Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/22/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: 'Specialty' Delivery Expected For Q2 Earnings Season
Jul 21, 2016 | ICIS
As we approach Q2 earnings season, analysts are expecting a mixed performance for US-based chemical companies. Earnings will likely be skewed with many commodity chemical companies seeing year-on-year declines, and select specialty chemical companies showing growth. -
Chemical Manufacturer's Size May Matter Under Amended TSCA
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Large chemical manufacturers may have a near-term advantage over smaller companies when filing requests to make new chemicals under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, a policy analyst and attorneys said. -
Green Group Highlights 10 Chemicals For EPA Regulation
Jul 21, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Lydia Wheeler
A green advocacy group is highlighting ten toxic chemicals it wants the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate under new broad powers. -
10 Toxic Chemicals EPA Should Reconsider Now
Jul 21, 2016 | EcoWatch
By Environmental Working Group
The nation's new chemical safety law promises to give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expanded authority to regulate hazardous chemicals in consumer products. But of the tens of thousands of chemicals on the market, most never tested for safety, which should the EPA tackle first? -
NYC Housing Authority Denied Second Bite at Asbestos Damages
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Daniel Gill
The New York City Housing Authority improperly tried to collect on a debt that was disposed of in bankruptcy by filing a new lawsuit seeking removal of products containing asbestos, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in an unpublished decision (N.Y.C. Hous. Auth. v. G-I Holdings, Inc. (In re G-I Holdings Inc.), 2016 BL 229699, 3d Cir., No. 15-2164, 7/18/16). -
CW Report Highlights Key Messages From Helsinki Chemicals Forum
Jul 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Two-day conference debated questions over circular economy and ‘problem’ chemicals The themes of chemicals of concern and the challenges of initiating a successful circular economy are just some of the key points highlighted in a report published by Chemical Watch on this year's Helsinki Chemicals Forum (HCF). -
Half of America's Gas Exports Claimed by Asia in Next 3 Years
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
More than half of the liquefied natural gas leaving the U.S. over the next three years is contracted by Asian buyers, signaling a potential shift in a market that has been dominated by Latin America since shale exports began in February. -
California Moves Forward With Oil, Gas Methane Rules
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's proposed rules to slash methane emissions from oil and gas facilities 40 percent to 45 percent by 2025 moved forward July 21. -
EPA Fines Farm Over Ammonia Mishandling
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A Virginia dairy producer will pony up $179,074 in a settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency over alleged Clean Air Act and emergency planning violations involving a deadly fertilizer, the agency said July 21. -
(ACC Mentioned) Advocates Contest Use Of 'Surrogates,' Startup Exemptions In Boiler Rule
Jul 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are charging that EPA's revised air toxics rule for large industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers is unlawful because the agency relied on carbon monoxide (CO) limits as a “surrogate” for specific limits on toxics emissions, retained CO limits less-stringent than those in earlier versions of the rule, and relaxed controls for boilers during periods of startup and shutdown. -
Boiler Emissions Limits Called Unlawful by Advocacy Groups
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency “knowingly flouted” the Clean Air Act when it weakened carbon monoxide emissions limits for industrial boilers, according to a coalition of environmental organizations (Sierra Club v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1021, brief filed 7/20/16). -
EPA Failure to Act on State Ozone Plans Prompts Lawsuit
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Environmental Protection Agency has failed to meet statutory deadlines to determine whether more than a dozen states are missing pollution plans showing how they intend to meet federal ozone air standards, the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups said in a lawsuit filed July 21 (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 4:16-cv-4092, 7/21/16). -
States Can Improve Air Quality With One Plan: Perciasepe
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
A state could cut costs and simplify how it handles its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act by writing a single implementation plan to address pollution from regional haze, ozone, particulates and other air pollutants, rather than trying to write four or five separate plans, a former top Environmental Protection Agency official said July 21.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: 'Specialty' Delivery Expected For Q2 Earnings Season
Jul 21, 2016 | ICIS
As we approach Q2 earnings season, analysts are expecting a mixed performance for US-based chemical companies. Earnings will likely be skewed with many commodity chemical companies seeing year-on-year declines, and select specialty chemical companies showing growth.
“We expect a benign earnings season, albeit one that will not shed much light on EU trends [post the Brexit vote]. Chemical companies will likely flag better trends in Europe through May, quarter-on-quarter stability in North America (with shale-related weakness lapping in Q2/Q3), and status quo in Asia,” said Laurence Alexander, analyst with Jefferies.
“We expect some [US] Gulf projects to slip due to uncertainty over medium-term oil/gas dynamics. Leverage to the consumer (personal care), beneficiaries of oil stimulus (mobility), and industrial efficiency will likely be favourable top-down themes that companies emphasize, along with deleveraging,” he added.
Coatings companies are also expected to do well. In the US, while overall specialty chemical volumes year-to-date through May were down 2.0% year on year, coatings volumes were up 2.3%, according to the latest data from the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Other specialty sectors showing volume strength during the period were adhesives and sealants (+3.2%), construction chemicals (+3.7%), cosmetic additives (+5.3%), flavours and fragrances (+3.6%), food additives (+2.5%), printing inks (+3.1%) and rubber processing (+2.9%). Declines were led by oilfield chemicals (-20.0%), mining chemicals (-13.4%), electronic chemicals (-6.4%) and pigments (-4.7%).
On the commodity side, year-on-year comps will be challenging for companies exposed to olefins and vinyls. Holding up better will be acetyls (Celanese) and styrenics (Trinseo). Wells Fargo analyst Frank Mitsch bumped up his Q2 earnings per share estimate on Celanese by $0.10, to $1.55.
And Celanese’s Advanced Engineered Materials segment should benefit on the auto side. “Recent commentary from companies with auto end markets suggests demand fared better in Q2. In addition, global auto production seems to be gaining momentum,” he added.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/07/21/10018592/commentary-specialty-delivery-expected-for-q2-earnings-season/
-
Chemical Manufacturer's Size May Matter Under Amended TSCA
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Large chemical manufacturers may have a near-term advantage over smaller companies when filing requests to make new chemicals under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, a policy analyst and attorneys said.
Over time, however, the chemical-specific data that large manufacturers will have more resources to provide should improve the agency's chemical assessments, Dan Newton, senior manager for government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), Jamie Conrad of Conrad Law & Policy Counsel and Herb Estreicher, a partner with Keller and Heckman LLP, told Bloomberg BNA July 20 and 21.
During webinars and subsequent e-mail exchanges with Bloomberg BNA, Newton, Conrad and Estreicher discussed changes to TSCA made by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. LawNo. 114–182), which the president signed into law June 22.
Data to Improve Future Assessments
The Environmental Protection Agency “has more authority to get data” under the amended law, Newton told participants July 20 during a SOCMA webinar.
“You can expect greater emphasis on exposures and downstream uses,” he said. “It's very important to know how your customers are handling your chemicals. EPA likely will be looking for more data about foreseeable uses.”
Chemical manufacturers will “have to make the case up front that your chemical is safe or you may run into regulatory scrutiny,” Estreicher said July 21 during a webinar organized by the American National Standards Institute's Network on Chemical Regulation.
Smaller chemical manufacturers will find this more challenging than large manufacturers, because they have fewer resources to invest in finding, generating and analyzing data, Estreicher told Bloomberg BNA after the network's webinar.
As the amount of data submitted to EPA increases, however, the agency's ability to use “read across” methods will improve, and that will benefit small and large chemical manufacturers, Newton said during SOCMA's webinar. Read across refers to methods that allow analysts to apply toxicity and physico-chemical data from one chemical to a similar chemical that lacks that type of data.
Submission of ‘Negative' Data
As manufacturers submit data demonstrating their chemicals' safety, the EPA will get more “negative” data than it would typically find in scientific literature, Newton said. He referred to the tendency of scientific journals to publish studies with “positive” results, meaning a chemical caused some kind of problem.
Estreicher agreed that, over time, the body of data chemical manufacturers submit will improve the information the EPA has on chemicals generally, and that will improve the agency's assessments of both new chemicals and ones already in commerce.
The information the EPA needs most urgently is exposure data, he told Bloomberg BNA.
Return on Investment May Help Small Manufacturers
Conrad, from Conrad Law & Policy Counsel, had a slightly different take on the question of whether large chemical manufacturers would have an advantage over smaller ones when it comes to the data EPA can order to be submitted under the TSCA amendments of 2016.
In general, size gives an advantage when it comes to generating more information, Conrad told Bloomberg BNA after SOCMA's webinar.
Small manufacturers, however, are often inventing molecules for particular markets rather than trying to maximize sales broadly, he said. If a new chemical would likely have only a few applications, the EPA won't need as much information as it would for a new chemical with many different potential uses.
That means a small chemical manufacturer could get a large return on its investment in gathering the data it needs the EPA to assess about its particular chemical, Conrad said.
“I think smaller manufacturers may always have a bit of a market opportunity in that inventing a new molecule for somebody may not make the return for investment target that a big company has for any new project,” Conrad said. “It's a bit like the niche that community banks have over the big money center banks.”
‘Good News’ Cited in Lautenberg Act
He and Newton offered some “good news” about the Lautenberg Act when they each made presentations during SOCMA's webinar.
The Lautenberg Act doesn't prescribe a minimum data requirement for new chemicals, they said.
“It's a much better situation under the new law than would have been obtained under the ‘minimum data set’ that non-governmental organizations had been pushing for initially,” Conrad said.
Chemical laws in other parts of the world, notably the European Union's registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals (REACH) law, require companies to provide regulatory authorities with specific toxicity and other data—a “minimum data set”—before the companies can manufacture more than a specific small volume established under those laws.
Newton said other “good news,” in the Lautenberg Act is that it maintained TSCA's traditional 90-day review period for new chemicals. The term “new chemical” refers to a chemical that isn't on the TSCA inventory of chemicals that have already been made or sold in the United States.
Pre-Manufacture Notice
Chemical manufacturers that would like to make or import a new chemical submit a pre-manufacture notice, or PMN, to the EPA. The agency has 90 days to review those notices. As under the original TSCA, the agency can extend that deadline for “good cause,” Newton said.
A beneficial change of the new law is that chemical manufacturers, which will have to pay a yet-to-be-determined fee for the agency to process their pre-manufacture notice, can get their money back if the EPA fails to make a decision within the 90 days or within the extended deadline that a company agrees to, Newton said.
Even if it gives the money back, the EPA has to make a decision about the new chemical, according to the Lautenberg Act (15 U.S.C. Ch. 53 §2604).
Neither Conrad nor Newton characterized any provisions of the Lautenberg Act as bad news for companies.
The effects of many provisions remain to be determined by the ways the EPA interprets them and implements the new law, they said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94275622&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94275622&jd=94275622
-
Green Group Highlights 10 Chemicals For EPA Regulation
Jul 21, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Lydia Wheeler
A green advocacy group is highlighting ten toxic chemicals it wants the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate under new broad powers.
Topping the Environmental Working Group’s list is asbestos, a cancer-causing substance still found in automobile brake pads and clutches, vinyl tiles and roofing materials.
The other nine chemicals the group lists include PERC – a probable carcinogen that appears in dry-cleaning fluid, spot removers and water repellants; phthalate chemicals in PVC plastics, toys and plastic wrap linked to early puberty in girls; and BPA found in food cans, food containers and cash register receipts that is linked to infertility and diabetes.
“After decades of stagnation, EPA can now ban or restrict the use of toxic chemicals and order companies to conduct safety testing when more information is needed,” EWG Senior Scientist David Andrews said in a statement. "It's important that the agency act promptly to eliminate or reduce Americans' exposure to industrial compounds linked to cancer, birth defects, hormone disruption and other health problems."
In June, Obama signed an overhaul of the nation’s chemical safety laws into law that lawmakers had been fighting years for. The legislation gives EPA the authority to test and regulate chemicals already in the marketplace, as well as new substances.
Chlorinated phosphate fire retardants also made the Environmental Working Group's list. These chemicals turn up in upholstered furniture, foam cushions, baby car seats and insulation and are linked to possible nerve and brain damage.
Brominated phthalate fire retardants found in polyurethane foam for furniture and baby products; 1-Bromopropane found in aerosol cleaners; DEHA found in plastic wrap and PVC plastic; and P-dichlorobenzene in mothballs and deodorant – all known carcinogens – also made the list.
http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/288649-group-lists-top-10-chemicals-for-epa-to-regulate-first
-
10 Toxic Chemicals EPA Should Reconsider Now
Jul 21, 2016 | EcoWatch
By Environmental Working Group
The nation's new chemical safety law promises to give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expanded authority to regulate hazardous chemicals in consumer products. But of the tens of thousands of chemicals on the market, most never tested for safety, which should the EPA tackle first?
Today, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a list of high priority chemicals the EPA should act on quickly. It includes chemicals in products Americans use every day—detergents andhousehold cleaners, clothes, mattresses, furniture, toys and even kids' jewelry.
"After decades of stagnation, EPA can now ban or restrict the use of toxic chemicals and order companies to conduct safety testing when more information is needed," EWG senior scientist David Andrews said. "It's important that the agency act promptly to eliminate or reduce Americans' exposure to industrial compounds linked to cancer, birth defects, hormone disruption and other health problems."
For many chemicals on the list, action is long overdue. For example, many Americans believeasbestos—a carcinogen that claims 12,000 to 15,000 lives each year—was banned decades ago, as it has been in 55 other nations. But U.S. industry still imports, uses and sells asbestos and asbestos products, including automobile brake pads and clutches, vinyl tile and roofing materials.
With so many hazardous chemicals in use, any list of those posing the greatest risks would be subjective and incomplete. But the vast catalogue of chemicals that have never been evaluated for safety make it urgent for the EPA to move quickly to tackle the backlog. The agency put 90 chemicals known to pose health risks on a list called the TSCA [Toxic Substances Control Act] Work Plan.
"The work plan list represents opportunities for assessment and regulation where EPA action is overdue," EWG senior scientist Johanna Congleton said. "In some cases, such as with some kinds of flame retardants, the initial EPA review was hindered by the lack of safety and exposure data. EPA must now use its expanded authority to fill in these critical information gaps."
EWG scientists scrutinized the chemicals on the work plan, analyzed studies by U.S. and international researchers and consulted fellow experts in environmental health. They considered each chemical's health risks, how widely Americans are exposed to it and the likelihood of EPA action under the new law.
Here are the 10 chemicals EWG urges the EPA to thoroughly review and regulate as soon as possible:
1. Asbestos
The cancer-causing substance is still found in automobile brake pads and clutches, vinyl tiles and roofing materials. While some uses have been banned since 1989, no new risk assessment is scheduled.
2. PERC
This probably carcinogen appears in dry-cleaning fluid, spot removers and water repellents.
3. Phthalates
These chemicals are linked to early puberty in girls and other reproductive harm. They show up in PVC plastic, toys and plastic wrap.
4. BPA
This carcinogen is also linked to infertility, developmental harm and diabetes. BPA is used in food cans and other food containers and cash register receipts.
5. Chlorinated phosphate fire retardants
These chemicals turn up in upholstered furniture, foam cushions, baby car seats and insulation. They are linked to possible nerve and brain damage.
6. TBBPA and related chemicals
This potential carcinogen and endocrine disruptor is seen in electronics, auto parts and appliances.
7. Brominated phthalate fire retardants
These chemicals are linked to developmental toxicity and appear in polyurethane foam for furniture and baby products.
8. 1-Bromopropane
This probable carcinogen is used in aerosol cleaners and adhesives and linked to reproductive harm.
9. DEHA
This probable carcinogen is found in plastic wrap and PVC plastic. It is also linked to developmental toxicity.
10. P-dichlorobenzene
This probable carcinogen is detected in moth balls and deodorant blocks. It is linked to liver and nerve damage.
http://www.ecowatch.com/10-toxic-chemicals-epa-should-reconsider-now-1935395086.html
-
NYC Housing Authority Denied Second Bite at Asbestos Damages
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Daniel Gill
The New York City Housing Authority improperly tried to collect on a debt that was disposed of in bankruptcy by filing a new lawsuit seeking removal of products containing asbestos, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in an unpublished decision (N.Y.C. Hous. Auth. v. G-I Holdings, Inc. (In re G-I Holdings Inc.), 2016 BL 229699, 3d Cir., No. 15-2164, 7/18/16).
The Housing Authority is “simply a creditor seeking to circumvent the limitations on its recovery damages from G-I Holdings” under the bankruptcy reorganization plan, the court said July 18.
G-I Holdings Inc. is the corporate successor to a manufacturer of housing products that contained asbestos, the court said. In response to about a half million lawsuits for asbestos-related damages, G-I Holdings filed a case under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Chapter 11 allows companies (or individuals) to enjoy protections from creditors while they seek to reorganize their debt or liquidate pursuant to a plan which must be approved by the bankruptcy court.
The Housing Authority filed a proof of claim in G-I's Chapter 11 case, asserting a debt of “roughly half a billion dollars for property damage to its buildings,” the court said. That proof of claim didn't mention a right to any injunctive relief, it said.
No Enforcement Powers
In 2009, the bankruptcy court approved G-I's plan of reorganization, the court said, noting that the Housing Authority didn't appeal the confirmation order.
Three years later, the Housing Authority filed a complaint seeking an injunction compelling G-I Holdings to remove asbestos-contaminated materials from hundreds of buildings. The Housing Authority sought to escape the finality of the debtor's confirmed plan, the court explained, by arguing that the demand for injunction wasn't a “claim” as defined by the plan and that as a governmental entity, it can use its regulatory powers to compel the remediation of the environmental damage allegedly caused by G-I Holdings' products.
The bankruptcy court rejected those arguments, as did the district court on the Housing Authority's first appeal.
The Third Circuit affirmed, noting that while the Housing Authority is a public corporation, it hasn't been given any powers to enforce New York's environmental laws. The court also noted that it wasn't referred to any laws that would require the reorganized company to mitigate property damage caused by its products.
The unpublished opinion was authored by Judge D. Brooks Smith and joined by Judges Marjorie O. Rendell and Jane R. Roth.
G-I Holdings was represented by Mark E. Hall and Dennis J. O'Grady, Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti, Morristown, N.J., and Andrew J. Rossman, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, New York.
The New York City Housing Authority was represented by Christopher M. Placitella, Cohen Placitella & Roth, Red Bank, N.J., and Jeffrey M. Pollock, Fox Rothschild, Lawrenceville, N.J.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94275609&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94275609&jd=94275609
-
CW Report Highlights Key Messages From Helsinki Chemicals Forum
Jul 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Two-day conference debated questions over circular economy and ‘problem’ chemicals
The themes of chemicals of concern and the challenges of initiating a successful circular economy are just some of the key points highlighted in a report published by Chemical Watch on this year's Helsinki Chemicals Forum (HCF).
During the two-day event, policy makers, companies and academics debated the urgency of stopping chemicals of concern from entering the recycling stream and discussed how a non-toxic, resource-efficient economy could be achieved.
Participants agreed chemicals of concern pose some of the biggest challenges to achieving a circular economy. Authorities and businesses, the conference agreed, must provide a strategy to tackle them as soon as possible.
This Chemical Watch report shares the opinions of stakeholders across five key themes:the circular economy – opportunities and challenges for chemicals regulation;perfluorinated chemicals – a global chemicals management issue in need of global agreement?global data sharing – how can businesses and regulators make smarter use of available data?plant safety – taking a back seat to economic pressure?how to tackle chemicals of high concern in products – the construction sector as a case study.
The report's take-home messages offer a concise summary of stakeholder views on the topics addressed at the forum.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48686/cw-report-highlights-key-messages-from-helsinki-chemicals-forum
-
Half of America's Gas Exports Claimed by Asia in Next 3 Years
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
More than half of the liquefied natural gas leaving the U.S. over the next three years is contracted by Asian buyers, signaling a potential shift in a market that has been dominated by Latin America since shale exports began in February.
The U.S. is slated to bring online 42.9 million tons a year of LNG export capacity in the next three years, with 52 percent contracted to utilities and national oil and gas companies in Japan, South Korea, India, Taiwan and Singapore, a Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysis shows. A recent expansion of the Panama Canal that opened up the locks to massive tankers carrying the fuel may prompt the first cargoes bound for Asia, according to the report.
The U.S. is emerging as one of the largest suppliers of the heating and power-plant fuel in the world as America's shale drillers seek to eliminate a glut of gas at home. Five export terminals are under construction across the nation with another two dozen projects under consideration. While suppliers have targeted Asia as a prime market for U.S. cargoes, shipments have so far been delivered most frequently to closer-by South America.
Watching Asia
“Everybody is watching Asia because they consume so much,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst Anastacia Dialynas said by phone. “It's impressive that so many have contracted for U.S. exports.”
More than half of the LNG shipments sent abroad by Cheniere, which became the first U.S. shale gas exporter in February, have gone to Argentina, Brazil and Chile, Dialynas said. Others went to Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Portugal and India.
“I don't think anybody anticipated South America to be such a big purchaser,” she said.
One big advantage to sourcing U.S. supply is flexibility in long-term contracts. Australian exporters, for example, have required in agreements that their LNG be delivered to a certain destination. By contrast, those who contract with U.S. exporters including Cheniere Energy Inc., Freeport LNG Development LP and Dominion Resources Inc. have some flexibility in the volume they take and where it's shipped, Dialynas said.
This also makes it difficult to predict where U.S. gas will end up in the world, she said. Of the U.S. export capacity slated to come online through 2019, about a third either isn't contracted or is held by project investors, she said. Another 22 percent of the capacity is held by so-called portfolio buyers such as Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94275601&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94275601&jd=94275601
-
California Moves Forward With Oil, Gas Methane Rules
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's proposed rules to slash methane emissions from oil and gas facilities 40 percent to 45 percent by 2025 moved forward July 21.
At a hearing in Sacramento, the California Air Resources Board's governing body gave staff a green light to bring the proposal back for a final vote in early spring 2017. If adopted, the rules would be phased in from Jan. 1, 2018, through Jan. 1, 2020.
Unveiled earlier this year, the greenhouse gas emissions standards for crude oil and natural gas operators have garnered praised for being stricter than the new federal methane regulations. California's rules would apply to existing facilities, as well as the new sites regulated under the Environmental Protection Agency rules.
“This is landmark in terms of integrating air quality and climate” issues, CARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols said.
The proposal would result in continuing reductions of 1.5 million metric tons of carbon a year, using a 20-year global warming potential for methane. Additional air pollution benefits include 3,600 tons a year of reduced volatile organic compounds and 100 tons a year of benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene and xylenes reductions, CARB said.
Nation's Strongest Methane Controls
“California is now firmly on the path to adopt the nation's strongest methane controls anywhere,” Timothy O'Connor of the Environmental Defense Fund said in a written statement.
At the hearing, environmental advocates and people who live near oil and gas facilities called the rules an important step forward in addressing emissions from oil and gas operations.
Oil industry groups like the Western States Petroleum Association are concerned about some elements of the proposal, chiefly how they would be integrated with existing control requirements and the implementation time line.
In addition, the rules focus on some “insignificant emissions sources,” WSPA representative Jenifer Pitcher said.
WSPA and other groups also said CARB's estimated $22.3 million annual costs of the rules was too low.
The proposal would cover equipment components currently not regulated by the state's local air districts. It would require producers to take leak detection and repair measures to curb fugitive methane emissions from valves, flanges and connections.
Other provisions would require vapor collection systems on certain uncontrolled oil and water separators and storage tanks and well stimulation circulation tanks. Vented gas from reciprocating compressors and centrifugal compressors also would have to be collected, unless repaired or maintained to prevent leaks. Additionally, “no bleed” pneumatic devices and pumps, leak detection and repair, monitoring and quarterly inspections would be required.
The latest version of the draft rules abandon a “step-down provision” that would have allowed annual testing, not quarterly, after one year of compliance.
CARB's draft rules also would establish emission standards for active and idle equipment and components and impose monitoring requirements at underground natural gas storage fields.
Next Steps
Staff is drafting a memorandum of understanding with the local air districts that would be largely responsible for implementing and enforcing the rules, according to CARB.
“Implementation of these rules is going to be challenging,” Alan Abbs of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association said.
For some air districts, the rules mean addition of many new stationary sources, he said.
CARB said it would continue to work with air districts on the implementation issues and the environmental justice community and other interested parties to address remaining concerns with the draft rules.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94275630&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94275630&jd=94275630
-
EPA Fines Farm Over Ammonia Mishandling
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A Virginia dairy producer will pony up $179,074 in a settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency over alleged Clean Air Act and emergency planning violations involving a deadly fertilizer, the agency said July 21.
Sunshine Pride Dairy Inc. allegedly mishandled and failed to properly report anhydrous ammonia from 2011–2013, the EPA said.
A massive explosion in 2013 at a West Texas plant storing the fertilizer killed 15 people and sparked a new regulatory effort to improve chemical industry safety.
Sunshine Dairy released anhydrous ammonia into the air in July 2012 in two separate incidents, the settlement said. One incident involved the release of 100 to 500 pounds of the fertilizer, while the other released 1,500 pounds, said the EPA.
The dairy producer did not notify the releases to the emergency response agencies, nor did it properly report storage of the fertilizer in 2012 and 2013, said the EPA.
Those actions also violated the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, according to the settlement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94275611&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94275611&jd=94275611
-
(ACC Mentioned) Advocates Contest Use Of 'Surrogates,' Startup Exemptions In Boiler Rule
Jul 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are charging that EPA's revised air toxics rule for large industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers is unlawful because the agency relied on carbon monoxide (CO) limits as a “surrogate” for specific limits on toxics emissions, retained CO limits less-stringent than those in earlier versions of the rule, and relaxed controls for boilers during periods of startup and shutdown.
