposed draft rules signal Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) determination to continue the trading program, but the proposal does little to lift a cloud of uncertainty about the future of the cap-and-trade program.
CARB's proposal is a “strong offering” that demonstrates what the program would look like after 2020, but the legal issues are creating uncertainty about the future of the program, Derek Walker, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund's global climate initiatives, told Bloomberg BNA.
“It's a great sign that” California's leadership is pushing for legislation to statutorily extend the trading program, Walker said. “The legislature should act.”
Pending litigation alleging the program's auction is an illegal tax, and a recent letter from the Legislative Counsel saying neither the governor nor CARB has authority under A.B. 32 contributed to the poor results of the last auction of allowances in May, Walker said.
“Uncertainty of the litigation is giving skeptics a tool to attack the program and a reason market participants are reticent to invest in credits,” he said.
A two-thirds vote by the legislature that extending the program would likely address the threat posed by the litigation, Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Alex Jackson told Bloomberg BNA July 13.
Cap-and-Trade Not Doomed
“We certainly don't view the current state of affairs as any indicator that the cap-and-trade system is doomed,” Sean Penrith, executive director of The Climate Trust, told Bloomberg BNA “Far from it. We see the concerns about the viability of trading market as a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Allowances prices did dip in the early half of the year and this leads to a woefully under-subscribed auction in May, but allowances on the secondary market are currently trading at 99.7 percent of the price floor.”
The Climate Trust has filed a brief supporting CARB in the case legal action.
If the business groups prevail in the lawsuit, “it would not end the market, but it may eliminate the price floor, which is so vital in sending price signal to the market to incentivize genuine emissions reductions,” Penrith said.
Should the auction disappear, the state would still be required to meet emissions reductions required under A.B. 32, Environmental Defense Fund's Walker said.
-
Refiners To Spend $425M To Settle Pollution Charges
Jul 18, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henrey
Two oil refiners will spend $425 million to settle federal pollution-related charges made against them.
Tesoro Corp., one of the country’s largest refiners, and Par Hawaii Refining will spend about $403 million to upgrade their pollution control equipment as part of the settlement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Justice announced on Monday.
Tesoro will also pay about $12 million for local environmental projects and a $10.45 million fine.
Federal regulators accused the companies of Clean Air Act violations at refineries in Alaska, California, Hawaii, North Dakota, Utah and Washington.
The new equipment set for installation at those facilities address pollution leak detection, repair and flaring prevention. The work is designed to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide and other pollutants at the facilities.
“The advanced technologies Tesoro and Par are required to implement are the future for protecting people from toxic air emissions,” Cynthia Giles, the EPA's assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said in a statement.
"This settlement puts new enforcement ideas to work that will dramatically cut pollution and protect communities."
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/288209-refiners-to-spend-425m-to-settle-pollution-charges
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested