Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 8/02/16
-
US EPA Received 60 Pre-Manufacturing Notices In June
Aug 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 60 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) in June. Of these, 50 have their manufacturer or importer protected as confidential business information (CBI). -
WHO Agency to Assess Cancer Hazard of Seven Major Chemicals
Aug 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The potential for seven chemicals in food and consumer products to cause cancer will be assessed by a World Health Organization (WHO) agency in June 2017, the organization announced Aug. 1. -
EPA Announces New Formaldehyde Standards
Aug 1, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
The Environmental Protection Agency last week announced a new rule aimed at curbing exposure to formaldehyde used in wood products. -
Meeting Set To Review US EPA Human Exposure Guidelines
Aug 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has announced a peer review meeting on the draft document Guidelines for human exposure assessment. -
Trump Backs Local Fracking Bans; Clinton Talks Coal
Aug 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
States and local communities should have the ability to enact bans on hydraulic fracturing if they wish, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said in a local television interview, breaking with his party's traditional stance on the issue. -
Green Mega-Donor Takes On Oil Industry Over Calif. Clean Air Law
Aug 1, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer is taking on California’s oil industry as lawmakers there grapple with the future of the state’s cap-and-trade program. -
These Two Huge States Are Both Going Green. But Only One Is Trying To Save Nuclear Energy.
Aug 1, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
In June, the state of California — which has led the U.S. in putting electric cars on the road and switching to so-called clean electricity — took a decisive turn in its quest to move away from carbon–emitting fuels. -
DHS Plans To Postpone Overhaul Of CFATS Chemicals List To Future Rule
Aug 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is postponing significant revisions to the list of chemicals covered under its industrial facility security program, focusing its forthcoming proposed rule on other priorities, which may include streamlining standards and creating a process for companies to remove chemicals from the program. -
PHMSA Proposes $1.6M Fine Against Transco for October Blast
Aug 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has proposed levying a $1.6 million fine against Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Co. (Transco) for an explosion and fire that killed four workers in Louisiana last October. -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Nearly All Americans Have Access To PET Recycling
Aug 1, 2016 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
PET bottle, jug and jar recycling is available to more than 9 out of every 10 Americans across the country, according to a new study. -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Cost Of Plastics 4x Less Than Alternative Materials
Aug 2, 2016 | Saudi Gazette
The Gulf Petrochemicals and Chemicals Association (GPCA) has highlighted the findings of a new study by Trucost, a leading environmental research organization, that finds the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than if plastics were replaced with alternative materials. -
Black Lives Movement Urges Action on Environmental Racism
Aug 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Policy makers must fix historic and systemic environmental injustices affecting largely low-income communities or communities of color, the Movement for Black Lives said in a policy platform released Aug. 1. -
Ozone Implementation Fears Overstated, EPA Tells Court
Aug 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Critics of the 2015 ozone standards overstated concerns about implementing the rule, which a federal appeals court should uphold, the Environmental Protection Agency argued in a court filing Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, 7/29/16. -
EPA Fights Attacks On Background Ozone, Permit Waiver In NAAQS Suit
Aug 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA is defending its decision to tighten its ozone standard to 70 parts per billion (ppb) in part by rejecting claims from several states and industry groups that the rule is unlawful because natural “background” ozone will make it impossible to meet the limit, and defending a waiver for some existing air permits from having to meet the standard. -
OMB Completes Review Of PSD Screening Guidance
Aug 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) has completed its review of EPA's pending guidance on how to use screening tools known as “significant impact levels” for implementing the Clean Air Act's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit program, clearing the way for EPA to release the guide.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
US EPA Received 60 Pre-Manufacturing Notices In June
Aug 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 60 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) in June. Of these, 50 have their manufacturer or importer protected as confidential business information (CBI).
These include:several coating components;colourants;a fragrance ingredient for consumer products; andadditives for various applications.
During the same period, the agency received 23 notices of commencement (NOCs) to manufacture new chemicals. It also received one application for a test marketing exemption (TME).
Under the recently amended TSCA, the EPA is required to make "an affirmative finding of safety" before a new substance is allowed on the market.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48946/us-epa-received-60-pre-manufacturing-notices-in-june
-
WHO Agency to Assess Cancer Hazard of Seven Major Chemicals
Aug 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The potential for seven chemicals in food and consumer products to cause cancer will be assessed by a World Health Organization (WHO) agency in June 2017, the organization announced Aug. 1.
The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, will evaluate 1-tert-butoxypropan-2-ol (Chemical Abstracts Service No. 136579-67-4), β-myrcene (CAS No. 123-35-3), furfuryl alcohol (CAS No. 98-00-0), melamine (CAS No. 108-78-1), pyridine (CAS No. 110-86-1), tetrahydrofuran (CAS No. 109-99-9) and vinylidene chloride (CAS No. 75-35-4).
BASF Corp., the Dow Chemical Co., DuPont, Koch Industries Inc. and Momentive Performance Materials Holdings LLC were among the U.S. manufacturers of the chemicals in 2012, the most recent year for which the Environmental Protection Agency has data.
A panel of scientists selected by IARC will evaluate whether the seven chemicals may cause cancer, which is a step short of determining whether their use and ways people may be exposed to them creates a risk of contracting cancer. The international agency requests nominations of scientists as expert panel members by Oct. 12.
Uses, Manufacturers of Seven Chemicals
According to publicly available information:
• 1-tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol is used commercially as a solvent in water-reducible coatings; all-purpose, glass-and hard surface-cleaning products; as well as inks, adhesives and agricultural, electronic, cosmetic and textile products. No U.S. companies were listed in an EPA database as making the chemical in 2012.
