Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 8/26/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Mixed Bizness: Today’s Assortment of Indicators
Aug 25, 2016 | Franchise Times
By Tom Kaiser
... I always like to include an off-the-wall indicator, and as I found on CalculatedRiskBlog.com, the American Chemistry Council Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB) expanded 0.4 percent in August, following an upward revision for July. -
Attorneys Say Proposed TSCA Rule May Violate Trade Secret Provisions
Aug 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A law firm tracking implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is raising concerns that a draft EPA rule appears to have the potential to violate confidential business information (CBI) provisions of the law, adding to the firm's earlier critique of the rule's approach for regulating new uses of industrial chemicals. -
EPA Forms Advisory Committee to Implement Chemicals Law
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency is forming a Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals to support the agency's implementation of the nation's amended chemicals law. -
California Flame Retardants Rule Could Be Early Test Of TSCA Preemption
Aug 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
California's proposal to regulate two flame retardant chemicals as "priority chemicals" under the state's green chemistry program could serve as an early test of the revised federal Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) preemption of state programs, attorneys say, because EPA is already assessing the risks of several flame retardants. -
(ACC Mentioned) Houston Prepares For Its Plastics And Chemicals Export Boom
Aug 26, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The Port of Houston has evolved as the largest U.S. port that ships more products overseas than it imports as the region's burgeoning chemicals, plastics and fuels industries make the region an increasingly bigger player in the global economy. -
EPA Publishes TSCA List Of Banned Mercury Exports
Aug 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is publishing a list of five forms of mercury that will be illegal to export beginning in 2020, fulfilling a mandate established by the recently signed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law, though the agency's notice only restates bans that are specified in the revised law and does not add additional prohibited forms. -
EPA Bans Exports of Five Mercury Compounds as of 2020
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is banning exports of five mercury compounds effective Jan. 1, 2020. -
Contamination Found in Crocs and Gators Across the Globe
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Researchers have found perfluorinated chemicals in the blood of American alligators and South African crocodiles thousands of miles apart. -
Fracking Linked to Sinus, Migraines, Fatigue: Study
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Hydraulic fracturing and unconventional natural gas development may be associated with health problems such as sinus problems, migraine headaches and fatigue, according to a new peer-reviewed studypublished Aug. 25. -
EPA Resolves Scope of Federal Oil & Gas Air Permitting Authority As It Braces for Battle Over Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Hayden S. Baker
When the Obama administration released its Climate Action Plan three years ago, it provided a road map for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. -
Greens Sue Obama To Stop Fossil Fuel Production On Federal Land
Aug 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A pair of environmental groups is suing the Obama administration to try to stop oil and natural gas production on federal lands. -
Sanders Jumps On Bandwagon Opposing Dakota Access
Aug 25, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Sen. Bernie Sanders joined today a growing number of landowners, tribes, celebrities and environmental activists opposing the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline. -
Greens Push Obama To Block N. Dakota Pipeline
Aug 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Environmental groups are asking President Obama to intervene in the construction of a controversial oil pipeline project in North Dakota. -
U.S. Hazardous Materials Transport Rules To Be Overhauled
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Hazardous material transportation regulations are set for a sweeping overhaul aimed at aligning U.S. policies with international standards, the Transportation Department said in a new proposal. -
(ACC Mentioned) Is The New ‘Plastics and Sustainability’ Report Greenwash?
Aug 25, 2016 | Triple Pundit
By Jacquelyn Ottman
I’ve been spending a lot more time these days on how best to change consumption culture through the prism of ‘zero waste.’ But when the first wave of articles about Trucost’s new study prepared for the American Chemistry Council (ACC), “Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement,” came across my screen (including an analysis by Leon Kaye here on TriplePundit), my interest was piqued. -
Sanders Announces ‘Our Revolution,’ Vows Progressive Support
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is going to make sure the progressive Democratic Party platform that includes support for carbon dioxide pricing doesn't “rest on a shelf somewhere,” he told supporters Aug. 24. -
California Lawmakers Pass New Climate Change Bills
Aug 25, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Two bills that have the oil and natural gas industry uneasy (SB 32 and AB 197) were passed by California's legislature on Wednesday, and Gov. Jerry Brown indicated he would sign both.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Mixed Bizness: Today’s Assortment of Indicators
Aug 25, 2016 | Franchise Times
By Tom Kaiser
In case you haven’t noticed, many are eyeing slowing growth in the restaurant sector and predicting a recession. There’s no questioning the concerning data, but I’d like to counter that with a grab bag of recent, largely positive macroeconomic indicators.
If you’ve been checking your 401(k), I probably don’t have to tell you that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is higher than it’s ever been, currently at approximately 18,500—so clearly not everybody in the investor community has their sad faces on.
We’ve now seen 77 consecutive weeks of initial unemployment claims below 300,000, and the latest numbers show weekly claims falling by 1,000 to 261,000—approaching a new post-recession low. This bodes well for continued job gains and, perhaps even more critically, wage gains in the future as the employment pool continues to shrink.
Durable-goods orders are another key indicator that’s along the same lines as housing—manufacturing tends to pay out good wages, spread wealth around a wide supply chain and also indicates major industries are still doing good business. Such orders jumped 4.4% in July, which suggests production is set to increase in the coming months.
Speaking of homes, the annual rate of new home sales topped 654,000 in July, which is the highest figure since October 2007. Housing is still hot, and most experts in the category still don’t see much of a bubble in the general market. There, of course, may be pockets (like San Francisco) that are seeing growth that’s simply not sustainable. Housing supply is down to 4.3 months, where 6 months is seen as healthy/normal.
Additionally, First Data's back-to-school SpendTrend report shows a boost in spending in July over the previous year, up 2% compared with 1% last year. Looking at fresh data for the first week of August, this trend continues as the new school year approaches—good for retailers of all kinds.
I always like to include an off-the-wall indicator, and as I found on CalculatedRiskBlog.com, the American Chemistry Council Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB) expanded 0.4 percent in August, following an upward revision for July. This is the barometer’s sixth consecutive monthly gain, and portends accelerated U.S. business activity into 2017. So, get your chemicals now!
There’s no denying the slowdown in enthusiasm in restaurant sales—saying nothing of the explosive competitive growth in on-demand food delivery from the likes of Amazon, Uber and DoorDash and the rest of the pack. Given strength in the rest of the American economy, I think it’s safe to predict the restaurant sector will now be a drag on the economy in the coming months or years. Hopefully an increase in wages, employment and discretionary income are enough to at least blunt this slowdown. Stranger things have happened.
And speaking of strange (but amazing) things, I leave you with a 10-year-old music video from Beck. It’ll give your day the boost it needs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=OdqKQRhi6qU
http://www.franchisetimes.com/news/August-2016/Mixed-Bizness-Todays-Assortment-of-Indicators/
-
Attorneys Say Proposed TSCA Rule May Violate Trade Secret Provisions
Aug 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A law firm tracking implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is raising concerns that a draft EPA rule appears to have the potential to violate confidential business information (CBI) provisions of the law, adding to the firm's earlier critique of the rule's approach for regulating new uses of industrial chemicals.
"We do not read provisions in either old or new TSCA to authorize EPA to disclose CBI in the way that is proposed in this notice," the firm Bergeson & Campbell writes in an Aug. 8 memo to friends and clients.
The memo follows an earlier July 28 memo that questioned other aspects of a multi-part rule proposing changes to EPA's approach to restricting industrial chemicals under TSCA, also known as Significant New Use Rules (SNURs). EPA's proposed rule generally requires the use of internationally-harmonized chemical labels, the use of protective measures for workers and specific respiratory protections -- all standards that the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has also adopted -- when developing SNURs.
The firm in its earlier memo questioned EPA's proposal to require the use of an approach called hierarchy of control (HOC), used by OSHA, in all issued and future chemical uses affected by a SNUR. The memo noted that Congress considered HOC in earlier versions of the legislation that eventually re-wrote TSCA, but dropped the issue from the final reform bill. Despite its concerns, the memo notes there "may well be good reasons for several of the proposed changes.”
But the rule also proposes a change to EPA's approach to handling SNURs on trade secret chemical uses, and this is what Bergeson & Campbell addresses in the second memo. The firm writes that among the changes in the rule is a proposal that would impact companies with chemicals whose names or uses are considered trade secret and which are the subject of SNURs.
A company seeking to introduce what it thinks is a new chemical or new use of chemical to the market must ask EPA whether there are any SNURs on the use of that chemical that might be a trade secret, as part of the bona fide notification process of providing proof they intend to begin market production of a chemical for a specific use.
But the proposed rule would allow EPA to disclose specific information about the existing uses of the requested chemical rather than just acknowledging whether a SNUR exists, the memo says.
'Unavoidable Fact'
"Importantly, this change means that EPA is switching from a presumption of protecting CBI in the SNUR to actively informing later submitters of information proprietary to the original submitter," the memo states. "While 40 C.F.R. § 721.11(f) states that informing later submitters of SNUR restrictions 'will not be considered public disclosure of [CBI] under Section 14,' it is an unavoidable fact that EPA's proposed approach involves disclosure of CBI to an additional party, one that could be a competitor to the original submitter (both are, after all, manufacturing the same substance), a fact pattern that is very likely to be of considerable concern to the original submitter."
A consultant says that "the proposal would change the procedure for new chemicals, how companies decide if they need to submit a [pre-manufacturing notice (PMN)] notice." The source explains, "What EPA's proposing to say is, 'It's used as X.' And the second company will say, 'I hadn't even thought of that one, thanks!'"
"I don't know the [EPA] rationale," the source adds, noting that one reason may be to streamline discussions over whether various uses are SNURed or not, which could otherwise ping pong between the company and the agency. But the effect is companies may decide, "Why do research when you can just go ask EPA?"
EPA in its July 28 Federal Register notice announcing the proposed rule explains that some new chemical SNURs include a production volume limit or use other that is not disclosed in the published SNUR due to CBI.
The agency says it is proposing to modify the bona fide procedure in the law "so that it applies to all SNURs that contain any confidential information in the SNUR, including the significant new use. EPA believes it would be more efficient." Additionally, "EPA is proposing to modify the bona fide procedure that allows EPA to disclose the confidential significant new use designations to a manufacturer or processor who has established a bona fide intent to manufacture (including import) or process a particular chemical substance."
EPA has set a Sept. 26 deadline for public comments on the proposed rule.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/attorneys-say-proposed-tsca-rule-may-violate-trade-secret-provisions
-
EPA Forms Advisory Committee to Implement Chemicals Law
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency is forming a Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals to support the agency's implementation of the nation's amended chemicals law.
Nominations for the potential committee members and comments about the group will be accepted through Oct. 11, the agency said in notice to be published in the Aug. 26 Federal Register.
The committee will advise the agency on scientific and technical aspects of risk assessments, methodologies to carry out such evaluations and pollution prevention strategies that could help the agency implement the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act effective June 22.
The agency is considering designating nine scientists from the agency's existing Chemical Safety Advisory Committee as members of the new committee.
EPA anticipates selecting five more individuals for the new committee. A prepublication of the EPA notice is available athttp://bit.ly/2bmu8PY.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96342885&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96342885&jd=96342885
-
California Flame Retardants Rule Could Be Early Test Of TSCA Preemption
Aug 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
California's proposal to regulate two flame retardant chemicals as "priority chemicals" under the state's green chemistry program could serve as an early test of the revised federal Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) preemption of state programs, attorneys say, because EPA is already assessing the risks of several flame retardants.
"It remains to be seen whether and to what extent the EPA assessments will lead to action that preempts California's proposed regulation, or whether California will request a preemption waiver notwithstanding EPA action," says a recent client alert written by K&L Gates attorneys Standford Baird, Edward Sangster, Cliff Rothenstein and Maureen Odea Brill titled: "The Most Contentious Issue -- Federal Preemption in the Amended TSCA."
"The extent to which state laws will be preempted will be substantially affected by the hazards, exposures, risks, and uses or conditions of use studied by EPA in its risk evaluations," the alert says. It advises the chemical industry to monitor chemical risk evaluations on the federal and state level, in addition to rules and policies, as an indicator of significant regulatory risk related to a given chemical or category of chemicals.
The TSCA reform law signed by President Obama June 22 followed extensive debate in Congress about the extent to which the overhaul of the 1976 TSCA should preempt state efforts to regulate chemicals in lieu of federal action. The reform law was designed to bolster EPA's powers to regulate new and existing chemicals.
The law creates a "pause" on state actions on chemicals when EPA defines and publishes the scope of the safety assessment for those chemicals. The pause ends when the agency either finalizes its resulting safety determination or misses a three-and-a-half year deadline for issuing the determination.
If EPA finds there to be no unreasonable risk, state policies on the chemical are immediately preempted over the long term based on the federal certification that it passes muster under TSCA. If the agency does find an unreasonable risk, however, the state rules come back into effect and are only preempted more permanently when regulators issue a final TSCA rule restricting the substance based on that risk finding.
However, there are several exceptions to the "pause," including the first 10 chemicals the law requires EPA to assess, industry-requested chemicals designated for risk assessment, and state policies "grandfathered" by the reform law, such as those regarding policies enacted under state laws that were in effect on August 31, 2003 and regulations promulgated prior to April 2016.
Early Test
The K&L Gates alert, dated July 28, indicates that an early test of the preemption provisions in the TSCA reform law could occur with the California's Department of Toxic Substances Control's July 15 proposal to regulate children's foam-padded sleeping products containing the flame retardants tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) or tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) as a priority product under its green chemistry program.
But EPA is already in the process of assessing risks to a number of flame retardants under its 2014 TSCA Work Plan, including TDCPP and TCEP, the attorneys note in their alert.
The alert highlights several outstanding questions on the complicated preemption regime in the new law, saying that "One unresolved question is whether activist state regulatory authorities will interpret their parallel regulations differently from, or enforce them more aggressively than, EPA."
Though states may apply to EPA for discretionary waivers if the state can demonstrate "compelling conditions warrant granting the waiver to protect health or the environment," and that "compliance with the proposed state requirement would place no undue burden on interstate commerce," that is likely to be a high bar, the alert says.
"One important open question is whether EPA could grant a waiver if EPA had previously promulgated a final rule regarding a given chemical that included a safety standard that was weaker than the standard proposed by the state in its waiver application," the attorneys say.
One attorney that authored the post tells Inside EPA, "It's really clear preemption [of any state policy] will have to be very, very specific to what EPA addressed," and that states will likely be closely looking at their own regulations to see if they are identical to what EPA does with regard to a chemical.
Preemption Agreement
Preemption was seen as a major hurdle at times during negotiations over TSCA reform, which initially began in 2011 with legislation introduced by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that failed to pick up any Republican sponsors. Lautenberg and Vitter later introduced bipartisan legislation.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) led Democrats on reform efforts after Lautenberg's death and in 2015 Udall and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) introduced S. 697, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
In the House, Energy & Commerce Committee environment panel Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) introduced a narrower TSCA reform bill. Preemption was a major sticking point in both chambers, and also in the informal conference talks that ensued after the House and Senate approved their initial bills.
Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had blocked the Senate TSCA reform measure for many months last year over concerns that it too broadly preempted state chemical safety laws. However, earlier this month Boxer and EPW Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) announced a compromise on preemption that Boxer said she would support.
Democrats' concerns stemmed from the language to create a pause that would effectively halt all new state chemical requirements beginning when EPA defines and publishes a scope of the safety assessment and ending when the agency finalizes a safety determination for a chemical under section 6 of TSCA or misses a three-and-a-half year deadline for issuing the determination.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/california-flame-retardants-rule-could-be-early-test-tsca-preemption
-
(ACC Mentioned) Houston Prepares For Its Plastics And Chemicals Export Boom
Aug 26, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The Port of Houston has evolved as the largest U.S. port that ships more products overseas than it imports as the region's burgeoning chemicals, plastics and fuels industries make the region an increasingly bigger player in the global economy.
That role is expected to expand as growing populations and rising standards of living in developing nations demand more energy and products derived from Texas' oil and gas fields. Along the Gulf Coast, companies are moving to meet that demand, building facilities to process liquefied natural gas and plants to make chemicals and plastics.
In less than a decade, more than 100 petrochemical projects worth $50 billion are expected to be completed in Texas, according to the American Chemistry Council, a trade group.
The equivalent of more than 1.1 million containers were shipped out of the Port of Houston last year, 15 percent more than were imported, making Houston the biggest net-exporter among major U.S. ports. It was the sixth consecutive year that exports exceeded imports at the Port of Houston, a stark contrast to the nation as whole, which has run a trade deficit for 40 years.
The growth of Houston's exports is another example of how the so-called shale revolution has remade the local economy and its relationship with the world. Despite the oil bust that has led to scores of bankruptcies and tens of thousands of job losses, the production and abundance of cheap oil and natural gas has spurred the explosion in petrochemicals, which use natural gas as a feed stock, and LNG projects, which allow natural gas to be shipped to foreign markets hungry for energy.
The lifting last year of the decades-long ban on crude exports also could add to Houston's trade surplus, as could the recently completed expansion of the Panama Canal, which will allow larger ships to take the shortcut to Asia.
The port and the Houston Ship Channel are moving to accommodate the expected surge in exports as new plastics and petrochemical plants come online over the next several years. The Port Authority is spending $315 million on improvements and expansions this year.
Overall, more than $700 million will be invested to upgrade and add larger container cranes to the Barbours Cut terminal, where plastics cargoes are loaded onto ships. The channels at the Barbours Cut and Bayport terminals are being dredged to accommodate the expected increase in traffic and ship sizes.
"What are you going to do with all this (plastic)resin business? We know it's coming," said Roger Guenther, executive director of the Port of Houston Authority. "We've been preparing for it."
Overseas demand
Speaking Thursday at the Gulf Coast Industry Forum - previously called the Petrochemical Maritime Outlook Conference - in Pasadena, top executives highlighted how the region will ship out more plastics, petrochemicals, crude oil, liquefied natural gas, ethane, propane, butane and refined fuels to power the developing world.
"The transportation systems and the port are going to get very busy over the next few years," said Dale Friedrichs, a plant manager for LyondellBasell, the Houston-based petrochemical giant.
LyondellBasell could decide as soon as September where to build a major plastics plant along the Gulf Coast. La Porte, southeast of Houston, is among the possible locations.
Most of the overall growth comes in the manufacturing of building-block chemicals and plastics to serve the growing middle classes in China, India and other parts of the world as they demand more products and packaging. The locally made resins are typically shipped in tiny pellet form to be melted and shaped as needed overseas.
ExxonMobil and Chevron Phillips Chemical are building out multibillion-dollar expansions in Baytown and Mont Belvieu. Exxon's existing Mont Belvieu plastics production is mostly consumed in the U.S. But the new production from the expansion, scheduled to be completed next year, is slated entirely for export.
The growth in the petrochemical industry and exports are another example of how Houston has become more than an oil town, helping it to weather the recent oil bust better than in the past, said Maria Burns, director of the University of Houston's Logistics and Transportation Center.
"The past year has been tough," she said. "But, even if the oil prices are low, the resins and chemicals are going to lift Houston up," Burns said.
'We had a vision'
So far this year, overall port activity is down 5 percent from a record-breaking 2015. Officials say the decline is temporary, attributing it to the drop in oil field equipment coming through the port, officials said.
Still, the region is now exporting crude oil and Houston-based Cheniere Energy in February became the first U.S. company to export liquefied natural gas out of the Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana near the Texas border.
Houston's Enterprise Products Partners is the world's largest exporter of propane. The company also will ship out ethane, the primary feedstock for petrochemicals, when it completes the world's biggest ethane export facility along the Houston Ship Channel.
"We had a vision five years ago watching the shale revolution that the U.S. was going to be long on hydrocarbons," said Enterprise Executive Vice President Bill Ordemann, referring to the booming production that led to the glut.
"We felt like a vibrant export market was going to be necessary."
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Houston-prepares-for-its-plastics-and-chemicals-9185520.php
-
EPA Publishes TSCA List Of Banned Mercury Exports
Aug 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is publishing a list of five forms of mercury that will be illegal to export beginning in 2020, fulfilling a mandate established by the recently signed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law, though the agency's notice only restates bans that are specified in the revised law and does not add additional prohibited forms.
In a notice slated for publication in the Aug. 26 Federal Register, EPA says, “Effective January 1, 2020, the statute prohibits export of: mercury (I) chloride or calomel; mercury (II) oxide; mercury (II) sulfate; mercury (II) nitrate; and cinnabar or mercury sulphide.”
The TSCA reform law expands on the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, which bars exports of elemental mercury except to countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and then only for disposal.
The newly listed mercury compounds are those that could be used to produce elemental mercury in commercial quantities, which supporters said would undermine the existing export ban.
EPA also notes that it has authority to add new compounds to the list through rulemaking if it determines “that exporting any additional mercury compound for the purpose of regenerating elemental mercury is technically feasible,” but is not proposing any such action at this time.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epa-publishes-tsca-list-banned-mercury-exports
-
EPA Bans Exports of Five Mercury Compounds as of 2020
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is banning exports of five mercury compounds effective Jan. 1, 2020.
The five compounds, listed in an EPA notice to be published in the Aug. 26 Federal Register, are mercury (I) chloride, also known as calomel; mercury (II) oxide; mercury (II) sulfate; mercury (II) nitrate; and cinnabar, also known as mercury sulphide.
Mercury (I) chloride, produced in volumes of about 25 metric tons annually, was the highest volume mercury compound generated in the U.S., the EPA told Congress in a 2009 report.
This particular mercury compound is a common product in wastes generated from air pollution controls, refining needed to extract zinc, gold and copper mining industries and the production of chlorine gas from brine by the chlor-alkali industry, the EPA said. Mercury (I) chloride is exported for several reasons, including it can easily be converted to elemental mercury, EPA said in “Potential Export of Mercury Compounds From the United States for Conversion to Elemental Mercury,”
The agency banned the five mercury compounds to comply with changes Congress made to the Toxic Substances Control Act through the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182). The amendments, which became law June 22, expanded a 2013 ban on the export of elemental mercury that Congress imposed through the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-414).
All five mercury compounds banned by the Lautenberg Act were discussed in the 2009 report the EPA provided to Congress.
Ban Prompted by Health Concerns
Elemental mercury is a global concern, because it can be transformed by the environment and industrial processing into methyl mercury, a neurotoxin that builds up in the food chain. People exposed to high levels of methyl mercury may experience problems such as loss of peripheral vision, impaired movement and muscle weakness, according to an EPA website.
When elemental mercury reacts with another substance it can form mercury compounds. These compounds, however, can be converted through chemical, heat and other processes back into metallic mercury, giving them a market value, the EPA's 2009 report said.
EPA's report provided details on 12 mercury compounds made as specialty chemicals or occurring as waste or by-products of industrial processing. The 12 compounds could be exported for conversion into elemental mercury, the agency said. Only mercury (I) chloride was produced in a significant quantity, but that could change as a result of the ban on elemental mercury exports, EPA said in 2009.The top 14 facilities that reported disposing or otherwise releasing mercury compounds to the EPA's 2014 Toxics Release Inventory were all mining companies. The 15th top generator was Clean Harbors in Reidsville, N.C., a waste treatment and disposal company.
The sole U.S. manufacturer of mercury (I) chloride was Bethlehem Apparatus Co. Inc. in 2011, the most recent year for which chemical production volume data are available from the agency. Bethlehem Apparatus, a waste treatment company specializing in mercury recovery, recycling and retirement, produced and imported 580,750 pounds of the mercury compound that year.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96342880&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96342880&jd=96342880
-
Contamination Found in Crocs and Gators Across the Globe
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Researchers have found perfluorinated chemicals in the blood of American alligators and South African crocodiles thousands of miles apart.
According to the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the family of compounds found in the reptiles is environmentally persistent and associated with liver toxicity, reduced fertility and other health effects. Production of some of them has been phased out by DuPont and 3M in the U.S. and other countries.
Useful Data
Despite the phase-outs, two separate studies conduced by researchers affiliated with the institute found perfluorinated alkyl acids (PFAAs) in alligators in Florida and South Carolina as well as crocodiles in South Africa, the institute announced Aug. 25. Those types of compounds are used in products such as non-stick pans, fire suppressants, waxes and water- and stain-repellent materials.
Blood plasma samples taken from 125 alligators at 12 sites in Florida and South Carolina contained traceable amounts of at least six of such compounds, according to the study. Blood samples drawn from 45 crocodiles at five sites in and near the Kruger National Park in South Africa showed some level of four of those compounds as well, the institute said.
The studies are the first-of-their-kind examinations of such contamination in “sentinel” reptile species and are particularly useful for evaluating the impact of long-lived chemicals in the environment.
EPA Advisory
In May, due to increasing public concern, the Environmental Protection Agency issued lifetime drinking water health advisories of 0.07 microgram per liter for individual or combined exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), both PFAA compounds.
Those nonbinding limits are intended to guide local water systems, states and others in determining the concentrations of the highly fluorinated chemicals in drinking water that are considered safe for public health.
The two reptile studies were led by the Hollings Marine Laboratory, a Charleston, S.C.-based government and academic partnership that includes the institute, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Ocean Service, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, the College of Charleston, and the Medical University of South Carolina.
Researchers plan to continue monitoring the compounds on both continents where the reptiles were studied, according to the institute.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96342875&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96342875&jd=96342875
-
Fracking Linked to Sinus, Migraines, Fatigue: Study
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Hydraulic fracturing and unconventional natural gas development may be associated with health problems such as sinus problems, migraine headaches and fatigue, according to a new peer-reviewed studypublished Aug. 25.
A research team led by Aaron W. Tustin of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health compared the health issues that patients reported on a survey with their proximity to unconventional gas activity and concluded that fracking was associated with nasal and sinus symptoms, migraine headaches and fatigue.
The researchers in 2014 mailed questionnaires to 23,700 patients of the Geisinger Clinic, which provides primary care services to more than 400,000 patients in central and northeastern Pennsylvania. The researchers asked whether the patients suffered from chronic sinus problems, migraines or fatigue. About a third (7,785) of those surveyed responded. The researchers then used residential addresses and public data about unconventional drilling to estimate the amount of exposure each respondent had to fracking activities.
The study has several limitations, and further research is necessary to determine whether hydraulic fracturing caused the symptoms, the report concludes.
The study was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a monthly peer-reviewed journal published by the federal government with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96342884&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96342884&jd=96342884
-
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Hayden S. Baker
Methane Rules
The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued a rule intended to clarify how air permitting requirements apply to the oil and natural gas industry. The regulation, known as the source determination rule, was issued alongside the EPA's first-ever methane standards for the oil and gas industry, covering new sources. In this Bloomberg BNA Insights article, Hayden S. Baker of Sullivan & Worcester LLP explores how the source determination rule aims to put an end to decades of confusion over the federal government's air permitting authority and explains what role the rule could play in the EPA's future efforts to regulate methane emissions from existing oil and gas infrastructure.
Hayden S. Baker is a corporate partner at Sullivan & Worcester with a particular focus on energy and environmental matters. He advises on mergers and acquisitions, energy and infrastructure projects, corporate restructurings, financings and other transactions.
When the Obama administration released its Climate Action Plan three years ago, it provided a road map for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Consistent with that plan, the administration focused first on the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions—the electric power sector, which contributes approximately 30 percent of our nation's carbon emissions. With its electric power strategy stayed pending review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has focused more recently on its next target category of emissions: methane.
Earlier this year, the EPA finalized a suite of initiatives to address methane emissions from the onshore oil and gas sector, the most significant of which was the amendment and expansion of performance standards to directly reduce methane emissions from new, modified or reconstructed processes and equipment. Those standards took effect in early August. The standards have triggered tremendous resistance from industry—more than a dozen states and other industry groups have now sued the EPA to block the standards. Aligning themselves with the EPA, another fifteen states and environmental groups have intervened in support of the standards.
At the same time, the EPA finalized another rule in an effort to resolve long-standing confusion about the proper scope of federal air permitting authority over the onshore sector. While it brings some welcomed clarity to the confusion, the rulemaking also helps lay the groundwork for the EPA's anticipated regulation of methane emissions from existing onshore oil and gas operations.
Why Methane?
The EPA has identified the reduction of methane emissions as a critical step to mitigate global climate change in the near-term. Methane has an atmospheric life of approximately 12 years, and its impact on global warming is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Methane comprises approximately 10 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Of those methane emissions, petroleum and natural gas systems account for roughly one-third, with the rest coming from livestock (22 percent), landfills (20 percent), coal mining (9 percent) and other sources. In early 2015, the EPA set a goal of cutting methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by at least 40 percent below 2012 levels by 2025. In parallel, the agency has also advanced initiatives to reduce methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills and coal mines.
As with the EPA's electric power strategy, the agency cannot achieve its greenhouse gas reduction goals by focusing solely on new sources. The hard work comes when the agency targets existing sources, which can require costly retrofitting. Conspicuously absent from the EPA's new source performance standards were any accompanying emission guidelines that would apply to existing sources. Instead, the EPA issued a draft information collection request seeking input regarding such matters as how equipment and emission controls are, or can be, configured; what installing those controls entails; and the associated costs. The EPA will use information gathered through its final information request to develop comprehensive regulations to reduce emissions from existing oil and gas sources.
The stakes for the oil and gas sector are enormous—particularly as the agency moves forward to address existing sources.
The EPA's regulation of new and modified sources already has provoked litigation from more than a dozen states and industry groups alleging that the regulation of new sources will add an estimated $530 million in additional compliance costs to an already burdened industry. The future regulation of existing sources is expected to be still more costly. And, while companies have some control over the timing of capital expenditures associated with new installations or equipment modifications, the EPA's regulation of existing sources will likely impose regulatory deadlines on industry to retrofit existing equipment that companies might otherwise never need to modify or upgrade.
With all this as context for the battle shaping up between the EPA and industry, another final agency rule also took effect this month: the source determination rule.
The final rule clarifies when multiple pieces of equipment and activities in the oil and gas industry must be deemed a single source for purposes of federal air permitting requirements, specifically under the Clean Air Act's pre-construction New Source Review and Title V operating permit programs. The rule defines the term “adjacent” to clarify that onshore oil and gas equipment and activities under common control will be considered part of the same source if they are located near each other—specifically, if they are located on the same site, or on sites that share equipment and are within 1/4 mile of each other.
While the New Source Review and Title V programs operate independently of the recent new source performance standards, industry should be on the lookout for how the two rules will interact going forward. In the draft information collection request, the agency indicated that it would be requesting facility-level information “using the definition of facility commonly employed when permitting new and existing sources (i.e., all buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary equipment that are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties and that are under common ownership or control).”
Accordingly the source determination rule may define the landscape of sources about which the EPA collects information as it designs its regulation of methane from existing oil and gas sources.
Historical Struggle to Define Scope of Federal Permitting Authority
The source determination rule defines the concept of “adjacent” to dictate when upstream emission sources need to be treated as a single source for air permitting purposes. This rather simple clarification attempts to finally resolve a tortured, three decade struggle between the agency and industry to determine the proper reach of federal air permitting authority over oil and gas operations.
Upstream operations are typically spread across large areas with wells, equipment and gathering infrastructure interspersed among different properties. This reality complicates the seemingly simple task of defining the appropriate boundary around a given source. This tension was present in the greenhouse gas reporting rule, subpart W of which aggregates all onshore petroleum and natural gas systems under common control if they are within the same hydrocarbon basin.
The extent to which sources are aggregated in this way is enormously important for oil and gas operations. The more individual emission sources are aggregated, the more likely the combined operation will exceed applicable emission thresholds thereby subjecting the operations to more burdensome emission control, permitting and reporting requirements.
The source determination rule applies to two types of federal air permits: pre-construction new source review permits and title V operating permits. The regulations for both permitting programs aggregate sources that are:
• in the same industrial grouping;
• under common control; and
• located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties.
The first two prongs are relatively straightforward. The third has been subject to interpretation—specifically what it means to be “adjacent,” especially if that means something additive to “contiguous.”
This three-part test dates back to regulations issued in 1980 and was intended to define a source in such a way as to “approximate the common sense notion of a plant.” Over the subsequent decades, however, the agency moved toward a case-by-case analysis that emphasized the interrelationship between the various components or equipment. Indeed, the EPA issued some determinations that aggregated sources as far apart as 40 miles.
In 2007, the Bush administration issued a non-binding source determination policy referred to as the Wehrum Memorandum, which emphasized the physical proximity of equipment over operational dependence: “Given the diverse nature of the oil and gas activities, we believe that proximity is the most informative factor in making source determinations for these industries. We do not believe that it is reasonable to aggregate well site activities, and other production field activities that occur over large geographic distances, with the downstream processing plant into a single major stationary source. Aggregation of such geographically-dispersed activities defies the concept of contiguous and adjacent.”
Two years later, the Obama administration withdrew the Wehrum Memorandum in favor of a case-by-case review in which neither proximity nor any other single factor holds dominance: “In some cases, ‘proximity’ may serve as the overwhelming factor in a permitting authority's source determination decision. However, such a conclusion can only be justified through reasoned decision making after examining whether other factors are relevant to the analysis.”
Around the same time as the Obama administration withdrew the Wehrum Memorandum, it issued a source determination to Summit Petroleum Corporation, a natural gas producer with wells, a gathering system and a sweetening plant in Michigan. The wells spanned 43 square miles at distances ranging from 500 feet to eight miles from the plant. In September 2009, the EPA concluded that Summit's sweetening plant and surrounding gas wells constituted a single stationary source and therefore comprised a major source subject to Title V permitting.
The agency reasoned that Summit's plant, wells and flares worked together as a single unit that “together produced a single product”—in essence that the physical requirement of adjacency was established because the equipment and operations were functionally interrelated. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reasoned that the definition of adjacent was unambiguous and that the agency's understanding of adjacency was not entitled to deference. The court vacated the EPA's source determination and, on remand, instructed the agency to reassess the source determination “in light of the proper, plain-meaning application of the requirement that Summit's activities be aggregated only if they are located on physically contiguous or adjacent properties” (Summit Petroleum Corp. v. EPA, 690 F.3d 733, 2012 BL 198736, 75 ERC 1129 (6th Cir. 2012)).
Having been sent back to the drawing board, the EPA tried to limit the effect of the Sixth Circuit's decision. In a memorandumexplaining how it would apply the Summit Petroleum decision (known as the Summit Directive), the agency said: “EPA may no longer consider interrelatedness in determining adjacency when making source determination decisions in its Title V or NSR permitting decisions in areas under the jurisdiction of the [Sixth] Circuit… Outside the [Sixth] Circuit, at this time, the EPA does not intend to change its longstanding practice of considering interrelatedness in the EPA permitting actions in other jurisdictions. In permitting actions occurring outside of the [Sixth] Circuit [i.e., outside of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee], the EPA will continue to make source determinations on a case-by-case basis using the three factor test in the [permitting regulations].”
Industry promptly sought judicial review of the Summit Directive alleging that the policy subjected oil and gas companies operating outside of the four states of the Sixth Circuit to a competitive disadvantage to those operating within the Sixth Circuit. Petitioners argued that the agency was violating its own regional consistency regulation, which requires national uniformity in the application of permitting rules. In a May 2014 decision, the D.C. Circuit sided with petitioners and vacated the Summit Directive(Nat'l Envt'l Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 752 F.3d 999, 2014 BL 150327, 78 ERC 1943 (D.C. Cir. 2014)).
The D.C. Circuit, however, laid out three options for how the EPA could proceed:
• revise its regulations to aggregate sources that are functionally interrelated, rather than “adjacent”;
• appeal the Summit Petroleum decision to the U.S. Supreme Court; or
• revise its regional consistency regulation to allow for regional variances created by judicial decisions.
The EPA did not appeal to the Supreme Court, but it has pursued the other two options in parallel.
The EPA in August revised its regional consistency regulation to allow an EPA regional office to diverge from national policy in geographic areas covered by adverse federal court decisions. The revised regulation is limited to federal court decisions under the Clean Air Act that have regional or local applicability but ensures that decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit concerning nationally applicable regulations or other final actions will continue to apply uniformly nationwide.
Source Determination Rules Strike Compromise
Effective Aug. 2, 2016, the EPA has revised the meaning of adjacent to include pollutant emitting activities under common control if they are located within a 1/4 mile of one another and they share equipment. This approach represents a compromise relative to the two options proposed by the EPA.
Under the first option, the agency would have aggregated any operations within 1/4 mile of one another. The second option would have aggregated those operations and also granted the agency authority to aggregate operations beyond 1/4 mile if they are “exclusively functionally interrelated.”
In the final rule, the 1/4 mile radius is meant to define a bright-line boundary beyond which equipment cannot be aggregated—a radius that is consistent with the distance used by several states to delineate such sources, including Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Pennsylvania. The shared equipment requirement is an attempt to move away from the problematic subjective test of whether the equipment is functionally interrelated in favor of a more objective test for whether the operations have a relationship that meets the “common sense notion of plant.” The shared equipment requirement could be subject to judgment calls, but the revised regulations do provide some guidance explaining that such equipment “includes, but is not limited to, produced fluids storage tanks, phase separators, natural gas dehydrators or emission control devices.”
The EPA's final rule goes a long way to resolve industry's objections and is certainly preferable to the unpredictable approach employed by the EPA historically. The 1/4 mile radius ensures that far-flung sources will not be aggregated, and the shared equipment requirement provides far greater clarity than a subjective relatedness standard. Opponents still could contend that the term adjacent is unambiguous and that the agency's attempts to clarify the term are unfounded. In addition, the D.C. Circuit's decision expressly left open the question whether the Clean Air Act itself—independent of the regional consistency regulation—requires national uniformity in its application.
That said, the oil and gas industry has far greater concerns to address in the pending litigation over the new source performance standards and in the forthcoming regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from existing sources in the not too distant future. After more than three decades of ambiguity and subjectivity, industry may be content with the relative clarity now afforded by the EPA's source determination rule.
Clean Power Plan Parallels
Returning to the larger context of climate change regulation, one cannot help but observe the parallels as the EPA endeavors to define the scope of regulated sources in the electric power and oil and gas sectors.
The EPA's Clean Power Plan—its primary initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electric power sector—is premised on the controversial aggregation of the power grid as a single “system” for purposes of mandating emission reductions from existing sources. That methodology arises from the EPA's reliance on Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The EPA first regulated carbon emissions from new electric generating units under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, and then moved to regulate emissions from existing power plants under Section 111(d) by imposing standards of performance that reflect the “degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction...” A critical issue in the pending litigation over the Clean Power Plan is how to delineate the proper boundary of that system when determining what emission reductions are achievable.
As the EPA collects information on the onshore oil and gas sector and considers how best to reduce methane emissions from onshore oil and gas operations under Section 111(d), it may invoke the source determination rule in support of aggregating methane emissions from certain existing sources. If it does, then we may see the source determination rule again dragged into litigation—this time as part of the inevitable argument over the extent to which the EPA can regulate methane emissions from existing onshore oil and gas sources.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96342861&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96342861&jd=96342861
-
Greens Sue Obama To Stop Fossil Fuel Production On Federal Land
Aug 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A pair of environmental groups is suing the Obama administration to try to stop oil and natural gas production on federal lands.
The lawsuit filed Thursday by WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility seeks to block drilling on nearly 380,000 acres of public lands that were leased to oil and gas companies since 2015.
They say that the drilling unacceptably threatens the climate, public health and the integrity of the lands.
It’s part of the Keep it in the Ground movement, a project that’s taken hold in recent years to pressure the federal government to stop fossil fuel production on federal lands and waters, and to eventually stop fossil fuel production altogether.
“President Obama seems to get climate change, but he has an unexplainable blind spot when it comes to leasing public lands to oil and gas companies,” Tim Ream, WildEarth Guardians’ climate and energy campaign director, said in a statement.
“The Obama administration leases a million acres of public lands a year to dirty energy companies, but hasn’t bothered to disclose the inevitable climate pollution? That’s not just immoral, it’s illegal, and we’re going to stop it,” he continued.
“Americans want and expect their public lands to be managed to protect pristine air and crystal clear water, not creating smog alerts and fracking waste spills,” said Catherine Thomasson, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
The green groups are asking the administration for an immediate moratorium on new oil and gas leases, similar to the moratorium on coal leases that the Interior Department instituted earlier this year.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/293371-greens-sue-obama-to-stop-fossil-fuel-production-on-federal-land
-
Sanders Jumps On Bandwagon Opposing Dakota Access
Aug 25, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Sen. Bernie Sanders joined today a growing number of landowners, tribes, celebrities and environmental activists opposing the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline.
The Vermont independent vowed to fight the pipeline that would carry crude from North Dakota's Bakken formation even if a federal court decides to block construction next month.
Blocking the pipeline is imperative in the fight against climate change, Sanders said. Opposition to fossil fuel development was a cornerstone of his unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
"Like the Keystone XL pipeline, which I opposed since day one, the Dakota Access fracked oil pipeline will transport some of the dirtiest fuel on the planet," he said in a statement. "Regardless of the court's decision, the Dakota Access pipeline must be stopped."
Mirroring the successful grass-roots push against Keystone XL, environmental groups, tribes and landowner groups are pressing the Obama administration to halt construction of Dakota Access, which would stretch 1,170 miles from North Dakota to refineries in Illinois.
The 30-inch pipeline would ship crude from North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to an oil market hub near Patoka, Ill. Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners has permits from other states it's crossing.
More than two dozen groups including 350.org, the Bold Alliance and the Sierra Club called on President Obama in a letter to deny federal Clean Water Act permits for the project and revoke those the Army Corps of Engineers has already approved under the water pollution law.
"We urge your administration to direct the Corps to deny the remaining Section 408 permits for Dakota Access, revoke the pipeline's authorizations under Nationwide Permit 12, and initiate a transparent Section 404 permitting process that includes public notice and participation, formal tribal consultation, and adequate environmental review of the pipeline," the groups wrote. "Until that occurs, construction on this project should not be allowed to continue."
The pipeline has sparked many lawsuits and protests, including a demonstration yesterday in Washington, D.C. (E&ENews PM, Aug. 24).
Environmental groups today declared support for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which sued the Obama administration last month for using a blanket permitting system to effectively greenlight construction of the Dakota Access pipeline (EnergyWire, July 29).
The tribe has said it fears the project could lead to contamination of drinking water. Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will rule by Sept. 9 on whether to temporarily block construction of the project.
"This pipeline would travel through the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's ancestral lands and pass within half a mile of its current reservation. Over the past several weeks, the mounting opposition to the pipeline has grown exponentially, captivating both activists around the country and the media, while uniting and mobilizing Native American tribes across the country in an unprecedented manner," the groups wrote.
Iowa landowners have asked state utilities regulators to block construction of the pipeline while a state district court rules on their pending challenge (EnergyWire, April 14).
Dakota Access isn't slated to serve any customers in the state, and landowners there argue the project doesn't qualify as a common carrier or public utility under state law. The pipeline developer, landowners argue, shouldn't be allowed to condemn private property.
Construction is moving so fast, the 15 landowners who are still fighting in court won't get a chance to have their cases heard unless the Iowa Utilities Board steps in, said Bill Hanigan, the landowners' attorney. Construction crews are working 10 hours a day, six days a week.
"Let's push 'pause' on those remaining ... properties so that the district court can do its job," Hanigan said during a webcast of the hearing today.
Energy Transfer, the parent of Dakota Access, stands to lose $83.3 million a month if the line doesn't start service in November, said Bret Dublinske, an attorney for the company.
The landowners are misinterpreting the law, he said, and have missed several opportunities to ask for a stay of construction.
"I don't know how these petitioners get to keep violating the law time after time after time," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/08/25/stories/1060042074
-
Greens Push Obama To Block N. Dakota Pipeline
Aug 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Environmental groups are asking President Obama to intervene in the construction of a controversial oil pipeline project in North Dakota.
In a letter to Obama on Thursday, 31 green groups said the White House should deny and revoke the permits necessary to build the Dakota Access pipeline, a 1,168-mile project that would carry 450,000 barrels of Bakken crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois.
The appeal to the White House comes after the Standing Rock Sioux tribe of North Dakota sued the Army Corps of Engineers over its approval of the project.
The tribe contends that federal regulators didn’t give tribal leaders the option to assess the pipeline’s impact on cultural sites or sensitive environmental locations and is asking a judge to halt construction until it can do so. The Corps told a federal judge on Wednesday that it had tried to consult the tribe but was rebuffed.
Thursday’s letter, from groups like the Sierra Club, Honor the Earth, 350.org and others, including several from the Midwest, opens a new front in the fight against the pipeline. The groups want Obama to deny new permits for the project, as he did with the Keystone XL pipeline project last year, and remove existing permits issued by the Army Corps.
The groups aligned their arguments with those of the tribe, saying the pipeline threatens the tribe’s ancestral lands and its current reservation.
"If there were to be a spill — which history has taught us is not a question of ‘if’ but ’when’ — it would constitute an existential threat to the tribe’s culture and way of life," the groups wrote. "The pipeline poses significant threats to the environment, public health, and tribal and human rights."
The letter comes as greens, tribal-rights groups and anti-fossil fuel organizations turn their focus to this new pipeline. Around 20 people have been arrested in North Dakota during protests against the pipeline, and allies of the tribe rallied against it in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) came out against the pipeline on Thursday, saying, “Regardless of the court’s decision, the Dakota Access pipeline must be stopped.
“As a nation, our job is to break our addiction to fossil fuels, not increase our dependence on oil,” he said in a statement. “I join with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the many tribal nations fighting this dangerous pipeline.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/293362-greens-push-obama-on-north-dakota-pipeline
-
U.S. Hazardous Materials Transport Rules To Be Overhauled
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Hazardous material transportation regulations are set for a sweeping overhaul aimed at aligning U.S. policies with international standards, the Transportation Department said in a new proposal.
The plan, unveiled Aug. 24, would align U.S. regulations with global standards on lithium battery labeling, shipping identification for engines, machinery containing engines and a range of other transportation requirements.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) will soon publish the proposal in the Federal Register, at which point it will be subject to a 60-day comment period.
The proposed changes would align that agency's Hazardous Materials Regulations with portions of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, and the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods—Model Regulations.
The pipeline administration also is proposing several changes to the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96342893&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96342893&jd=96342893
-
(ACC Mentioned) Is The New ‘Plastics and Sustainability’ Report Greenwash?
Aug 25, 2016 | Triple Pundit
By Jacquelyn Ottman
I’ve been spending a lot more time these days on how best to change consumption culture through the prism of ‘zero waste.’ But when the first wave of articles about Trucost’s new study prepared for the American Chemistry Council (ACC), “Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement,” came across my screen (including an analysis by Leon Kaye here on TriplePundit), my interest was piqued. Could plastics be as ‘green’ as the study seemed to suggest?
I spent the weekend studying it and the “Valuing Plastics” study (2014) also by Trucost, as well as the related “The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics” (2016) by the World Economic Forum. I also exchanged two rounds of clarifying emails with the folks at Trucost. I came to the following conclusions:
By opting to focus on the question of plastics’ environmental costs versus alternative materials, the report curiously reignites what was debated ad infinitum in the ‘materials wars’ that many of us lived through during the 1990s. Since that time, many consumer brands opted to transition to plastics from the more recyclable metal (e.g., coffee cans), glass (mayonnaise, ketchup) and paperboard (milk cartons) based upon the environmental and financial costs, as well as other benefits of ‘light-weighting.’
So, this rehash of what seems fairly well known at this point (and even acknowledged within the Trucost/ACC study itself as the benefits of plastic soda bottles, car composites and food packaging) seems to distract from the more relevant and pressing issues these other reports recommend — namely, more public disclosure of specific risks of plastics by the companies involved and greater focus on end-of-life management aspects, e.g., recycling, reuse and preventing the escape of plastics into marine environments, especially in Asia.
Despite efforts by the Trucost folks to help me understand otherwise, this report appears to grossly oversimplify its argument by first lumping all plastics together and then assuming that all plastics will be replaced in wholesale fashion by alternative materials at what amounts to over four times the weight of plastics. They also assume that an equal amount of alternative materials as plastics will wind up as marine debris, despite suggestions earlier in the report that the unique nature of plastics — e.g., its application in single-use containers and its ability to be blown by the wind (plastic bags) — makes it particularly susceptible to becoming marine debris.
As a green marketer, I can’t help but note another concern with this report: Despite heed paid to ‘areas for improvement’ by Trucost, readers will misconstrue plastics in general to be ‘green.’ For the Federal Trade Commission, the government body that monitors truth in advertising claims, consumer takeaway — not intended communication — is what determines if a claim is misleading. Indeed, at least one press report has already declared as much in its headline, “Vindicated: Plastics are Green After All.”
A reminder: The latest iteration of the FTC’s “Green Guides” for environmental marketing now warns against the making of ‘general environmental’ claims.
I applaud Trucost for including the recommendations that it did in the ACC report with regard to improving the environmental costs of plastics. However, as someone immersed in all things ‘zero waste,’ I missed more of a discussion of specific opportunities for the industry to promote waste reduction (outside of light-weighting) and reuse, things that plastics are well suited for. Doing so would have helped Trucost more directly address the opportunities raised in the “New Plastics Economy” report, as well as underscore the credibility that comes with promoting the responsible consumption of one’s product.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/08/new-plastics-sustainability-report-greenwash/
-
Sanders Announces ‘Our Revolution,’ Vows Progressive Support
Aug 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is going to make sure the progressive Democratic Party platform that includes support for carbon dioxide pricing doesn't “rest on a shelf somewhere,” he told supporters Aug. 24.
The former Democratic presidential candidate will work to make the platform the blueprint for Democratic action in Congress and across the country, Sanders said at the event announcing a new organization called Our Revolution. The movement will continue to support progressive individuals from local to national political positions and ballot initiatives, he said.
“When you capture by large majorities the young people of this country, it means our ideas, our vision is the future of this country,” Sanders said in Burlington, Vt.
Real change and action to combat climate change and bring about environmental justice will come from the public taking a stand, Sanders said.
Our Revolution will support pro-environment ballot initiatives and candidates, Sanders said. The 501(c)(4) — a tax-exempt social welfare organization — will be led by former Sanders staff members. Sanders, himself, will not be part of the group.
In the Senate, Sanders said he would continue to oppose “the global threat that is the fossil fuel industry.” He will oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal because of its investor-state tribunals that would allow companies to sue foreign governments over lost profits, like TransCanada Corp. sued the U.S. for rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline under the North American Free Trade Agreement, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96342882&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96342882&jd=96342882
-
California Lawmakers Pass New Climate Change Bills
Aug 25, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Two bills that have the oil and natural gas industry uneasy (SB 32 and AB 197) were passed by California's legislature on Wednesday, and Gov. Jerry Brown indicated he would sign both.
A final concurrence on SB 32 by the state Senate was provided late Wednesday.
SB 32 would require greenhouse gas emissions to be slashed 40% under 1990 levels by 2030, and AB 197 will provide the mechanisms to make sure the goals of the legislation are met, according to Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon. AB 197 was developed with the backing of lawmakers who would like more legislative oversight and control of the California Air Resources Board, which has been the lead state agency on climate change issues for more than a decade.
Officials in the Obama administration and Gov. Brown's office reportedly had been mounting pressure on Assembly members to pass the controversial bills, which Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) President Catherine Reheis-Boyd labeled as "not a reason to celebrate." The California Independent Petroleum Association also is opposing the bills.
But Alex Jackson, the legal director at the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) California climate project, hailed SB 32 for its "ambitious climate change limits.” Jackson also lauded Gov. Brown for his strong support.
"[On Monday], big oil bought a full-page ad in the capital city's newspaper of record to halt action on climate [but on Tuesday] the Assembly Speaker, most Democrats and one brave Republican passed SB 32, rejecting the brazen deception of the oil lobby and their Trump-inspired allies who deny science and fight every reasonable effort to curb global warming," Brown said.
Brown said that he will sign SB 32 and AB 197, which the Senate passed on Tuesday prior to Wednesday's final Assembly vote. The two bills are "double-joined," so unless they both get out of the state legislature, neither will get to the governor.
Nicole Lederer, chairman of the nonpartisan business group Environmental Entrepreneurs, said California lawmakers "just doubled down on one of the strongest, most innovative climate policies in the world."
Characterizing the two bills as giving "blank check authority" to state bureaucracy, Reheis-Boyd said the legislation "puts accessible and reliable energy at risk," calling the passage of SB 32 "a setback for California's global leadership on climate change."
A government affairs manager for one of the major private-sector utilities told NGI that his combination utility did not have a position on SB 32, but that it does support California's multi-billion-dollar cap/trade program that is not explicitly continued in the current bill's language. "We had a few other issues that we would have preferred to have addressed in the statute, but that didn't happen," he said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107532-california-lawmakers-pass-new-climate-change-bills
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested