Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 8/29/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Output Ticks Higher in July on Market Recovery
Aug 29, 2016 | Zacks
By Zacks Equity Report
U.S. chemical production advanced in July with gains witnessed across all chemical producing regions barring the Northeast that saw a modest decline in output – according to the latest monthly report from the American Chemistry Council ("ACC"). -
(ACC Mentioned) Market Clock – What Time Is It?
Aug 29, 2016 | Value Walk
By Craig Basinger
As the end of summer rapidly approaches, the S&P 500 sits near all-time highs, the TSX has been one of the strongest performing markets in 2016, bond yields are low and the economic data has been alright. -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists Fight Chemical Industry Bid To Limit TSCA Fees' Scope
Aug 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Environmentalist are fighting some chemical sector officials' suggestion that EPA limit the scope of fees the agency would impose for industry-requested chemical risk evaluations under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), saying companies should pay 50 to 100 per cent of the costs regardless of the breadth of the assessment. -
10 Things You Need to Know About the New U.S. Chemicals Law
Aug 29, 2016 | Ensia
By Elizabeth Grossman
“This is a big deal,” said President Barack Obama as he signed into law the bill that updates — for the first time in 40 years — the nation’s main chemical safety legislation. -
Will Updated Toxic Substances Control Act Regulate Asbestos?
Aug 29, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Regulating asbestos under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act was ruled illegal. But it may get the go-ahead under the newly reformed federal chemical safety rules. -
Senator Pushes to Ensure Asbestos is On EPA Review List
Aug 29, 2016 | Mesothelioma.net
By Terri Oppenheimer
Earlier this year, the U.S. Congress signed into law theFrank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21stCentury Act. This law instructs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to more carefully evaluate the regulatory process governing harmful chemicals like asbestos, which has been shown to cause the rare and fatal form of cancer known as mesothelioma. -
Vt. Judge Dismisses Case Over Chemicals in Drinking Water
Aug 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Howard Weiss-Tisman
A Superior Court judge in Washington, Vt., threw out a lawsuit over the state's interim safety standard for perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA. -
Anti-Fracking Measures Won’t Go Before Colorado Voters in November
Aug 29, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Erin Ailworth
Two measures that would have allowed local communities to ban hydraulic fracturing in Colorado failed to garner enough support for the fall ballot, state officials said Monday, the most high-profile defeat to date for groups aiming to curtail the controversial drilling technique. -
Anti-Fracking Measures Fail to Make Nov. Ballot
Aug 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin and Mike Lee
Colorado election officials today rejected two ballot initiatives aimed at curbing oil and gas development in the Centennial State, ruling sponsors had failed to collect enough signatures to put the proposals before voters in November. -
UGI Breaks Ground on Sunbury Pipeline to Supply PA NatGas-Fired Power Plant
Aug 29, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
UGI Energy Services LLC has broken ground on the Sunbury Pipeline, which would supply one of the nation's largest coal-to-natural gas power conversion projects in central Pennsylvania Snyder County. -
W.Va. Rail Car Leaks Chlorine, Forcing Evacuations, Shutdown
Aug 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A rail car loaded with liquid chlorine leaked Saturday, resulting in the evacuation and shutdown of a West Virginia chemical plant. -
Emergency Responders to Get Advanced Notice of Oil Trains
Aug 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Terminals and refineries that use oil trains must now notify the Washington State Department of Ecology in advance of oil shipments through the state. -
Study Links Some Emissions to 'Inefficiencies' at Frack Sites
Aug 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Some air pollution from oil and gas hydraulic fracturing sites stems from "operational inefficiencies" and is therefore manageable, according to a newly released study by researchers at the University of Texas, Arlington. -
Advocates Claim Corps' 404 Permits Ignore Mandatory Mitigation Concerns
Aug 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Environmentalists are challenging five Army Corps of Engineers-issued Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 permits for a major pipeline project, saying the Corps failed to adequately address mitigation of watershed loss during the permitting process -- at odds with a federal rule issued in 2008 that outlines mitigation mandates.
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) U.S. Chemical Output Ticks Higher in July on Market Recovery
Aug 29, 2016 | Zacks
By Zacks Equity Report
U.S. chemical production advanced in July with gains witnessed across all chemical producing regions barring the Northeast that saw a modest decline in output – according to the latest monthly report from the American Chemistry Council ("ACC").
The Washington, DC-based chemical industry trade group said that the U.S. Chemical Production Regional Index ("CPRI") ticked up 0.1% in July following a 0.5% fall a month ago. The gain in production for the reported month came on the back of improvement across several major end-use markets, the ACC noted.
The U.S. CPRI, which is measured using a three-month moving average, was created by Moore Economics to track chemical production in seven regions nationwide. It is comparable to the Federal Reserve’s industrial production index for chemicals.
The July reading showed higher chemical production across all regions except the Northeast. The Gulf Coast, where key building block materials are produced, raked in the highest gain of 0.4% for the reported month. Production went up 0.3% in the Ohio Valley and also rose 0.2% across West Coast, Southeast and Midwest. Output edged down 0.1% in the Northeast region while Mid-Atlantic recorded a 0.1% gain.
By segments, chemical production was mixed in July. Gains across pesticides, fertilizers, adhesives, coatings, plastic resins, inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals and pharmaceuticals were neutralized by lower production of consumer products, other specialty chemicals, industrial gases, synthetic rubber and manufactured fibers.
Overall chemical production went up 0.6% year over year in July with all regions logging gains.
According to the ACC, activity for the U.S. manufacturing sector – the largest consumer of chemical products – went up 0.2% in July following a 0.1% gain in June. The manufacturing sector is a major driver for the chemical industry which touches around 96% of manufactured goods.
Within the manufacturing sector, production rose across several chemistry end-user markets in July including appliances, motor vehicles, aerospace, machinery, electronic equipment, semiconductors, petroleum refining, foundries, plastic products, paper and textile mill products.
The U.S. chemical industry, a nearly $800 billion enterprise, is heavily linked to the overall condition of the nation’s economy. It has been consistently leading the U.S. economy’s business cycle due to its early position in the supply chain.
The chemical industry is clawing its way back after being roiled by the global economic crisis. The industry’s recovery is expected to continue through the balance of 2016, supported by continued strength in the automotive market, positive trends in the construction space and significant shale gas-linked capital investment.Driven by the ample natural gas supply, chemical makers including Dow Chemical (DOW - Analyst Report) , LyondellBasell Industries (LYB - Analyst Report) , BASF (BASFY - Snapshot Report) , Eastman Chemical (EMN - Analyst Report) , Celanese (CE - Analyst Report) and Westlake Chemical (WLK - Snapshot Report) are ratcheting up investment on shale-linked projects which is expected to beef up capacity over the next several years. Per the ACC, domestic chemical investment related to shale gas has reached as high as $164 billion, more than 60% of which are from firms outside the U.S. Already 264 projects have been announced by chemical makers to take advantage of abundant natural gas supplies.
Chemical companies also remain actively focused on expanding their reach in high-growth markets and are increasingly looking for cost synergy opportunities and enhanced operational scale through consolidations.
However, the industry still faces certain roadblocks including slowdown in China, sluggish demand in the energy space, soft agriculture market fundamentals and a choppy Europe.
Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days.https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/229628/us-chemical-output-ticks-higher-in-july-on-market-recovery
-
(ACC Mentioned) Market Clock – What Time Is It?
Aug 29, 2016 | Value Walk
By Craig Basinger
As the end of summer rapidly approaches, the S&P 500 sits near all-time highs, the TSX has been one of the strongest performing markets in 2016, bond yields are low and the economic data has been alright. A whole lot more of a pleasant summer than last year. So what better time to publish an update on our Market Clock framework. For those that have not seen this body of work, we use this to help guide our tactical tilts and asset allocations for the Connected Wealth investor profiles (Growth, Balanced, Conservative). The basis for the Market Clock is if you can ascertain in which phase of the market cycle we are currently, this helps tilt asset, geographic, active/passive and style allocations to better position the portfolio compared to a static asset allocation approach. However, ascertaining which phase of the cycle is not an exact science and we use a multitude of models and indicators, 30 to be precise. These models are crossdisciplinary, including rates, fundamentals, momentum, valuation and economic.So, what time is it?
We break the market cycle into five phases (chart top right). These phases are not equal in duration but they do have a number of distinct characteristics that are common in most market cycles looking over the decades. Given the current environment, most of the characteristics point to the ‘Late Bull’ phase of the cycle. These include narrowing of leadership in equity markets, higher volatility and central bank policy beginning to tighten. This of course is good news, as it is a bull market, but also has a negative side in that it is the last phase of a bull market. Historically this phase has often been the longest and has also seen some very handsome returns. But we must be on guard for the cycle ending, which is where our 30 indicators enter the picture.
Currently, we see 23 of the 30 models/indicators favouring the continuation of the bullish phase in the market (2nd chart). Historically, that is a very strong signal that the cycle will continue. For example, in February with markets in disarray, oil below $30, rumblings of a potential U.S. recession, the indicators were roughly split half bullish and half bearish. Half doesn’t sound great, but historically bull markets have ended when the bearish indicators have exceeded 22 or 23. Again, not an exact science but certainly encouraging for the continuation of the current bullish phase of the cycle an exact science but certainly encouraging for the continuation of the current bullish phase of the cycle.Where is strength, where is weakness
With 23 indicators bullish and 7 bearish (detailed table on next page), what else are the signals telling us? The market trender models, which are momentum driven, are positive. This shouldn’t come as a surprise given the performance of the equity markets this year. And while the Consumer Model is bearish, it is very close to turning back to positive. Model driven by Rates are a bit mixed. As the Fed has not raised rates in the past six months, this has gone from bearish back to bullish. However given the flattening of the yield curve, this has become bearish. Longer rates have declined over the past year while shorter rates are rising, hence a flatter yield curve. That being said, it is still very positive.
Valuations are a bit stretched with the TSX trading at 17.2x and the S&P 500 trading 17.1x consensus earnings over the next 12 months. These are bearish but they are not extreme as if they were a point or so lower, it wouldn’t be a negative sign. The 2nd chart is the price to earnings of both the S&P and TSX over the past 15 years. A bit elevated but not enough to be very worrisome. And with earnings growth starting to resume, this may help a bit with valuation.
This brings us to the economy, which contains more than half our indicators. We would highlight that many of these indicators are timely or forward looking compared to measures such as employment or GDP. On the U.S. side, we continue to see many more positive signs than negative. Leading indicators are rising. PMI is encouraging for manufacturing and industrials, an area that has been soft in the economy during the past few quarters.
The 3rd chart on the right is the U.S. leading indicators index and chemical activity barometer. Leading indicators is a basket of indicators that have historically signalled changes in overall economic activity ahead of time. Chemical activity is similar albeit more narrow. This index from the American Chemistry Council measures the activity level across chemical companies. The premise is chemical activity is very far up the industrial supply chain and increased activity up there is a precursor of more activity at other stages. Both of these indicators have proven to be good signals for a change in direction in the economy.