• β-Myrceneis used in cosmetics, soaps and detergents and is a flavoring agent in foods and beverages. The EPA listed two U.S. manufacturers in 2012, International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. and Pinova Holdings Inc. The agency withheld national production volume information to protect confidential business information.
• Furfuryl alcohol is used to produce furan resins, as a chemical intermediate in the synthesis of other chemicals, and as a solvent in textile printing and alkaline paint strippers. It also is formed in foods during thermal processing and as a result of the dehydration of sugars. The national U.S. production volume of furfuryl alcohol in 2012 was 45.7 million pounds, and its manufacturers included Ask Chemicals LP, IFC North America Inc. and Momentive Performance Materials Holdings LLC.
• Melamine is used as a chemical intermediate to make amino resins and plastics. National production volume in 2012 ranged between 100 million and 250 million pounds, according to the EPA. The manufacturers included Cook Composites & Polymers Co., Lanxess Corp. and Momentive Performance Materials Holdings LLC.
• Pyridine is a denaturant in alcohol and antifreeze mixtures; a solvent for paint, rubber, and polycarbonate resins; and an intermediate used to make insecticides, herbicides and fungicides. It also is used to make other chemicals used to make rubber, vitamins, drugs, dyes, textile water repellents and flavoring agents in food. National production volume in 2012 ranged between 10 million and 50 million pounds, according to the EPA. Manufacturers that year included DuPont, Jubilant Life Sciences USA Inc. and Wind Point Partners.
• Tetrahydrofuran is used to make other chemicals; to make materials to package, transport and store foods; and as a solvent for dyes and lacquers. Tetrahydrofuran also is an indirect food additive. U.S. national production volume was more than 273.6 million pounds in 2012, according to the EPA. Manufacturers in 2012 included Ashland Inc., BASF Corp. and Koch Industries Inc.
• Vinylidene chloride is used to make other chemicals including polymers used for flexible food films such as Saran and Velon wrap. The polymers also are used in many types of packing materials; as flame-retardant coatings for fiber and carpet backing; and in piping, coating for steel pipes and adhesive applications. The EPA withheld the national production volume in 2012 to protect confidential business information. The Dow Chemical Co. and Shin Etsu were listed as the sole U.S. manufacturers that year.
Organizations that want to observe the panel's June 6-13, 2017, deliberations should request observer status by Feb. 15, 2017. The agency will accept relevant data through May 8, 2017.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94958404&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94958404&jd=94958404
-
EPA Announces New Formaldehyde Standards
Aug 1, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
The Environmental Protection Agency last week announced a new rule aimed at curbing exposure to formaldehyde used in wood products.
The final rule, issued Wednesday, implements a 2010 law that directed the agency to regulate formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.
The standard will take effect one year from its publication date and will require products containing hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard and particleboard to be labeled as "TSCA Title VI compliant."
The EPA rule will also establish new requirements for product testing and create qualifications for third-party certification. The rule was crafted to conform to standards previously set by the California Air Resources Board.
"The new rule will level the playing field for domestic manufacturers who have a high rate of compliance with the California standard and will ensure that imported products not subject to California’s requirements will meet the new standard and thus not contain dangerous formaldehyde vapors," said Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Formaldehyde is a common wood product adhesive, but it is also linked to cancer and can cause respiratory symptoms and eye, nose and throat irritation. The chemical was at the center of the scandal over Chinese-made laminate flooring sold by Lumber Liquidators, which investigators alleged contained elevated formaldehyde levels.
Although the rule includes exemptions for low levels of formaldehyde use, an industry group told The New York Times that those caveats also included strict testing requirements.
“It’s not a ‘get out of jail free’ pass,” Bill Perdue of the American Home Furnishings Alliance told the paper.
https://www.chem.info/news/2016/08/epa-announces-new-formaldehyde-standards
-
Meeting Set To Review US EPA Human Exposure Guidelines
Aug 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has announced a peer review meeting on the draft document Guidelines for human exposure assessment.
The meeting will comprise an independent panel review with an opportunity for public comments. Outside contractor Versar is overseeing the event which will take place 15-16 August in Crystal City, Virginia.
The meeting follows a public consultation on the draft guidance. Almost 50 comments were submitted before the consultation closed on 22 March.
The draft updates and expands on a 1992 version of the guidelines. The changes are intended to better align the guidance with the current state of the science.
As with the original, it is published to help exposure scientists in:planning and scoping an exposure assessment;data gathering and use;modelling; andconsiderations of uncertainty in exposure assessment.
New material on how to plan and conduct an observational human exposure measurement study has been included. Consideration of life stages and sensitive populations has also been added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48948/meeting-set-to-review-us-epa-human-exposure-guidelines
-
Trump Backs Local Fracking Bans; Clinton Talks Coal
Aug 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
States and local communities should have the ability to enact bans on hydraulic fracturing if they wish, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said in a local television interview, breaking with his party's traditional stance on the issue.
“I'm in favor of fracking, but I think that voters should have a big say in it,” Trump said in an interview with Denver's KUSA posted July 29. “If a municipality or a state wants to ban fracking, I can understand that.”
Republicans across the country have vigorously fought efforts to enact local fracking bans and have opposed federal regulations on the practice. Trump's rival for the presidency, Democrat Hillary Clinton, has also supported local fracking bans.
Ironically, the New York businessman criticized his home state's decision to ban fracking during an April 2016 interview with an area radio station, according to local press reports.