In their July 20 opening brief in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Sierra Club and fellow petitioners Clean Air Council, Environmental Integrity Project andChesapeake Climate Action Network say EPA's reliance on CO is misplaced.
The suit challenges changes EPA made in a Nov. 20 reconsideration rule, relaxing certain aspects of its maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule curbing air toxics from ICI boilers. The rule applies to “major” air pollution sources, which are those emitting 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of one hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs.
The modified rule relaxed emissions limits on boilers during startup and retained a limit of 130 parts per million (ppm) for CO as a surrogate for other pollutants, despite calls from environmentalists for this to be made more stringent in their petition for reconsideration.
EPA in a previous revision to the rule reset the CO limits for 13 boiler types from earlier versions of the MACT, resetting them all to 130 ppm and therefore making them dramatically less stringent. The agency did this based on the premise that at levels below 130 ppm, the relationship between CO and the HAPs it serves as a surrogate for breaks down.
In their brief, environmental groups take issue not just with the 130 ppm limit, but with EPA's use of CO as a surrogate for all HAPs in the first place. “According to EPA itself, the agency’s 13 weakened carbon monoxide standards are less stringent than the emission levels achieved by the relevant best-performing boilers. EPA’s claim that it is not appropriate to set standards at these levels merely confirms that EPA has knowingly flouted the Clean Air Act and Circuit precedent, both of which unambiguously require [air law MACT] standards to be no less stringent.
Stringency Requirements
“EPA does not have to use carbon monoxide as a surrogate for organic hazardous air pollutants but, if it does, the agency must set carbon monoxide standards that satisfy the Clean Air Act’s stringency requirements,” the groups say. They point to polycyclic organic matter (POM) as an example of a HAP for which CO cannot serve as an effective proxy, saying, “the record demonstrates that POM can be reduced dramatically by means other than reducing carbon monoxide. EPA completely failed to consider these measures or determine whether they are 'achievable.'”
The groups further say that “EPA’s attempt to relax boilers’ pollution-control obligations during startup and shutdown must also be rejected as unlawful and arbitrary.” EPA is permitting boiler operators to use “work practice standards,” which are guidelines reflecting industry best practices to reduce pollution, in place of compliance with numeric MACT standards.
The groups say that the work practice standards contravene an air law requirement that MACT limits apply continuously. Although they acknowledge that EPA can in narrow circumstances allow work practice standards as a compliance alternative, they say EPA did not meet the legal bar in the rulemaking now at issue, and that the standards are not strict enough to satisfy MACT.
“EPA also failed to satisfy the threshold test for setting work practice standards in lieu of numeric standards in the first place. Congress strictly limited EPA’s . . . authority to situations where EPA determines that pollution measurement is 'not practicable' for a 'class' of sources. . . . Notwithstanding that restriction on its authority, EPA has purported to allow each individual source to determine, in its complete discretion, whether it is subject to the extended startup work practice standard or not, and to make that decision without regard to whether measurement is practicable during that time. This approach contravenes the plain text” of the Clean Air Act, they argue.
EPA's response brief is due Sept. 20.
Meanwhile, related litigation over EPA's MACT rules for major and minor source boilers and MACT for waste incinerators remains unresolved, after the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument Dec. 3 in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, addressing the major source MACT rule, in American Chemistry Council v. EPA, addressing EPA's rule for smaller “area” sources, and American Forest & Paper Association v. EPA, addressing commercial and institutional solid waste incinerators that burn waste not qualified as “fuel” for boilers.
-
Boiler Emissions Limits Called Unlawful by Advocacy Groups
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency “knowingly flouted” the Clean Air Act when it weakened carbon monoxide emissions limits for industrial boilers, according to a coalition of environmental organizations (Sierra Club v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1021, brief filed 7/20/16).
The Sierra Club and other organizations are challenging a November 2015 reconsideration rule (RIN:2060-AS09) that made changes to the maximum achievable control technology standards that apply to major source boilers, which are commonly found at petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants and other large industrial facilities. That rule established a minimum level, or MACT floor, of 130 parts per million for carbon monoxide, which is regulated as a surrogate for controlling all organic hazardous air pollutants that are emitted by boilers other than dioxins.
That 130 ppm emissions limit is less stringent than the emissions limit achieved by the relevant best-performing boilers, which means that the limit does not satisfy the Clean Air Act's stringency requirements, the environmental organizations argued in a brief filed July 20 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The environmental petitioners, in separate litigation over the Boiler MACT standards, have challenged the legitimacy of carbon monoxide as a surrogate for organic hazardous air pollutants. The D.C. Circuit heard arguments in that litigation in December, but a decision has not yet been issued (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1108, oral arguments 12/3/15).
The boiler MACT standards (RIN:2060-AQ25; RIN:2060-AR13) apply to more than 14,000 boilers nationwide and are estimated by the EPA to cost industry about $1.6 billion annually.
Startup, Shutdown Language Challenged
The environmental petitioners also are challenging the EPA's decision to set work practice standards that boiler operators can follow during startup and shutdown. James Pew, an Earthjustice attorney representing the environmental petitioners, told Bloomberg BNA when the lawsuit was filed in January that his clients view the startup and shutdown provisions as a “loophole” that allows boiler operators to exclude pollution emitted during startup and shutdown for the purpose of determining compliance with the standards.
In their brief, the environmental organizations said those work practice standards are invalid under the Clean Air Act, which means the EPA has failed to meet its obligation to set continuous standards that cover periods of startup and shutdown, when emissions are typically higher than during normal operation. The EPA also failed to satisfy the Clean Air Act's threshold test for setting work practice standards instead of numerical emissions limits, the groups argued.
The EPA's response brief is due Sept. 20.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94275621&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94275621&jd=94275621
-
EPA Failure to Act on State Ozone Plans Prompts Lawsuit
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Environmental Protection Agency has failed to meet statutory deadlines to determine whether more than a dozen states are missing pollution plans showing how they intend to meet federal ozone air standards, the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups said in a lawsuit filed July 21 (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 4:16-cv-4092, 7/21/16).
The lawsuit alleges the agency failed to render judgements, including in some cases whether such state plans to attain the national ambient air quality standards for ozone had even been submitted, for more than a dozen states including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the EPA failed to take certain actions to spell out how the state implementation plans, or SIPs, for those states are essentially not in compliance with Clean Air Act requirements. The Center for Biological Diversity notified the agency in May that the states had failed to submit their plans showing how they intended to meet the standards. Failure to submit an adequate state plan triggers a requirement for the EPA to issue a federal plan for those states.
The lawsuit asks the federal district court judge to compel the agency through a mandatory injunction to perform those duties.
In 2008, the EPA strengthened its air standards for ozone to 75 parts per billion. The EPA has since strengthened the ozone standards to 70 parts per billion but has yet to determine which states are not in compliance.
The environmental plaintiffs, which also include the Clean Air Council and the Center for Environmental Health, said in a July 21 statement that more than 90 million people live in the areas that don't have approved implementation plans.
“The EPA has an obligation to the public to ensure that regulations are approved in a timely way,” said Joe Minott, executive director and chief counsel at the Clean Air Council. “The public has a right to rely on government following the law in order to properly protect public health.”
Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity, filed the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the environmental group.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94275612&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94275612&jd=94275612
-
States Can Improve Air Quality With One Plan: Perciasepe
Jul 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
A state could cut costs and simplify how it handles its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act by writing a single implementation plan to address pollution from regional haze, ozone, particulates and other air pollutants, rather than trying to write four or five separate plans, a former top Environmental Protection Agency official said July 21.
Bob Perciasepe, who was a longtime EPA deputy administrator, floated the concept of a state consolidating its implementation plans under the Clean Air Act as a way to tackle environmental obligations efficiently as it faces budget constraints.
Perciasepe, who is now president of the nonprofit Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, spoke at the State Environmental Protection 2016 meeting convened by the Environmental Council of the States.
His remarks followed a question by ECOS President Martha Rudolph, who asked how states could take a “holistic” approach to tackling environmental problems arising from pollution of air, water and soil and what the EPA's role would be in promoting this approach.
He said the so-called “silos” at the EPA are the result of laws that Congress wrote, requiring separate accountability. “That makes it more difficult,” but there are ways around it, he said.
He said states might tackle Clean Air Act state implementation plans, or SIPs, for pollution arising from multiple sources, rather than a single plan for each source. He cited South Carolina as an example of a state where several counties were working with the EPA on crafting a single plan to tackle multiple pollutants.
Also present for the meeting was Joel Beauvais, EPA deputy assistant administrator for water, who told Bloomberg BNA that the agency already is looking at impacts of air and water regulations on power plants. “We look at the interactions between all these rules and worked hard to harmonize the deadlines within the statutes,” Beauvais said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94275592&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94275592&jd=94275592
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA 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