Finally, international economic data has been improving as well. Take all these indicators together and we continue to feel confident that 1) we are in the late bull phase of the current cycle and 2) the probability of this phase ending in the near term is very low.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/08/market-clock-what-time-is-it/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists Fight Chemical Industry Bid To Limit TSCA Fees' Scope
Aug 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Environmentalist are fighting some chemical sector officials' suggestion that EPA limit the scope of fees the agency would impose for industry-requested chemical risk evaluations under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), saying companies should pay 50 to 100 per cent of the costs regardless of the breadth of the assessment.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in Aug. 24 comments filed with EPA faults industry's claim that fees apply to chemical producers for risk evaluations should be confined to costs for the portion of the scope of the review that is the subject of the request. “There simply is no basis for such an approach in the law,” EDF says.
Chemical companies, however, counter that it would be unfair to charge a specific manufacturer to pay the entire cost of a review if that company is only seeking evaluation of a specific “condition of use” of a substance rather than all uses of the chemical. Industry is seeking details from EPA on how it will define the conditions of use for a chemical undergoing review, and the agency's use of the definitions in the context of industry-requested reviews.
“At some point, we need some clarity about whether the scope of an industry requested review is confined to the conditions of use specific to the company requesting the evaluation,” Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said during an Aug. 11 EPA public meeting in Washington, D.C. on the fees system. “That may have consequences for the fee system,” he added.
Derek Swick, manager of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute also spoke at the agency's meeting, saying that if an industry-requested assessment included conditions of uses beyond the scope of those supported by the company making the request, it could be “very difficult to administer.”
The competing positions highlight the latest divisions between advocates and industry over provisions in the revised TSCA, which President Obama signed June 22 and that gives EPA new powers to regulate chemicals.
TSCA Fees
The law allows the agency to for the first time establish a fee structure under the statute to defray the costs of reviewing the risks of new chemicals, and to pay for a range of actions on existing chemicals by collecting user fees from chemical manufacturers and processors. EPA can collect up to 25 percent of the costs of implementing several key programs under the chemical safety law, or up to $25 million, whichever number is lower.
The new law gives EPA the authority to collect fees when companies submit test data under TSCA section 4, which details EPA's authority to conduct testing and compel industry to generate chemical safety data.
The agency can also collect fees when companies submit a premanufacture notice (PMN) for a new chemical or a significant new use notice (SNUN) under section 5, which outlines EPA's authority to regulate new chemicals. PMNs are notices submitted to EPA providing information before initiating manufacture of any new chemical substance, while SNUNs apply to chemicals that companies are seeking to use in new ways.
In addition, under the revised toxics law, the agency can charge fees when chemical producers manufacture or process a chemical that is the substance of a risk evaluation or request that EPA conduct a review of a chemicals under section 6, which details the agency's authority on regulating existing chemicals.
Industry is required to pay 100 percent of the costs for the risk reviews it requests from EPA, unless the chemical is already on the agency's 2014 TSCA work plan, in which case the company making the request must pay 50 percent. The TSCA work plan was launched as an effort to review chemicals' safety under prior TSCA authority.
EPA plans to issue a proposed rule to establish a fee system by December of this year and finalize the regulation by mid-June 2017. The agency took comment on the planned rulemaking through Aug. 24.
Competing Positions
EDF and the chemical sector are staking out their competing positions on how to structure the fees, with EDF in its written comments saying that the overhauled law requires that fees for industry-requested chemical reviews establish the fee at a level “sufficient to defray the full costs [or 50 percent of the costs]” for the review.
“This requirement applies regardless of whether or not the requesting manufacturer manufactures the chemical for only a subset of the conditions of use included in the scope of the risk evaluation,” EDF says.
EDF says that EPA should either in the fee rulemaking or in a separate rulemaking defining the agency's risk evaluation process, the agency should codify the requirement that fees collected for industry-sought reviews must be adequate to cover all or 50 percent of the costs to conduct the review, regardless of the scope.
The group also says that EPA should make clear that the agency has sole responsibility and authority to establish the scopes of all risk evaluations, including those requested by manufacturers. EDF says that the new mandate allowing companies to request and fund risk evaluations for specific chemicals was intended to expand the universe of chemicals targeted for reviews, not to allow risk reviews that deviate in scope from those the agency would initiate on its own.
“Yet some industry representatives are suggesting that EPA can and should conduct risk evaluations only on conditions of use requested by manufacturers,” the comments say. “This is clearly not allowed by the law.”
The groups' comments also say that EPA should use the fees rulemaking to ensure that companies would not be allowed to pay a higher fee in exchange for an expedited review on a certain chemical. EDF also says that the fee requirements should include costs associated with EPA's chemical testing authority under section 4 of the revised law, and for the costs of reviewing required exemption notices for new chemicals under section 5.
Meanwhile, ACC in written comments submitted Aug. 25, says that EPA must be careful to avoid setting fee requirements that would stymie innovation, and that although the new law grants the agency authority to assess fees for activities under sections 4, 5 and 6 of TSCA, “not all of that authority must be exercised.”
For example, ACC says that EPA should not assess fees for submission of data under section 4, as is the current practice under TSCA, and “fees for submissions and Agency actions under sections 5 and 6 should reflect the level of effort required of EPA.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-fight-chemical-industry-bid-limit-tsca-fees-scope
-
10 Things You Need to Know About the New U.S. Chemicals Law
Aug 29, 2016 | Ensia
By Elizabeth Grossman
“This is a big deal,” said President Barack Obama as he signed into law the bill that updates — for the first time in 40 years — the nation’s main chemical safety legislation. Called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to honor the late senator for whom this was a special cause, the law revises the Toxic Substances Control Act that gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate chemicals used commercially in the United States.
As Obama noted at the June 22 signing ceremony, TSCA was supposed to ensure that chemicals used in the U.S. were safe for human health and the environment. But, said the president, “Even with the best of intentions, the law didn’t quite work the way it should have in practice.”
In fact, TSCA allowed the approximately 62,000 chemicals already on the market when it was passed in 1976 to continue being used without safety testing. It also placed enormously high hurdles for the EPA to clear before demonstrating a chemical was hazardous enough to ban. Even asbestos has failed to meet those requirements. It was widely agreed, by industry and environmental advocates alike that TSCA was badly in need of revision.
As the Lautenberg Act’s lead sponsor Senator Tom Udall told Ensia by email, “Most Americans believe that if they can buy a product at the grocery store or the hardware store, the government has tested it and determined that it’s safe. But that hasn’t been true. There has been no cop on the beat testing chemicals to make sure they’re safe — even the ones in your home.”
But exactly what the revisions should look like was a matter of considerable debate, and the new legislation was years in the making. Overall, the revised TSCA gives the EPA far more authority to act on hazardous chemicals. And while questions and reservations about the bill remain on all sides, it’s largely been greeted with hope that the new law will enable the EPA to do a better job of evaluating and acting effectively on chemical safety.
EPA is already putting the new legislation into practice. But as Environmental Defense Fund lead senior scientist Richard Denison said, “It’s not going to be an overnight process. The original law dug a very deep hole that we have to climb out of.”
As that process gets underway, here’s what anyone concerned about the safety of chemicals we all encounter daily, should know about what the new TSCA will — and won’t — do:
1. What does TSCA regulate?
TSCA regulates chemicals used commercially in the United States. That said, TSCA does not regulate pesticides, chemicals used in cosmetics and personal care products, food, food packaging, or pharmaceuticals. Some chemicals, however, have multiple uses and so may be regulated concurrently by TSCA and other federal laws. For example, TSCA regulates the plastics ingredient bisphenol A when it’s used as a receipt paper coating, but the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act regulates BPAwhen it’s used in food packaging.
2. Will the new law make it easier for the EPA to restrict or ban use of highly toxic chemicals?
Unlike the old law, the new TSCA requires EPA to review the safety of all chemicals used commercially in the U.S. “The EPA is actually required to look at existing chemicals,” says Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, director of the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. “Under the old TSCA there was no mandate that the EPA look at existing chemicals. That’s huge.”
The new TSCA “gives EPA sweeping new authority to prioritize and evaluate existing chemicals so it will be easier for EPA to regulate these substances, if found to pose unreasonable risks,” says chemical regulation expert Lynn Bergeson, managing partner at the law firm Bergeson & Campbell.
The EPA must also review all new chemicals and decide if they present “an unreasonable risk” to human health and the environment. If such risks are found, the EPA may restrict or ban a chemical. Under the old TSCA, chemical manufacturers had to submit certain information to the EPA before new chemicals could go on the market — but unless the EPA raised objections within 90 days, the chemicals could be sold without further scrutiny. According to the EPA, the agency has taken action on only about 10 percent of the nearly 40,000 new chemicals submitted to the agency between 1979 and September 30, 2015. EDF’s Denison says this 10 percent may be an overestimate.
Now new chemicals must be found safe before they can be sold, says Environmental Working Group legislative attorney Melanie Benesh.
What the EPA does under the Lautenberg Act will, however, also depend on available funding. The law requires the chemical industry to help pay for the program, but the EPA also depends on federal budgets as determined by Congress. Udall says he “will be fighting to make sure the EPA has the resources it needs to do its job.”
3. Will the new law let EPA restrict or ban use of highly toxic chemicals more quickly?
Yes — in theory. The new law requires the EPA to prioritize chemicals for evaluation. It also sets enforceable deadlines for the EPA’s chemical reviews.
By mid-December 2016 (within the bill’s first 180 days) the EPA must have begun to review at least 10 chemicals. These will come from a list of existing chemicals the agency had already decided to evaluate. Within the first three-and-a-half years, the EPA must have 20 ongoing chemical evaluations. Reviews are supposed to be completed within three years, but that deadline can be extended six months. The EPA is supposed to issue any regulations within two years after that. The EPA can extend either of these deadlines but extensions for one chemical can’t add up to more than two years.
Given the enormous backlog, progress through the untested chemicals will still be slow — to say the least. In fact doing the math on 62,000 chemicals shows it could take the EPA centuries to work through every substance. But given that the old TSCA had no chemical review deadlines, the Lautenberg Act aims to improve substantially on the decades-long reviews of single chemicals that occurred under its predecessor.
4. What chemical hazards is the new TSCA designed to protect us from?
The first chemicals the EPA will evaluate must come from a list the agency has already decided merit review — chemicals that pose concerns for children’s health, are carcinogenic, environmentally persistent, toxic and build up in fat or other living tissue, or are widely found in biomonitoring programs.
After that, when choosing chemicals to review, the EPA must give priority to those with large exposure potential, those that are environmentally persistent and bioaccumulate, and those that are stored near important drinking water sources. The new law also tells the EPA to address chemicals that are likely to pose health and safety threats to those considered most vulnerable — including infants, children, pregnant women, workers and the elderly.
Additional criteria for chemical prioritization are due from the EPA by June 2017.
5. What chemical hazards will the new TSCA leave untouched, if any?
The new law authorizes the EPA to review all existing and new chemicals, to identify those that pose unreasonable risks, and to regulate or eliminate those risks. The goal is to leave no unreasonable risk untouched. The details of EPA’s risk evaluations, however, have still to be worked out in a rule that must be completed by June 2017. These — along with the additional chemical prioritization criteria — will play a big role in determining exactly how effective the Lautenberg Act will be at reducing exposure to hazardous chemicals.
6. Will the new law do a better job of preventing disastrous chemical spills?
While TSCA is not intended to address or prevent chemical spills, the new law’s requirements should eventually help reduce the impact of spills or other accidents. Among these is the requirement that chemical companies disclose their products’ contents in emergencies rather than claim such information as trade secrets.
7. Will the new law keep hazardous materials out of furniture, clothing and personal care products?
Because some chemicals used in these products (which aren’t covered by TSCA) have additional uses that fall under TSCA’s purview, the upgraded review process could potentially avert hazardous chemicals’ use in a wide range of consumer products.
8. Is the new TSCA likely to proactively change chemical companies’ practices?
Because the new TSCA requires all chemicals to be evaluated, it’s expected to influence which chemicals are chosen as product ingredients, how chemicals are used in manufacturing and how chemicals are manufactured as companies try to avoid using chemicals likely to be restricted or banned. This may also create an incentive for new, safer chemicals and finished products.
9. What are its implications with respect to environmental justice?
The new TSCA requires the EPA to consider impacts of chemical exposures on those most “susceptible” to these effects, “such as infants, children, pregnant women, workers, or the elderly.’’ How the EPA defines “susceptible” and “vulnerable” and how it considers impacts to these groups is yet to be determined. But already, public interest groups have asked the EPA to consider social and economic factors.
10. What aspects have yet to be settled, and what can citizens do to influence them?
Instead of hammering out chemical prioritization criteria and the details of how the EPA will evaluate chemical risks before the Lautenberg Act was passed, lawmakers decided to leave those torules that will become part of the overall law. The rule-making process involves official public comment periods, so the EPA will be considering those as it writes these rules, along with a rule about potential chemical industry fees that will go toward covering some of the law’s costs. Initial public comment periods for these rules are already closed. The law also includes public comment periods before the EPA finalizes these rules, as well as for ongoing chemical selections and evaluations.
And, points out Kathy Curtis, Clean and Healthy New York executive director, the new law leaves ample room for continued action on the part of state legislatures and citizens. This includes action on chemical uses TSCA doesn’t regulate and new bills on chemical use reporting — both of which have been instrumental in influencing which chemicals get used in consumer products.
As many have cautioned, substantive changes will take time. But according to the EPA’s Cleland-Hamnett, the new law opens the potential for “a huge increase in human health and environmental protection.” But this won’t happen without public engagement on the part of those with a stake in the outcome — essentially, all of us.
http://ensia.com/features/10-things-need-know-new-u-s-chemicals-law/
-
Will Updated Toxic Substances Control Act Regulate Asbestos?
Aug 29, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Regulating asbestos under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act was ruled illegal. But it may get the go-ahead under the newly reformed federal chemical safety rules.
President Obama in June signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, requiring new testing and regulation of thousands of chemicals used in everything from cleaning products to paint thinners and clothing. The new law calls on the EPA to select 10 chemicals by mid-December to review for possible regulations.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), has sent a letter to the EPA saying asbestos should be reviewed in this first round, Morning Consult reports. Her letter sites research from the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, which estimates there are 15,000 asbestos-related deaths per year in the US, including 11,000 from lung cancer.
“The combination of well-documented, widespread and serious health effects and ongoing use and exposure provides a strong basis for EPA to act quickly on asbestos,” Boxer wrote.
Earlier this summer the EPA posted an Implementation Planthat outlines the agency’s first-year plans to implement the new chemical safety rules. It gives chemical companies and others a better idea of what, and when, they can expect in terms of EPA rulemaking and enforcement activities.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/08/29/will-updated-toxic-substances-control-act-regulate-asbestos/
-
Senator Pushes to Ensure Asbestos is On EPA Review List
Aug 29, 2016 | Mesothelioma.net
By Terri Oppenheimer
Earlier this year, the U.S. Congress signed into law theFrank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. This law instructs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to more carefully evaluate the regulatory process governing harmful chemicals like asbestos, which has been shown to cause the rare and fatal form of cancer known as mesothelioma. Though the EPA is required to choose the first ten chemicals that it will be evaluating by December 22nd, only a few of the specific chemicals have been identified, and so far asbestos is not on the list. As a result, Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, has sent a letter to the agency requesting that asbestos is immediately added to the list.
The letter, which was sent to the EPA Administrator’s Gina McCarthy, was emphatic in stating the importance of making sure that asbestos is included in the first ten chemicals to be chosen. Boxer wrote,
“The chemicals selected will drive EPA’s agenda for the next several years. To build confidence in the agency’s ability to deliver meaningful results for our children and families, EPA must consider all forms of asbestos in this initial list of chemicals it acts on.”
It is somewhat perplexing that asbestos was not automatically placed on the list of chemicals to be evaluated in the initial risk assessment list. It has been included in the existing Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Work Plan list for quite some time, and has been a vital cause of concern for health advocates for decades. The substance has not been mined in the United States for almost 15 years, but in that amount of time there were millions upon millions of pounds imported into the country. There have been asbestos bans that have been proposed in the U.S. since 1991, but the powerful asbestos lobbies have successfully fought all previous efforts that have been made. Speaking of the struggle and the need for the reform represented by the new law, President Barack Obama said,
“The system was so complex, it was so burdensome that our country hasn’t even been able to uphold a ban on asbestos – a known carcinogen that kills as many as 10,000 Americans every year.”
If you are among the tens of thousands of people in the United States who have suffered health issues like mesothelioma or asbestosis as a result of exposure to this dangerous carcinogen, you are not alone. The attorneys at Danziger & De Llano are here to provide you with the assistance you need to get the compensation that you deserve. Contact us today to learn more about how we can help.
http://mesothelioma.net/mesothelioma-news/senator-pushes-to-ensure-asbestos-is-on-epa-review-list/
-
Vt. Judge Dismisses Case Over Chemicals in Drinking Water
Aug 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Howard Weiss-Tisman
A Superior Court judge in Washington, Vt., threw out a lawsuit over the state's interim safety standard for perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA.
The lawsuit from manufacturing company Saint-Gobain SA claimed that the state did not support its regulations with adequate scientific data. The interim safety standard set the limit of PFOA in drinking water at 20 parts per trillion, which is lower than U.S. EPA's limit of 70 parts per trillion.
Saint-Gobain owned factories that were suspected of contaminating 259 private wells around Bennington, Vt. The lawsuit claimed Vermont did not use an adequate rulemaking process to determine the new levels of PFOA.
But Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Alyssa Schuren said the judge's decision helps the state set a good health standard.
"Our health department went through a very rigorous analysis of different pieces of information on the chemicals PFOA and PFOS [perfluorooctanesulfonic acid]," Schuren said. "We feel very good about the process that we've done at the state and also about our 20 parts per trillion and the science behind that. And so this wasn't unexpected for us, but it was welcomed".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/29/stories/1060042150
-
Anti-Fracking Measures Won’t Go Before Colorado Voters in November
Aug 29, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Erin Ailworth
Two measures that would have allowed local communities to ban hydraulic fracturing in Colorado failed to garner enough support for the fall ballot, state officials said Monday, the most high-profile defeat to date for groups aiming to curtail the controversial drilling technique.
Supporters of the measures, which could have severely limited oil-and-gas production in the energy-rich state, fell short of gathering the nearly 98,500 signatures each initiative needed to get on the ballot, according to an analysis by the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office. Officials said they were able to validate fewer than 80,000 signatures for each ballot proposal, based on a random 5% sample of all the signatures submitted.
The determination is the latest blow to efforts in Colorado and other major energy-producing states that seek to limit oil and gas development amid concerns that it is happening too close to large communities and harming the environment.
Drilling often involves a process called hydraulic fracturing in which large amounts of water and sand, and some chemicals are injected deep underground to crack rock formations trapping reserves of oil and gas.
Earlier this year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that current state law pre-empts municipalities from barring the use of fracking.
One of the measures that fell short of the ballot could have changed that law, granting more regulatory authority to local governments, giving them the power to limit or ban oil and gas development.
The other measure called for new oil and gas developments to be set at least 2,500 feet from any occupied structure—a mandate so strict that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission determined it would prohibit oil and gas development in most of the state, and could eventually kill the industry there.
Tensions over oil and gas extraction rose in recent years as the shale boom caused a surge of drilling and fracking in places like Colorado, Texas, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania—home to some of the largest and most prolific drilling regions in the continental U.S.
Oil output in Colorado has more than quintupled, from 64,000 barrels in 2005 to 327,000 barrels a day in 2015, when the state produced about 3.5% of the nation’s crude, up from less than 2% in 2005.
Environmentalists and communities have sought to rein in that activity without much success. In 2014, an agreement between two of Colorado’s top Democrats kept a pair of anti-fracking measures off the ballot, but did help spur the creation of a task force to advise state leaders on the best ways to address residents’ concerns about the industry.
Residents in other oil-and-gas producing states have also tried to ban fracking but failed. Last year, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed a law prohibiting such bans—a measure passed after the residents in the north Texas city of Denton had voted to institute a fracking ban. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the state has exclusive authority to permit oil and gas drilling.
New York, meanwhile, has instituted a statewide fracking ban.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/anti-fracking-measures-wont-go-before-colorado-voters-in-november-1472486484
-
Anti-Fracking Measures Fail to Make Nov. Ballot
Aug 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin and Mike Lee
Colorado election officials today rejected two ballot initiatives aimed at curbing oil and gas development in the Centennial State, ruling sponsors had failed to collect enough signatures to put the proposals before voters in November.
Secretary of State Wayne Williams announced that the measures, known as Initiative 78 and Initiative 75, each submitted more than the 98,492 signatures required, but a random sampling showed that about 20 percent of them would likely prove invalid after a full review.
In addition, Williams announced that a section of "potentially forged signature lines" for Initiative 78 had been forwarded to state Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) for investigation.
Neither Yes for Health and Safety Over Fracking, which is an umbrella group of more than 50 environmental organizations working on the petition drive, nor Coloradans Resisting Extreme Energy Development, which sponsored the ballot initiatives, immediately responded to a request for comment on the ruling.
The groups have 30 days to appeal Williams' decision in Denver district court.
In the meantime, Colorado's oil and gas industry greeted the ruling with a collective sigh of relief.
"Coloradans have sent a clear message that they don't want to resolve these complex issues at the ballot box," Colorado Oil and Gas Association President Dan Haley said in an emailed statement. "The good news is that after this long and unnecessary battle, our state emerges as the winner."
As proposed, Initiative 78 would have created a 2,500-foot setback for new oil and gas wells and related production and processing. Initiative 75 would have allowed local governments to pass regulations or otherwise limit oil and gas development.
Companies have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the fracking petitions and promoting a separate initiative.
That measure, Initiative 96, will ask voters to adopt stricter requirements for ballot questions and to impose a supermajority of 55 percent to approve amendments to the Colorado Constitution.
Its sponsor — the Raise the Bar, Protect Our Constitution campaign — received significant financial support from advocates of the oil and gas industry, including Vital for Colorado, a coalition of business and civic organizations that promotes "responsible oil and gas policy."
The failure of the anti-fracking initiatives marks the second election cycle in a row that environmentalists have unsuccessfully sought to put restrictions on oil and gas developments before voters.
During the 2014 cycle, both environmentalists and oil and gas interests were battling for a host of ballot initiatives, including restrictions on development and measures to punish communities that opted to ban hydraulic fracturing.
Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) brokered a truce under which none of those measures went to the secretary of state for certification. Instead, both sides agreed to address oil and gas development via a special state task force.
Environmentalists voiced disappointed with the group's ultimate recommendations and a state Supreme Court ruling in May that overturned a local ban on fracking in Longmont and a moratorium in Fort Collins.
Colorado's oil production has grown more than fourfold in the last decade, to about 310,000 barrels a day, in large part because of the boom in fracking.
That makes it only the seventh biggest oil-producing state. Still, production from the Niobrara and other shale formations has pushed oil and gas operations into the suburbs of Denver.
Oil companies, including Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. subsidiary XTO Energy Inc., have argued that Colorado's existing regulations are enough to protect public safety.
The low turnout for the anti-drilling petitions "demonstrates that our fellow Coloradans recognize the strong regulatory structure already in place and the disastrous impacts these measures would've had on our state," Robin Olsen, Anadarko's public affairs manager for the Rocky Mountain region, wrote in an email.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/29/stories/1060042168
-
UGI Breaks Ground on Sunbury Pipeline to Supply PA NatGas-Fired Power Plant
Aug 29, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
UGI Energy Services LLC has broken ground on the Sunbury Pipeline, which would supply one of the nation's largest coal-to-natural gas power conversion projects in central Pennsylvania Snyder County.
The company hosted a groundbreaking ceremony on Wednesday near the site of the proposed plant that attracted nearly 100 guests, UGI said. The company announced the 35-mile, 200,000 Dth/d pipeline in December 2014 (see Daily GPI, Dec. 22, 2014). It would provide Marcellus Shale gas to Panda Power Funds LP's 1,124 MW Hummel Station. Bechtel Corp. started construction on the plant last summer.
"Pennsylvania continues to set new records in natural gas production, breaking 4.6 Tcf last year," said Chairwoman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Gladys Brown, who spoke at the event. "Projects like the Sunbury Pipeline will not only help bring more local energy to local users, but also help meet our clean power goals by fueling efficient natural gas-fired electric generation."
The pipeline would begin in Lycoming County, PA, and end at the site in Snyder County. UGI has said it expects to invest $150 million to build the system and anticipates completing it by the end of the year. It would take gas from Williams' Transcontinental Gas Pipeline.
Panda secured $835 million in financing for the power plant last year and plans to have it complete by 2018 (see Daily GPI, Oct. 29, 2015). The plant is located on the western bank of the Susquehanna River at the site of a former coal-fired power plant that was retired in 2014. The natural gas-fired facility is expected to provide 180% more power than the former 400 MW coal-fired plant.
Panda has two other 829 MW natural gas-fired power plants in the state in Bradford and Lycoming counties. Those were completed and turned over to Panda this year for commercial operations (seeDaily GPI, June 24).
UGI's ceremony came on the same day as Omaha-based Tenaska hosted a similar groundbreaking ceremony on the other side of the state in Westmoreland County, where state, local and executive officials celebrated progress on the company's 925 MW natural gas-fired plant (see Daily GPI, Aug. 24). Construction on the Westmoreland Generating Station started earlier this year and Tenaska also expects that the plant will be completed by 2018. The facilities are some of the dozens of natural gas power plants that have broken ground, been approved or proposed in the state (see Daily GPI,May 13).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107554-ugi-breaks-ground-on-sunbury-pipeline-to-supply-pa-natgas-fired-power-plant
-
W.Va. Rail Car Leaks Chlorine, Forcing Evacuations, Shutdown
Aug 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A rail car loaded with liquid chlorine leaked Saturday, resulting in the evacuation and shutdown of a West Virginia chemical plant.
An Axiall Corp. employee and a contractor at the company's Natrium facility near Proctor, W.Va., were treated and released at area hospitals. The rail car is no longer leaking.
Several communities near the plant were evacuated, and some highways were closed to traffic. Other industrial plants had shelters in place. Highway traffic has resumed, along with river travel on the Ohio River.
This month, a coalition of hazardous materials shippers pushed the Department of Transportation to reassert its authority over tank car standards, bringing longstanding tensions with the rail industry to the fore (EnergyWire, Aug. 15).
In 2014, one worker died after a chemical explosion at Axiall's Natrium facility. And in December, a steam release injured 11.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/29/stories/1060042148
-
Emergency Responders to Get Advanced Notice of Oil Trains
Aug 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Terminals and refineries that use oil trains must now notify the Washington State Department of Ecology in advance of oil shipments through the state.
The state's environmental arm implemented the new rule last week in large part to notify local emergency response teams when oil trains will pass through their region.
Oil trains have come under scrutiny after a derailment near Mosier, Ore., in June (EnergyWire, June 6).
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) said the new rule will safeguard public health and prevent oil train disasters.
Washington state currently sees two to three oil trains per day, as shipments from North Dakota's Bakken Shale oil fields are routed west through Spokane.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/29/stories/1060042149
-
Study Links Some Emissions to 'Inefficiencies' at Frack Sites
Aug 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Some air pollution from oil and gas hydraulic fracturing sites stems from "operational inefficiencies" and is therefore manageable, according to a newly released study by researchers at the University of Texas, Arlington.
The study, which looked at emissions of benzene and three other volatile organic compounds at drilling sites in South Texas' Eagle Ford Shale region, found that ambient air levels varied widely and were often attributable to natural gas flaring units, condensation tanks and other factors.
The findings indicate that "mechanical inefficiencies, and not the inherent nature of the extraction process as a whole, result in the release of these compounds into the environment," Kevin Schug, a UTA chemistry professor and one of the paper's co-authors, said in a news release.
Besides benzene, researchers also sampled for releases of toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, often dubbed collectively as BTEX. Their paper was published Friday in the journal Science of the Total Environment.
The results could play into the broader debate over air pollution from fracking and other forms of unconventional oil and gas development. In a lengthy story earlier this month, the San Antonio Express-News detailed concerns from Eagle Ford residents that oil production was making them sick (EnergyWire, Aug. 9). And in recently reporting that releases of volatile organic compounds and other pollutants have spiked as a result of Marcellus Shale natural gas operations, Patrick McDonnell, acting head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, stressed the importance of cracking down on pipeline leaks.
In the Eagle Ford region, the UTA researchers flagged benzene, a known carcinogen, as the biggest concern of the volatile organic compounds measured. Sampling at six pad sites sometime found concentrations above the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 500-parts-per-billion "action level" for exposure over eight hours, according to the paper, which noted that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends a much stricter 100 ppb limit.
Workers "could be subjected to potentially harmful levels of ambient benzene" if safety precautions weren't taken and the relatively high concentrations persisted, the paper said.
Ambient levels of toluene and xylene were much less worrisome because they were "orders of magnitude below their respective occupational health standards," the researchers wrote.
Even so, the cumulative impact on nearby residents remains to be determined, they added, as do the effects on plants and soil.
"The discovery that individual processes are not emitting BTEX into the atmosphere in a systematic and uniform fashion is certainly comforting," the study said. "However, the operational inefficiencies identified from these data are significant within the context of air quality standards."
The research was largely paid for by a consortium financed by land and mineral rights owners, as well as by "citizens concerned about the potential environmental impacts of industrial processes," the paper said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/29/stories/1060042163
-
Advocates Claim Corps' 404 Permits Ignore Mandatory Mitigation Concerns
Aug 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Environmentalists are challenging five Army Corps of Engineers-issued Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 permits for a major pipeline project, saying the Corps failed to adequately address mitigation of watershed loss during the permitting process -- at odds with a federal rule issued in 2008 that outlines mitigation mandates.
The suit, filed Aug. 17 by several environmental groups in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, asks the court to review the Corps' Aug. 11 decision to issue five permits under section 404 of the CWA to Sabal Trail Transmission, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company and Florida Southeast Connection for the Southeast Market Pipelines Project.
The environmental groups -- Gulf Restoration Network, Flint Riverkeeper and Sierra Club -- are planning to argue that the Corps failed to give adequate notice of how the companies would mitigate loss of wetlands ahead of issuing a final permit, consequently failing to provide an appropriate opportunity for public comment, says one advocate involved in the suit, Gulf Restoration Network, et al., v. Army Corps of Engineers.
The "substantive problem" is that the Corps' approach to mitigation allows use of mitigation banks that would offset the impacts for some segments of the pipeline in areas outside of the watershed, the source says, adding that this is contrary to EPA and the Corps' 2008 regulations which encourage a watershed approach.
Under the CWA, EPA and the Corps generally require development projects conducted under dredge-and-fill activities that impact wetlands to adopt compensatory mitigation plans for offsetting the impact to developed areas.
The pipleline permits detail the amount of credits and specify the banks for each portion of the project. For example, Sabal Trail would purchase prior to commencement of the project 324.69 wetland mitigation credits from Cecil Bay Mitigation Bank, 82.78 wetland mitigation credits from Magnolia Swamp Mitigation Bank, and 33.58 wetland mitigation credits from Kolomoki Mitigation Bank, and provide documentation to the Savannah District of the purchases.
But the Corps also says in some of the project areas, such as within the Lower Swanee River watershed, there is "no complete service area coverage from a federally approved mitigation bank."
The Corps also notes that other banks were proposed by the permittees. "In this case, the utilization of credits from an approved mitigation bank would be considered very preferable to the establishment of up to 118 individual permittee responsible mitigation sites along more than 100 miles of the proposed pipeline corridor," the Corps says.
The Corps says that based on guidance and its review of the associated impacts of the project, it has determined that the permittee may go to the proposed mitigation banks to address their mitigation needs.
But the Corps "also recognizes that the relevance of a mitigation effort is diminished as the primary watersheds of the mitigation site and impact site become further removed."
Mitigation Mandates
EPA and the Corps in their March 31, 2008, compensatory mitigation regulation clarified requirements for curbing impacts to wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources, including recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC) for improving the mitigation projects. The NRC recommended adoption of a watershed approach, for example, for selecting and designing approaches based on the needs of the watershed in which the impacts would occur to address factors like local hydrology, ecological benefits and land use.
The 2008 rule put into place a preference for banks ahead of "onsite" mitigation by regulated permittees, but specified that the bank's "service area" should be defined using a watershed approach, one source tracking the issue says.
The rule set ecological performance standards for various compensation efforts, required regular monitoring to ensure the standards are met, and clarified components of a compensation plan based on aquatic ecosystem science.
A major component of the rule was the creation of a preferential hierarchy of compensation mechanisms; mitigation banks are first given preference, followed by in-lieu fee programs, followed by permittee-responsible mitigation.
Under the wetlands banking program, property owners can build, enhance or restore wetlands meant to offset the destruction of wetlands elsewhere from approval of CWA section 404 permits.
When builders seek a section 404 permit to destroy wetlands, they have to include in their application mitigation measures, which demonstrate what the applicant intends to do to offset the destruction of the wetlands.
A seller of wetland bank credits must meet certain criteria, including guarantees that the wetlands that are created through the bank will remain in perpetuity, in order to qualify.
The agencies in a November 2015 review of the 2008 rule say, "Banks and in-lieu fee programs are usually considered preferable to permittee-responsible mitigation, as they involve such aspects as: consolidating compensatory mitigation projects where ecologically appropriate, using a watershed approach, providing a greater level of financial planning, and scientific expertise, reducing temporal losses of functions, and reducing uncertainty over project success."
According to an EPA fact sheet, while mitigation banks perform "offsite" mitigation at a location not on or immediately adjacent to the site of the impacts, the rule specifies it should fall within the same watershed as the project.
The 2015 review says that the rule intended to codify a number of the NRC recommendations, including the adoption of a Watershed Approach to guide compensatory mitigation project site selection and design, and establishes equivalent standards for aquatic resource compensatory mitigation projects.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/advocates-claim-corps-404-permits-ignore-mandatory-mitigation-concerns
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