“As you know, we didn't take advantage of our energy situation, and now it's very late because the prices are so much lower,” Trump said at the time of the state's decision in late 2014 to ban the practice. “It's just so incredible and we never took advantage.”
Clinton Talks Revitalization
His most recent comments came as Clinton told a local television station in Pittsburgh of her plans to bring back coal communities through new technologies and clean energy development.
“If we put our minds to it, we're going to revitalize coal country,” the former secretary of state, New York senator and first lady told KDKA July 30. “Towns that have been knocked flat, we're going to help them get up. We can do that with infrastructure, with advanced manufacturing. We can do that with clean energy.”
Clinton expressed confidence the area's struggling steel manufacturing could come back but called coal a separate situation.
“Coal is a different issue because we've got to figure out — is there a technology that can create clean energy from coal?” she said.
Those comments come even as Trump, speaking July 27 at a rally in Scranton, Pa., doubled down on his promise to bring coal miners back to work. As before, he offered no details as to how that would be done.
“We're going to bring our coal back, and we're going to have clean coal,” Trump promised. “We're going to take a lot of the regulations off of gas, because gas is big, and they want to close you down. They want to close the mines down. They've been closing mines down. It's sad. It's sad.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94958381&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94958381&jd=94958381
-
Green Mega-Donor Takes On Oil Industry Over Calif. Clean Air Law
Aug 1, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer is taking on California’s oil industry as lawmakers there grapple with the future of the state’s cap-and-trade program.
State legislators returned to work on Monday with an eye toward extending the state’s cap-and-trade law by the end of the month.
Greens have hailed the law as helpful for reducing air pollution there, something Steyer repeats in his television ad. He said oil groups are pushing to have it scaled back to the detriment of public health.
“California’s clean air laws are working,” Steyer said in the ad, which is part of a $1.2 million buy, the Sacramento Bee reports. “Just when we’re making progress, the oil companies are trying to weaken our clean air laws, but we can stop them.”
Besides looking for a deal on cap-and-trade, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has waged several battles with the oil and fossil fuel industries. Last year, Brown and legislative leadership abandoned a plan to cut the state’s petroleum use for vehicles, but not before the governor accused oil companies of selling a “highly destructive product.”
The industry has opposed the cap and trade plan and the oil reduction measures, the Bee reports, because they see them as unrealistic. Some lawmakers also question where the revenue from the cap-and-trade program is going.
Steyer is a major player in federal races, promising to spend more in 2016 than the $75 million he spent on the 2014 elections. In California, Steyer has spent about $3.9 million since 2013, the Bee reports, with his group NextGen Climate spending an additional $1 million.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290053-green-mega-donor-takes-on-oil-industry-over-calif-clean-air-law
-
These Two Huge States Are Both Going Green. But Only One Is Trying To Save Nuclear Energy.
Aug 1, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
In June, the state of California — which has led the U.S. in putting electric cars on the road and switching to so-called clean electricity — took a decisive turn in its quest to move away from carbon–emitting fuels. An agreement between the large utility Pacific Gas and Electric and environmental and labor groups set a path for retiring the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, and thus, for a state in which “carbon free” will not include energy generated through the splitting of atoms.
On Monday, though, New York — also a leader when it comes to greening power supplies — announced a very different route. The state’s Public Service Commission approved a Clean Energy Standard backed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s backed Clean Energy Standard. It seeks to get New York to 50 percent renewable electricity by the year 2030 — while also retaining the six nuclear reactors that currently provide more 30 percent of the state’s electricity. (These reactors would not count as part of the renewable 50 percent.)
“Maintaining zero-emission nuclear power is a critical element to achieving New York’s ambitious climate goals,” a statement from Cuomo’s office said. The new Clean Energy Standard includes a requirement that nuclear energy be valued in the marketplace for not producing carbon emissions, thus requiring utilities to pay for “Zero-Emission Credits” when using nuclear.
“This will allow financially-struggling upstate nuclear power plants to remain in operation during New York’s transition to 50 percent renewables by 2030,” said the governor’s office statement. “A growing number of climate scientists have warned that if these nuclear plants were to abruptly close, carbon emissions in New York will increase by more than 31 million metric tons during the next two years, resulting in public health and other societal costs of at least $1.4 billion.”
The nuclear industry has been in a state of near-crisis in recent years as extremely cheap natural gas prices, in combination with tax subsidies for wind and solar, have provided difficult competition, triggering the closure of a number of plants across the country. Nuclear defenders have accordingly often called for a policy like New York’s, which in effect subsidizes nuclear in the marketplace by ascribing value to the fact that it does not fill the air with carbon dioxide, or with particulates that contribute to air pollution.
“This is 180 degrees different from the California path, which is limiting future operation of reactors through renewable portfolio standards that act to eliminate nuclear from the marketplace,” said Scott Peterson, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. “By virtue of this policy, New York is retaining all carbon-free options by providing a clean energy standard that both incents the development of renewables and maintains 60 percent of existing carbon-free electricity from nuclear energy.”
The policy would initially benefit three nuclear plants that are “at risk of closure from market challenges,” added Matt Crozat, a member of the institute’s policy team. Those are the FitzPatrick plant owned by Entergy — which was scheduled to close late this year or early next year, but would now presumably be saved under the policy — Nine Mile Island, and the Ginna plant.
The credit would be paid to the plants by New York utilities who use their power, and who could then pass the cost of the credit on to power consumers. An analysis of the proposal, by the staff of the Public Service Commission, found that it might cost $965 million over a span of two years, but lead to a net benefit of around $4 billion due to the value of lower carbon dioxide emissions and less air pollution, among other benefits.
Still, many critics of nuclear energy persist, in the environmental community and elsewhere, and not all observers think New York necessarily made the right move.
“By not making them compete for a place in the low carbon portfolio, the state is almost assuring that the customers are going to pay more than they have to, and that some desirable alternative sources won’t get developed, because nuclear’s place in the picture is locked in,” said Peter Bradford, a former chair of the New York Public Service Commission and an adjunct professor at the Vermont Law School.
Some of the tension behind the move could be seen in a statement by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group that was a party to the California nuclear agreement. The group praised the New York policy overall but also noted that its nuclear portion could still be “adjusted up or down after 2018 based on market conditions; output from the nuclear plants will not count toward the 50 percent renewables mandate.”
“We look forward to working with Governor Cuomo and others to achieve and surpass the target well before 2030 to give New Yorkers a rapid and orderly transition to a truly sustainable and pollution-free energy future that moves beyond risky fossil fuels and nuclear power,” said NRDC’s Kit Kennedy, who directs the group’s energy and transportation program, in the statement.
All sides will now watch how these two experiments — in New York, and California — play out. Nuclear provides a major stream of what is often termed “baseload” electricity, which is continuous and thus very different from wind and solar, which are much stronger at key times (solar, for instance, in the afternoon) and less available at others. Thus, integrating more wind and solar with less baseload, as California aims to do, presumably puts a greater emphasis on the use of energy efficiency measures (less electricity use over all), or energy storage (using electricity at a different time from when it is generated), to deal with these sources’ intermittency.
In the meantime, though, the move was a happy one for climate scientists like James Hansen, who have argued that nuclear remains critical for achieving climate change goals and who criticized the California decision.
“What Governor Cuomo and the Commissioners did was an act of courage, putting the common good ahead of political expediency,” said Hansen. “Governor Cuomo, by banning fracking and supporting nuclear power, has put himself head and shoulders above other Governors, showing that he is able to make tough scientifically justified decisions for the benefit of the environment and the future of young people.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/01/why-new-york-state-just-delivered-extremely-good-news-to-the-nuclear-industry/?utm_term=.c6fa8f93a046
-
DHS Plans To Postpone Overhaul Of CFATS Chemicals List To Future Rule
Aug 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is postponing significant revisions to the list of chemicals covered under its industrial facility security program, focusing its forthcoming proposed rule on other priorities, which may include streamlining standards and creating a process for companies to remove chemicals from the program.
During a recent Chemical Sector Security Summit in Alexandria, VA, David Wulf, director of DHS' Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, said the department is planning to update its Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) through multiple rulemakings, the first of which it plans to propose in December.
While Wulf said almost every aspect of the CFATS program is still up for possible revisions in the first proposed rule, major changes to the covered chemicals listed in Appendix A of the CFATS regulation are unlikely. "A broader overhaul of Appendix A is likely to wait until the second or later notices" of proposed rulemaking, Wulf told the conference.
While noting Administrative Procedure Act constraints against discussing the forthcoming proposal in detail, Wulf hinted at areas for possible revision. Wulf said he would like for the December proposal to streamline CFATS' 18 risk-based standards, suggesting some overlap between the current requirements.
DHS may also consider creating a process for facilities to petition the department to remove products the companies believe are non-hazardous or less risky from CFATS oversight. DHS may also propose "easier tweaks" to Appendix A, he said.
DHS' CFATS update is part of a broad federal effort, including OSHA and EPA, to strengthen the safety and security of industrial facilities under President Obama's Executive Order (EO) 13650. Obama issued the order that calls for improving government coordination, and modernizing rules and standards in the wake of an April 2013 explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, that killed 15 people.
Through CFATS, DHS regulates the security of facilities holding threshold amounts of chemicals on the program's "Appendix A" list. OSHA regulates facility processes that could threaten worker safety through its process safety management standard (PSM), and EPA seeks to reduce off-site consequences through its risk management plan facility accident prevention program (RMP).
While OSHA is considering expanding PSM to cover new chemicals, DHS and EPA are letting OSHA take the lead in that regard. EPA Feb. 25 proposed revisions to RMP, including that certain facilities consider safer chemicals or processes in hazard assessments, and conduct third party audits after a reportable release, though, like DHS, EPA postponed adding new chemicals until a future revision.
Future Rules
DHS' plans for future rules revising CFATS under the EO is the latest in a series of department efforts to improve the program, which has faced criticism at least since 2012 when a leaked internal memo documented widespread ineffectiveness including unqualified DHS personnel in supervisory roles, poorly trained staff and unofficial use of government vehicles by DHS personnel.
In 2013 and 2015, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued critical reports faulting DHS' process for assessing facility risks. GAO said DHS failed to consider facilities' vulnerability to attack and relied on unverified industry data on the potential consequences of an attack in assigning risk tiers that determine a facilities' level of CFATS oversight.
GAO also faulted DHS' speed in reviewing the site security plans (SSPs) that facilities submit for DHS review and that detail planned security measures to comply with CFATS. In a 2013 report, GAO estimated that it would take DHS seven to nine years to clear a backlog of SSPs awaiting approval. Then in a a July 2015 report, GAO noted significant improvement and revised the estimate to less than a year.
Wulf told the July 20 summit that DHS has eliminated the SSP backlog years ahead of the GAO's original estimate.
He also said DHS has begun using its enforcement authority against companies that have failed to submit SSPs that adequately address their facilities' risks, and against companies that have not submitted data for an initial CFATS screen.
While DHS also may use fines or even the threat of shuttering facilities to compel companies to implement security measures included in their SSPs, Wulf said the department has yet to use its authority for that purpose, though it will if necessary.
"Our strong bias is to continue to work with facilities to ensure that compliance occurs voluntarily," he said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/dhs-plans-postpone-overhaul-cfats-chemicals-list-future-rule
-
PHMSA Proposes $1.6M Fine Against Transco for October Blast
Aug 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has proposed levying a $1.6 million fine against Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Co. (Transco) for an explosion and fire that killed four workers in Louisiana last October.
PHMSA conducted an investigation and inspection following the Oct. 8, 2015 explosion and fire at Compressor Station No. 62 near Gibson, LA (see Daily GPI, Oct. 9, 2015). In a letter last Friday to Transco, PHMSA alleged that the company violated several federal pipeline regulations, including a failure to take steps to prevent the explosion.
According to PHMSA, Transco allegedly failed to stop workers from welding after a gas leak was detected inside a 42-inch liquids header of the slug catcher at the site. The company also allegedly failed to provide all significant facts from the incident to the National Response Center (NRC); violated its own internal procedures by allowing untrained contractor personnel to assume safety and monitoring responsibilities at the time of the blast; and did not follow its Operator Qualification (OQ) Plan.
Under a proposed a compliance order, PHMSA ordered Transco to, within 30 days, revise its incident reporting requirements procedures to the NRC and review its operating and maintenance procedures in order to prevent accidental ignition around gas leaks. The company will also have a month to make sure "the roles and responsibilities are clearly delineated for operator and contractor roles to ensure that only trained and qualified personnel issue and supervise hot work."
Transco will have 180 days to make changes ensuring future compliance with its OQ Plan its Gas Handling Plan procedure. PHMSA also requested that the company keep records for the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling the compliance order.
The company has 30 days to respond to PHMSA's notice [CPF 4-2016-1008]. PHMSA said its compliance officer had determined that three of the five violations outlined in the notice merit a $400,000 fine. The remaining two violations will cost Transco $200,000 each.
Williams Partners LP owns the compressor station, which is located in Terrebonne Parish, LA. The facility is about 60 miles from the company's Geismar Olefins facility, where an explosion and fire in June 2013 killed one person and injured dozens (see Daily GPI, Dec. 31, 2014; June 14, 2013).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107255-phmsa-proposes-16m-fine-against-transco-for-october-blast
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Nearly All Americans Have Access To PET Recycling
Aug 1, 2016 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
PET bottle, jug and jar recycling is available to more than 9 out of every 10 Americans across the country, according to a new study.
The study, commissioned by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, looked at recycling programs accepting a variety of materials, including PET bottles, jugs and jars.
Conducted by Resource Recycling Systems and Moore Recycling Associates, the study found that 92 percent of the U.S. population has access to such PET recycling, according to the Society for the Plastics Industry Inc., a trade group involved with the study.
“This new study helps us to make a true assessment of the ease and availability of recycling by consumers across the country,” said Dan Mohs, CEO of Placon Corp. “This report also serves as a contextual guide for brands who make claims about their recycling and sustainability efforts.”
Placon, based in Madison, Wis., is a major recycler of PET bottles that are then used by the company to make thermoformed packaging.
For comparison, aluminum beverage can recycling also is available to 92 percent of the population. Availability falls to 81 percent for glass beverage bottles and 55 percent for cartons, according to the research.
Along with SPI, other groups involved in the study included the National Association for PET Container Resources, Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council, Closed Loop Fund, Foodservice Packaging Institute and Recycling Partnership.
The survey, which looked at various recyclables, reported that recycling is available to 94 percent of the total population, including 73 percent that have access curbside recycling. Another 21 percent only have access to drop-off recycling, and 6 percent do not have access to recycling.
A total of 64 percent of the population actually has access to drop-off recycling, but many of those people also have curbside recycling opportunities, according to the 2015-16 Centralized Study on Availability of Recycling.
Plastic recyclables are commonly mixed with other recyclables and then sorted at material recovery facilities before being shipped off to companies specializing in plastic reprocessing. The survey reports that almost 90 percent of the population with single-family curbside recycling are now covered by this so-called single-stream recycling approach on the front end.
The survey was conducted in late 2015 and early 2016 and involved direct research covering half of the country’s population. For the other half, research on random sample of recycling programs was conducted.
While the research showed the 92-percent figure for PET bottles, jugs and jars, the work also breaks down recycling availability of various materials into three categories: 60 percent of the population or greater, 20 to 60 percent, or less than 20 percent.
This corresponds with the Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s How2Recycle labeling guidelines, which marks packaging as “widely recycled,” “check locally,” or “not yet recycled” depending on the percentage of recycling availability to the overall population.
Along with PET bottles, jugs and jars, the study showed several plastic packaging categories in the 60 percent or greater category: bottles, jugs and jars made from high density polyethylene, polypropylene, low density PE, linear LDPE and PVC.
Categories including other bottles and jugs, bottle caps, PET cups, PET containers and trays, PET clamshells, PET lids, PP cups, PP tubs and containers, PP clamshells and LDPE/LLDPE tubs all scored in the highest category.
Plastics in the middle range include PP lids, LDPE/LLDPE lids, PVC non-bottle rigids, PVC clamshells, and polystyrene cups, containers, clamshells and lids. Other materials in the middle range are bulky plastics with and without resin codes and plastic buckets of at least 5 gallons.
PS and PP cutlery scored in the lowest category of less than 20 percent along with expanded polystyrene cups, trays and containers, clamshells and protective or transportation packaging. Other materials coming in lowest category of recycling availability were HDPE, LDPE and LLDPE tubes.
For comparison, aluminum beverage can recycling also is available to 92 percent of the population. Availability falls to 81 percent for glass beverage bottles and 55 percent for cartons.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160801/NEWS/160809972/report-nearly-all-americans-have-access-to-pet-recycling
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Cost Of Plastics 4x Less Than Alternative Materials
Aug 2, 2016 | Saudi Gazette
The Gulf Petrochemicals and Chemicals Association (GPCA) has highlighted the findings of a new study by Trucost, a leading environmental research organization, that finds the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than if plastics were replaced with alternative materials.
The study is based on natural capital accounting methods, which measure and value environmental impacts—such as consumption of water and emissions to air, land and water—which are not typically factored into traditional financial accounting.
Previous reports, such as “Valuing Plastics” (2014) by Trucost and “The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics” (2016) by the World Economic Forum Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company, only examined the environmental costs of using plastics.
Trucost’s latest study, “Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement,” builds on earlier research by comparing the environmental costs of using plastics to alternative materials and identifying opportunities to help lower the environmental costs of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging.
Dr. Abdulwahab Al-Sadoun, Secretary General, GPCA, said: “The use of plastics in everyday situations, such as shopping, has been frequently in the news of late. Trucost has conducted an in-depth study into the plastics industry and alternatives to traditional materials, with the astounding result that alternative materials actually come with a substantially higher environmental cost. This is crucial to consider when discussing the future use of plastics in consumer goods throughout the GCC.”
These significant results disrupt a common misperception around plastics. The latest research has found that replacing plastics in consumer products and packaging with a mix of alternative materials that provide the same function would increase environmental costs from $139 billion to US$533 billion annually. That’s because strong, lightweight plastics help us do more with less material, which provides environmental benefits throughout the lifecycle of plastic products and packaging.
The study also said that the environmental costs of alternative materials can be lower per ton of production but are greater in aggregate due to the much larger quantities of material needed to fulfil the same purposes as plastics.
The report’s authors recommend steps to help further reduce plastics’ overall environmental costs, such as by increasing the use of lower-carbon electricity in plastics production, adopting lower-emission transport modes, developing even more efficient plastic packaging, and increasing recycling and energy conversion of post-use plastics to help curb ocean litter and conserve resources.
“We are very excited to present ‘Plastics and Sustainability,’ the largest natural capital study ever conducted for the plastics manufacturing sector,” said Libby Bernick, Senior Vice President – North America for Trucost. “This report provides the clearest picture to date of the relative costs and benefits of plastics compared to alternative materials as well as important opportunities to enhance the environmental performance of using plastics in consumer goods.”
“We now have a fuller picture of the environmental benefits of using plastics,” said Steve Russell, Vice President of Plastics for the American Chemistry Council, which commissioned the study. “From lighter, more fuel-efficient cars to smart packaging that helps our favorite foods last longer; our industry is committed to ongoing innovations that will advance sustainability across major market sectors and the globe.”
“There is now quantifiable proof that plastics, in its various forms, play a significant role in providing innovative plastics solutions to societal challenges,” said Craig Halgreen, Vice President, Corporate Sustainability, Borouge & Leader, Plastics Committee Sustainability Taskforce, GPCA.
“This report emphasizes the importance of product innovation and eco-friendly after-life solutions such as sustainable municipal waste collection and management practices. It also highlights the responsible role of mechanical recycling in creating a circular economy and reducing plastics marine litter.”
“The GCC currently produces 26.5 million tons of plastic each year, according to our research,” concluded Dr. Al-Sadoun. “This study proves that these enterprising manufacturers are on track towards achieving sustainability targets—a focus that is increasingly in public conversation due to the various national strategies of the Arabian Gulf’s leadership.”
http://saudigazette.com.sa/business/environmental-cost-plastics-4x-less-alternative-materials/
-
Black Lives Movement Urges Action on Environmental Racism
Aug 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Policy makers must fix historic and systemic environmental injustices affecting largely low-income communities or communities of color, the Movement for Black Lives said in a policy platform released Aug. 1.
Evidence of environmental racism is everywhere—from where toxic waste dumps are located to areas that lack access to clean and safe water, the coalition of more than 50 groups said in its policy paperreleased alongside its platform. Disproportionate exposure to pollution leaves communities of color at a higher risk for health issues such as asthma and must be addressed through steps such as increasing federal funds for renewable energy infrastructure, the coalition said.
“We recognize that not all of our collective needs and visions can be translated into policy, but we understand that policy change is one of many tactics necessary to move us towards the world we envision,” the platform said. “This agenda continues the legacy of our ancestors who pushed for reparations, Black self-determination and community control; and also propels new iterations of movements such as efforts for reproductive justice, holistic healing and reconciliation, and ending violence against Black cis, queer, and trans people.”
The policy paper and platform come as race issues are garnering increasing national focus, for example, tensions in debates and protests surrounding shootings of black individuals and police officers. Environmental racism specifically has come into the spotlight in Flint, Mich., where a city of primarily black residents was exposed for more than a year to lead-contaminated drinking water stemming from an inappropriately executed water source switch.
The Movement for Black Lives Platform Demands
•End the war on black people
•Reparations
•Invest-Divest
•Economic Justice
•Community Control
•Political Power
Historical Context
The policy paper, which focused on the “right to restored land, clean air, clean water and housing,” was housed in the broader platform's demand for economic justice. The platform was split into six sections or “demands,” which also included the issues of political power and reparations.
The movement in its policy paper on environmental issues sought specifically to put environmental racism in historical context. Iit said environmental racism is “largely a result of our dispossession and lack of control over land, resources, and decision making abilities in our communities.”
Most broadly, the movement said toxic waste can no longer be dumped in these communities, and waste burners should be closed. “Poisoned water” must also be cleaned up and waterways must be protected from toxic waste, they said.
The movement proposed a number of policy solutions. The federal government, for example, must strictly and consistently enforce environmental protection rules, while states must make clean water available for everyone “without restriction based on inability to pay,” it said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94958385&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94958385&jd=94958385
-
Ozone Implementation Fears Overstated, EPA Tells Court
Aug 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Critics of the 2015 ozone standards overstated concerns about implementing the rule, which a federal appeals court should uphold, the Environmental Protection Agency argued in a court filing Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, 7/29/16.
In a July 29 brief, the EPA defended itself against arguments that the 70 parts per billion ozone standards were set too close to “background” levels, which critics of the rule claim will make it impossible to achieve in some parts of the country. Many states, along with industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, allege that the ozone rule should be vacated because the agency's failure to properly account for high background concentrations led to a rule that is illegally unattainable.
The federal government's brief reiterated the EPA's position that background ozone levels, which can be the result of wildfires, naturally occurring ozone and other uncontrollable sources, will not prevent states from meeting the 70 ppb standards. The “overstated” concerns that opponents of the rule raised do not justify setting the ozone standards at a level that would not be adequately protective of public health, the agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
“The agency's task in setting the [national ambient air quality standards] is to provide ‘requisite' protection, not to minimize implementation burdens or cost,” the EPA wrote. “While that task is challenging, there is no doubt that it is also constitutional.”
The EPA argued that instead of setting looser standards, it took a reasonable approach to addressing the potential for elevated background ozone levels through the form of the standards and implementing provisions that directly address the issue. Compliance with the ozone standards is based on a three-year average of the fourth-highest eight-hour concentration recorded each year, a decision the agency said allows an area to exceed the 70 ppb standards three times a year without causing a violation.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy made the decision to set the ozone standards at 70 ppb in October following a review of more than 1,000 new studies, hundreds of thousands of public comments and input from both EPA staff and its independent science advisers. The agency projected that the 2015 ozone standards will cost as much as $1.4 billion in 2025, while providing billions in public health benefits through reduced exposure to a pollutant that is linked to increased asthma attacks and other adverse health effects.
Agency Expects Deference
The legal arguments against the 2015 ozone standards go beyond the issue of background concentrations, as the agency is facing a number of additional challenges from industry organizations and states, along with challenges from environmental and public health organizations that sought a more stringent regulation.
The National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club and other environmental organizations argue that the 70 ppb ozone standards are not protective enough because communities can comply with the standards even if they see several days where ozone levels are so high they can cause adverse health effects. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg L.P., parent of Bloomberg BNA.
In defending the standards, the EPA noted that courts offer “extreme deference” to the agency on issues related to the interpretation of scientific evidence within its expertise. It also cited the Supreme Court's two-part test for determining whether a regulatory agency's interpretation of statutory language is entitled to deference (Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 21 ERC 1049 (U.S. 1984).
Throughout its brief, the EPA defended McCarthy's decision on the ozone standards as a reasonable, rationale decision that the court should uphold.
Briefing in the ozone litigation will continue through Sept. 19. The next round of briefs, from groups that are intervening on behalf of the EPA, are due by Aug. 17.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94958396&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94958396&jd=94958396
-
EPA Fights Attacks On Background Ozone, Permit Waiver In NAAQS Suit
Aug 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA is defending its decision to tighten its ozone standard to 70 parts per billion (ppb) in part by rejecting claims from several states and industry groups that the rule is unlawful because natural “background” ozone will make it impossible to meet the limit, and defending a waiver for some existing air permits from having to meet the standard.
In a July 29 brief in Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, EPA says that it rationally reviewed the science on ozone's impacts on human health and welfare in its Oct. 1 decision to tighten its primary, health-based ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) down from the prior 2008 limit of 75 ppb.
The agency also defends its decision to set the secondary, environment-based NAAQS at 70 ppb.
EPA quotes the court's 2013 ruling in Mississippi v. EPA that upheld the 75 ppb standard, saying the agency “once again 'finds itself in a situation reminiscent of Goldilocks and the Three Bears.' On the one hand, State and Industry petitioners argue that EPA went too far by concluding that the 2008 standards were inadequate. . . . On the other hand, Environmental Petitioners argue that the Administrator did not go far enough to protect the public's health and welfare” when agency chief Gina McCarthy signed off on tightening the limit to 70 ppb.
“And, as in Mississippi, neither side is right,” EPA says, going on to say that advocates are wrong to claim the 70 ppb limit is insufficiently protective of asthmatic children, and also rejecting state and industry claims that the air law requires the agency to set the standard above any recorded level of background ozone.
Defending McCarthy, EPA says, “[A]lthough she did not reach the preferred outcomes of Environmental Petitioners or State and Industry Petitioners, her decisions are reasonable and should be upheld.”
The D.C. Circuit in multiple lawsuits over various EPA NAAQS decisions in the past has granted EPA significant deference on its scientific expertise in setting the standards. By law, EPA cannot consider costs in setting a NAAQS and must do so based solely on data on a pollutant's impacts on health and welfare. The Clean Air Act defines welfare effects to include impacts on soils, water, crops, vegetation, wildlife, and climate.
In the brief, EPA outlines a legal defense of how it reviewed the science on ozone's impacts, as well as input from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, in deciding to tighten the standard to 70 ppb. EPA said the limit meets an air law mandate that NAAQS be requisite to protect human health within an adequate margin of safety.
A total of 22 groups representing states, various industrial sectors, and environmentalists filed suit over the standard. Environmentalists have advocated for a stricter standard of 60 ppb, while many industry groups and some states say there was no justification to tighten the 75 ppb limit.
Background Ozone
Supporters of maintaining the 2008 ozone standard have said that naturally occurring background ozone -- including ozone associated with wildfires -- is so high in some areas that it will be impossible for them to attain the standard, even if they craft tough state implementation plans imposing expensive pollution controls on man-made sources of ozone-forming pollution, such as nitrogen oxide emissions from industrial operations.
Being out of attainment with the NAAQS is a major concern for states and industries because nonattainment areas must apply costly pollution controls to ozone sources in order to drive down emissions and meet the standard. If states fail to attain the NAAQS they face the threat of EPA withholding highway funding.
An industry coalition including Murray Energy, the National Association of Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute and others in their April 22 opening brief said, “EPA did not take appropriate account of evidence that naturally-occurring or internationally-transported ozone that cannot be controlled under the Act can, in some circumstances, prevent achievement of those NAAQS, particularly given that the Act does not require man-made U.S. emissions to be totally eliminated (which is impossible in any event).”
EPA counters that background ozone is not a justification against tightening the NAAQS, saying, “The Act does not require that EPA abandon its duty to set requisite NAAQS simply to spare states and areas from applying the Act’s more specific background ozone provisions. To do so would leave millions of Americans across the Nation, including children, exposed to harmful ozone levels -- something the Administrator refused to do.”
The agency says that it reviewed data on background ozone and does not believe that naturally occurring levels of the pollutant will prevent any areas from being able to attain the 70 ppb limit. EPA says that NAAQS waivers already in place, combined with other agency policies, will address such concerns.
“Though stratospheric intrusions and wildfires may cause background ozone levels to spike infrequently in a few locations, EPA reasonably decided to address those events through the form of the NAAQS, which allows three exceedances a year without causing any violations, and through implementation provisions that directly govern background pollution, instead of making the standards less stringent nationwide.”
EPA says that the NAAQS are set to provide requisite protection of public health, “not to minimize implementation burdens or costs, and while that task is challenging, there is no doubt that it is also constitutional.”
Permit Waiver
In the brief, EPA also rejects criticisms from environmentalists over its decision to exempt some pending Clean Air Act permit applications from having to demonstrate compliance with the stricter NAAQS.
As part of the Oct. 1 NAAQS rulemaking, EPA revised its Clean Air Act prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program to add provisions that exempted, or “grandfathered,” what the agency calls a “narrow category” of permit applications from having to comply with an air law mandate that they demonstrate emissions from a proposed project will not cause of contribute to a violation of the revised ozone standard.
In the final rule, EPA says, “under the grandfathering provision as finalized, either of the following two categories of pending PSD permit applications would be eligible for grandfathering: (1) applications for which the reviewing authority has formally determined that the application is complete on or before the signature date of the revised [ozone] NAAQS, or (2) applications for which the reviewing authority has first published a notice of a draft permit or preliminary determination before the effective date of the revised [ozone] NAAQS."
Environmentalists in their brief argued that the Clean Air Act requires that projects must always be able to prove compliance with the latest NAAQS, and that EPA cannot grandfather any permits.
EPA in its brief says it has discretion to interpret when it can exempt some permits from the mandate because the air law does “not clearly address how the demonstration requirements should be met for permit applications pending when the NAAQS are revised,” calling its approach a “reasonable interpretation” of the law.
EPA says environmentalists' “theory, which forbids grandfathering under any circumstance, could subject applicants to potentially ongoing application revisions if EPA promulgates several new or revised NAAQS in succession. . . . In light of the legislative history indicating Congress’s intent not to delay projects or slow economic development, Congress could not have intended this result, and the Court should reject such a constrained reading of EPA’s authority.”
The agency says the environmentalists' attack on the grandfathering regulation fails because the air law “contains an ambiguity, and EPA permissibly interpreted the Act to allow it to establish a narrow grandfathering regulation for a limited set of PSD permit applications.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-fights-attacks-background-ozone-permit-waiver-naaqs-suit
-
OMB Completes Review Of PSD Screening Guidance
Aug 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) has completed its review of EPA's pending guidance on how to use screening tools known as “significant impact levels” for implementing the Clean Air Act's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit program, clearing the way for EPA to release the guide.
EPA sent the guidance for mandatory OMB pre-publication review on March 25, and OMB completed its review, with revisions, on July 29 but the guidance was not available at press time.
Air regulators use SILs as threshold levels of pollution below which industrial sources of emissions are considered de minimis and not expected to prevent an area from attaining the agency's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for its criteria pollutants such as ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Facilities whose projected emissions are below the SILS are not required to conduct additional air monitoring to obtain a permit.
Industry attorneys have complained that EPA currently lacks the SILs to ease implementation of its 2015 ozone NAAQS, set at 70 parts per billion (ppb), tougher than the prior level of 75 ppb set in 2008. While states have years to craft implementation plans outlining measures they will take to comply, industry must comply with the new NAAQS immediately in crafting air permits for projects.
The pending guidance applies to PSD SILs for ozone and PM2.5, and an EPA spokeswoman said in March that, “The subject matter of the draft SILs guidance is similar to the subject matter content” of a forthcoming EPA regulatory proposal to set SILs for ozone for use in PSD permitting.
EPA has previously said it is working on a regulatory proposal to set SILs for ozone for use in PSD permitting, with a projected publication date of “more than 12 months.”
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/omb-completes-review-psd-screening-guidance
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested