Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 9/14/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fees Under New TSCA Must Not 'Deter Innovation'
Sep 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups have urged the US EPA not to set fees that will hamper innovation under the new TSCA, in comments submitted to the agency. -
Your Household Dust Probably Contains These Chemicals
Sep 14, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
Do you know what’s in your household dust? Chances are, an array of potentially harmful chemicals, according to new research published Wednesday. -
Toxic Dust: The Dangerous Chemical Brew in Every Home
Sep 13, 2016 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Veena Singla
As I was frantically cleaning my apartment last month in preparation for a visit from my parents, I paused for a moment to stare at the dark smudge on the damp cloth I was dusting with. -
Not Just Dirt: Toxic Chemicals in Indoor Dust
Sep 14, 2016 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Veena Singla
People in the United States spend more than 90 percent of their time indoors on average—in places like homes, schools, offices, gyms, and cars. These places are usually full of dust, which is more than just dirt. -
US EPA Releases Final IRIS Report On Trimethylbenzenes
Sep 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has released its final report on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicological review of trimethylbenzenes (TMBs). -
New Jersey Weighs PFOA Drinking Water Limit Stricter Than EPA Advisory
Sep 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) advisory board is proposing a first-in-the-nation enforceable drinking water standard for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), suggesting a level much stricter than EPA's drinking water advisory for the chemical and questioning whether EPA's level would sufficiently protect against cancer. -
Drug, Other Companies Must Report Mercury Uses to EPA
Sep 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Battery, lamp, pharmaceutical and switch manufacturers that use mercury or mercury compounds will have to provide the Environmental Protection Agency with information under the amended chemicals law. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Revolution Keeps Growing
Sep 13, 2016 | Corpus Christie Caller Times
By J. Winston Porter
The importance of our new role as the world's largest natural gas producer is still only beginning to come into focus. Thanks to the shale revolution, our now vast and inexpensive supply of natural gas is reshaping how we generate electricity, attract many billions of dollars in manufacturing investment and turn the geopolitics of natural gas exports in our favor. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Gas Surge Triggers U.S. Petrochemicals Wave
Sep 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The upsurge in U.S. shale gas production has triggered waves of expansion projects for manufacturers of petrochemicals, plastics and fertilizer that are expected to create thousands of long-term jobs and many new revenue sources. -
API Details Opposition To Moving RFS 'Point Of Obligation'
Sep 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is detailing its opposition to a push from other refiners for EPA to move the “point of obligation” for compliance with the renewable fuel standard (RFS), claiming the change would “distract” from true reform or repeal of the program and halt recent momentum toward that goal in Congress. -
How a Recent Court Ruling Could Transform Energy Policy
Sep 13, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Richard L. Revesz
A recent federal court ruling may have opened a new chapter in U.S. climate and energy policy. In early August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit sided with the Department of Energy (DOE) in a challenge to the agency’s energy efficiency standards for commercial refrigerators. -
Protesters Slam North Dakota Pipeline but Company 'Committed'
Sep 14, 2016 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
Holding signs and banners and chanting "Oil Kills," protesters in Atlanta and other U.S. cities on Tuesday shouted support for Native American activists trying to stop construction of a North Dakota pipeline they say will desecrate sacred land and pollute water. -
Hundreds Rally At White House For Obama To Kill Project
Sep 14, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder and Hannah Northey
Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and hundreds of protesters rallied outside the White House yesterday calling for a halt to the $3.7 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline, even as the developer vowed to move forward. -
Obama Administration Dakota Pipeline Intervention 'Unprecedented,' API, Union Officials Say
Sep 14, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
As a coalition of Native American and environmental activists staged protests in Washington, DC, and around the nation Tuesday, energy industry and construction trades officials pushed back against the Obama administration's eleventh-hour interference in the Dakota Access oil pipeline project now under construction. -
NGSA Advocates For Pipeline Projects in New York State
Sep 14, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) has stepped up in support of two pipeline projects in New York State, pushing back against environmentalist objections to one and arguing for approval of a delayed state air permit for another. -
FRA Safety Grants Include Millions To Amtrak, Metro North, Short Lines
Sep 13, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) yesterday awarded $25 million in grants to increase safety at railroad crossings, train stations, and tracks across the United States. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA: Court Should Retain Boiler Emissions Limits for Now
Sep 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Emissions limits covering industrial boilers should be left in place while the Environmental Protection Agency works to address legal flaws identified by a federal appeals court, the agency said in a court filing (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1108, petitions filed 9/12/16). -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists, Utility Seek Rehearing Of D.C. Circuit Boiler MACT Ruling
Sep 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists and an electric utility are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rehear its ruling that largely upheld the agency's boiler air toxics standards, although advocates are pushing the court to force stricter limits while the utility is faulting parts of the rule as too strict. -
EPA Tweaks Area Source Boiler Emissions Standards
Sep 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is tweaking various compliance requirements under its federal emissions standards for area source boilers that it projects will not significantly change expected compliance costs and pollution reductions. -
Modified EPA Boiler MACT Revises Facility 'Startup, Shutdown' Definitions
Sep 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is modifying its contested boiler maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule to refine regulatory definitions for facility “startup” and “shutdown,” in response to criticisms from major industry groups that the initial definitions created regulatory uncertainty because they were too vague or were inaccurate.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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) Fees Under New TSCA Must Not 'Deter Innovation'
Sep 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups have urged the US EPA not to set fees that will hamper innovation under the new TSCA, in comments submitted to the agency.
The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA) – which amends TSCA –authorises the EPA to establish fees to defray its costs for: testing; new substance notification; and risk evaluation and management (as set out in sections 4, 5, and 6).
Fees may also support collecting, processing, reviewing, and providing access to and protecting from disclosure as appropriate under section 14 information on chemical substances.
The law also requires the EPA to consult with parties potentially subject to TSCA user fees prior to their establishment.
"A simple assessment of the number of new chemicals introduced in the US on an annual basis, compared to other regions, shows that innovation is much stronger here than abroad," said the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). "The main reason for such disparate numbers is the low financial barrier of entry into the US marketplace."”
Fees must not impede this innovation, it said.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma), said it is very concerned that submitters of pre-manufacture notices (PMN) could become an easy target for subsidising the management of existing chemicals. This, it says, is "because of the large number of new chemical notices submitted annually and the ease of charging for them."
Socma acknowledged that there was broad consensus that $2,500 is too low a fee for a PMN. But it urged the EPA to adopt a fee structure that is not overly restrictive to market entry.
"The current fee has contributed to making the US the preferred market for new chemistries and has resulted in a relatively large number of new chemical submissions when compared to other regions."
Risk evaluations, Socma said, "can and should bear the brunt of meeting EPA's cost recovery requirements."
Additional considerations
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said the EPA should establish a single fee per substance for these risk evaluations under section 6. And it should afford consortia the "flexibility to make their own decisions on how those fees should be allocated among different market participants."
Fees for risk evaluations should reflect the amount of effort the EPA anticipates or experiences, it said.
The National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) also raised the issue of the small manufacturer definition. The $40m threshold, it said, "is so far from the reality of the chemical industry as to be completely unworkable and in need of complete revision."
Several groups also urged the EPA not to charge fees for:the test market, low volume (LVE), low release-low exposure (LoREX) or polymer exemptions;making confidential business information (CBI) claims; orsubmissions under section 4 test rules or orders, as the company is already responsible for bearing the costs of the testing.
But NGO the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) countered that the EPA has costs associated with administering section 4. These include the costs of:developing rules or orders;negotiating consent agreements; andcollecting, managing, and providing access to information received pursuant to required testing.
The agency should collect fees to cover these costs, it said.
It also objected to the suggestion that exemptions not be allocated fees.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49600/fees-under-new-tsca-must-not-deter-innovation
-
Your Household Dust Probably Contains These Chemicals
Sep 14, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
Do you know what’s in your household dust? Chances are, an array of potentially harmful chemicals, according to new research published Wednesday.
Researchers analyzed dozens of studies from coast to coast and found that the vast majority of dust samples contain the same types of chemicals, many of which come from household items. Among them: Flame retardants commonly found in furniture, highly fluorinated chemicals used in such items as non-stick cookware, and phthalates, which exist in everything from cosmetics to toys to food packaging and which some research on animals has suggested could affect the reproductive system and disrupt hormones.
The findings suggest that each day, household dust exposes most Americans — particularly children, who face heightened risks because of their still-developing bodies — to chemicals that have been associated with potential health risks, especially when ingested over long periods of time.
“The number and levels of toxic chemicals that are likely in every one of our living rooms was shocking to me,” Veena Singla, a co-author of the study and a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an announcement about the findings.
Ami Zota, another co-author and a professor at George Washington University’s School of Public Health, said researchers examined 26 peer-reviewed studies on chemicals in dust, including one unpublished data set, across 14 different states. They identified 45 chemicals from five chemical classes. In particular, they found 10 potentially harmful chemicals in 90 percent of all dust samples. The details of those are here:
The dangers of many of these chemicals in humans, for the most part, remain poorly understood. In addition, it can be extremely difficult to associate specific health problems with a specific chemical exposure. And the researchers behind Wednesday’s dust study acknowledged the limitations they faced, including the fact that there is scant research on some of the chemicals they found. They also said that because the data came mostly from dust samples gathered on the East and West coasts, the findings might not be nationally representative.
But part of the value of Wednesday’s study is in how it details that a person’s exposure to chemicals can come from a wide variety of sources — and that small amounts can add up over time. People understandably think of chemical exposures coming mainly through soil, water and the air we breathe. But the universe of exposure could be wider than that, and the implications can be especially critical for young children.
“I don’t think we’ve really appreciated the exposure route of dust as much. It’s not often the first thing we think of,” said Tracey Woodruff, director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California at San Francisco. She was not involved in Wednesday’s study but said it underscores that when it comes to household dust, “there’s an exposure occurring that’s not insignificant.”
That, Woodruff said, should cause policymakers and regulators to take notice.
While it might seem nearly impossible to avoid encountering dust, given that we spend much of our time indoors, researchers said there are simple steps people can take to limit their exposure.
“Individual consumers do have some power to make healthier homes and to reduce individual exposures,” said Zota.
Strategies include frequent handwashing, using a strong vacuum with a HEPA filter, and avoiding personal care and household products that contain potentially harmful chemicals. Earlier this year, the Silent Spring Institute, which contributed to Wednesday’s study, released a mobile app that helps individual consumers find ways to reduce their exposure to toxic chemicals.
It’s name? Detox Me.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/14/your-household-dust-probably-contains-these-chemicals/?utm_term=.9639249b38ff
-
Toxic Dust: The Dangerous Chemical Brew in Every Home
Sep 13, 2016 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Veena Singla
As I was frantically cleaning my apartment last month in preparation for a visit from my parents, I paused for a moment to stare at the dark smudge on the damp cloth I was dusting with. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that little dust smudge contains a whole universe of toxic chemicals – chemicals that pollute the globe and build up in wildlife and humans, that can cause cancer, or are linked to birth defects in babies.
Never, that is, until I collaborated on a new study to put together all the data we have on chemicals in U.S. indoor dust with scientists from George Washington University, Silent Spring Institute, Harvard University and University of California- San Francisco. Dust is the common congregation place for all kinds of chemicals that migrate out of everyday products in our homes-- flooring, furniture, personal care products, cleaning products and myriad others. So our idea was that by looking at dust, and the individual chemicals in dust, we could reveal the bigger picture of chemical contamination in the home—just like individual dots in an impressionist painting create a larger image. And what we found paints a disturbing picture of what’s really inside home sweet home across America.
The dust in U.S. homes is chock-full of hazardous chemicals from our products—phthalates,flame retardants, and other toxic chemicals are unwelcome visitors in each and every one of our homes. Even worse, the chemicals don’t stop there—they can waltz right into our bodies when we breathe contaminated air or dust, touch contaminated dust, and accidentally get dust in our mouths from our hands. These chemicals pose health hazards including cancer, hormone disruption, and toxicity to the reproductive system.
We looked at each chemical in household dust from three different angles—how much is in the dust, how much gets into us, and what the health hazards are. But no matter which way we looked at it, phthalate and flame retardant chemicals stood out as top offenders. They’re found at higher levels, have higher estimated intakes for kids, and are linked to multiple health hazards.
Phthalates are used in numerous plastic and vinyl materials, as well as personal care products and cleaning products. Flame retardants are chemicals found in furniture, electronics, and building insulation. These products all shed phthalates and flame retardants into dust.
To better understand how risky these chemicals in dust might be, we completed an additional analysis separately from the published study. Unfortunately there are not standards established for chemicals in household dust, so we looked for something else we could compare to. Because exposure to dust is a lot like exposure to soil, we used soil screening levels established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for sites contaminated with chemicals as a comparison. These soil screening numbers reflect the levels at which a chemical might pose health risks to people, and thus exceedances require further investigation. EPA calculates two different numbers- one for cancer health risks, and another for non-cancer health risks, such as developmental or reproductive toxicity. Note that many chemicals in our study do not have soil screening levels established, but we did the comparison for the ones that did.
The graphs show the average dust concentration we calculated in our study by pooling data from individual studies (circle), the highest (maximum) level of the chemical found in each individual study (triangle), and the EPA screening level (black line). Shockingly, the levels of some phthalates and flame retardants in U.S. house dust exceeded EPA’s screening numbers (shown in red).
For the phthalate DEHP, average levels in dust exceeded EPA screening levels—for both cancer and non-cancer effects. DEHP is also ubiquitous in U.S. homes, as studies that tested for it found it in 100% of dust samples. This means that if an EPA site manager tested the dust in a typical living room, they would be concerned about the level of DEHP found there!
For the phthalate BBP and the flame retardants TDCIPP, TCIPP and TCEP, the average level in dust does not exceed the soil screening level (though it comes close for TDCIPP cancer risks). But as the “highest concentration in dust” data points show, levels in some homes are much higher than the average, sometimes by an order of magnitude or more.
Exceedance of the EPA screening levels for this portion of the population is a concern. Higher levels of phthalates or flame retardants in indoor dust may be linked to the presence of particular products (like vinyl flooring for phthalates or baby products for flame retardants) and/ or particular building characteristics, like ventilation rate.
It’s also important to note that our comparison only considers the amount of chemical in dust in the home, but in reality people’s exposures are almost certainly higher because we come into contact with these chemicals from many other sources, including the food we eat,products we use, and other places we spend time.
Products with these chemicals don’t belong in our homes; hazardous chemicals linked to adverse health effects should be removed and replaced with safer alternatives. With recent reforms to the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA finally has the opportunity to start protecting the public from toxic chemicals; we’re working hard to stand up to the chemical industry and ensure strong implementation of the new law.
In the meantime, there are a number of steps you can take to protect your families from toxic dust, including:Remove dust from your hands. Wash your hands and your children’s hands frequently, and always before eating. Use plain soap and water, avoiding fragranced and antibacterial soaps.Keep household dust to a minimum. Dust with a damp cloth, regularly go over floors with a wet mop, and use a vacuum with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.Use the Silent Spring Detox Me app. This free smartphone app walks you through simple, research-based tips on how to reduce your exposure to potentially harmful chemicals where you live and work, and it keeps track of your progress.
And please take action now on phthalates. Urge the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to protect kids and families from the dangers of phthalates by banning these hazardous chemicals from food, toys and other children’s products.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/veena-singla/toxic-dust-dangerous-chemical-brew-every-home
-
Not Just Dirt: Toxic Chemicals in Indoor Dust
Sep 14, 2016 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Veena Singla
People in the United States spend more than 90 percent of their time indoors on average—in places like homes, schools, offices, gyms, and cars. These places are usually full of dust, which is more than just dirt. Household items like televisions, furniture, beauty products, cleaning products, and flooring materials shed chemicals that end up in the air and in the dust on our floors. These chemicals can enter our bodies from air and dust when we breathe and touch contaminated surfaces, accidentally transferring them to our food or mouth with our dusty hands. And some of these chemicals can contribute to health problems.
Because indoor dust contains chemicals from a wide variety of products, it is like a parking lot for chemicals in the home. Analysis of dust reveals a picture of the types and levels of chemicals present indoors. We can use this information to estimate our potential exposure—how much of each chemical might be entering our bodies.
Young children are at higher risk for exposure to chemicals in indoor dust because they come into much more contact with this dust when they crawl, play on the floor, and put their hands in their mouths. Children may also be more vulnerable to the effects of toxic chemicals because their brains and bodies are still developing.
In 2015, scientists from George Washington University, the Silent Spring Institute,NRDC, Harvard University, and the University of California–San Francisco embarked on the first study to comprehensively assess consumer product chemicals of concern in U.S. indoor dust, provide a picture of the toxic chemicals in the home, and estimate potential exposures for children.
We compiled information from every published study since the year 2000 that analyzed current consumer product chemicals in U.S. indoor dust. We used that information to calculate average chemical levels and estimate how much enters our bodies. We also summarized health hazard information from government agencies and other expert bodies.
Explore our interactive graphic to find out more about the chemicals found in homes and the hazards they pose:Issue Brief September 14, 2016 Veena Singla
This page is based on: Mitro, S.D., R.E. Dodson, V. Singla, G. Adamkiewicz, A.F. Elmi, M. K. Tilly, A.R. Zota. 2016. “Consumer product chemicals in indoor dust: a quantitative meta-analysis of U.S. studies.” Environmental Science & Technology. In press.
People in the United States spend more than 90 percent of their time indoors on average—in places like homes, schools, offices, gyms, and cars. These places are usually full of dust, which is more than just dirt. Household items like televisions, furniture, beauty products, cleaning products, and flooring materials shed chemicals that end up in the air and in the dust on our floors. These chemicals can enter our bodies from air and dust when we breathe and touch contaminated surfaces, accidentally transferring them to our food or mouth with our dusty hands. And some of these chemicals can contribute to health problems.
Because indoor dust contains chemicals from a wide variety of products, it is like a parking lot for chemicals in the home. Analysis of dust reveals a picture of the types and levels of chemicals present indoors. We can use this information to estimate our potential exposure—how much of each chemical might be entering our bodies.
Young children are at higher risk for exposure to chemicals in indoor dust because they come into much more contact with this dust when they crawl, play on the floor, and put their hands in their mouths. Children may also be more vulnerable to the effects of toxic chemicals because their brains and bodies are still developing.
In 2015, scientists from George Washington University, the Silent Spring Institute,NRDC, Harvard University, and the University of California–San Francisco embarked on the first study to comprehensively assess consumer product chemicals of concern in U.S. indoor dust, provide a picture of the toxic chemicals in the home, and estimate potential exposures for children.
We compiled information from every published study since the year 2000 that analyzed current consumer product chemicals in U.S. indoor dust. We used that information to calculate average chemical levels and estimate how much enters our bodies. We also summarized health hazard information from government agencies and other expert bodies.
Explore our interactive graphic to find out more about the chemicals found in homes and the hazards they pose:
TOXIC CHEMICALS IN DUST = PUBLIC HEALTH THREATS
Our study found that U.S. indoor dust contains a wide variety of consumer product and building material chemicals that are linked to hazards for children’s health. We identified 45 chemicals from five chemical classes that have been measured in U.S. indoor dust in three or more data sets. These commonly measured chemicals in the home are associated with health hazards such as cancer, endocrine/hormone disruption, and reproductive toxicity.
Some phthalates, fragrance, flame retardants, and phenols are consistently found in 90 percent or more of dust samples across multiple studies. See a list of the top 10 chemicals found in dust.
We found that many chemicals in dust had the potential to cause the same health harm, which is concerning because the impacts from multiple chemicals can add up. People are likely exposed to multiple chemicals at the same time in dust, but most studies evaluate the health effects of only one chemical on its own. We need more research to understand how many chemicals from household products are entering our bodies and how being exposed to all of them affects our health.
CHEMICALS FOUND IN INDOOR DUST
The classes of chemicals in our study are commonly added to household products and building materials. Like a human family, chemical classes are groups of related chemicals.Phthalates
Used to make plastic softer and more flexible, especially vinyl (PVC) materials such as vinyl flooring, vinyl blinds, and food packaging. They may also be found in personal care products and fragranced products.
Total number of chemicals from this class in our study: 8
Example chemicals: DEHP (di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate); BBzP (butyl benzyl phthalate)Environmental PhenolsUsed as preservatives in personal care products like shampoo, lotions, cosmetics, and as part of plastic materials such as reusable water bottles and in cleaning products like detergents.
Total number of chemicals from this class in our study: 10
Example chemicals: MeP (methyl paraben), BPA (bisphenol A)Flame RetardantsUsed in furniture, baby products, electronics, and building insulation in order to meet flammability standards.
Total number of chemicals from this class in our study: 15
Example chemicals: TCEP (tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate); BEH-TEBP (a tetrabromophthalate)FragrancesUsed as scent in a wide variety of products including personal care products, cleaning products, perfumes, candles, and air fresheners.
Total number of chemicals from this class in our study: 1
Example chemicals: HHCB (Galaxolide)Fluorinated ChemicalsAlso known as PFCs or PFASs, these chemicals are used as stain- and water-repellent treatments for upholstery, carpets, clothes, and shoes; in nonstick cookware; and to make food papers like pizza boxes and popcorn bags grease-proof.
Total number of chemicals from this class in our study: 11
Example chemicals: PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid); PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonic acid)THE ROLE OF PUBLIC POLICYCurrent practices of using toxic and untested chemicals in consumer products and building materials result in these chemicals’ widespread presence in the indoor environment and are inadequate to protect health.
Governments and companies should advance policies to remove hazardous chemicals from products and replace them with safer alternatives. Some have already done so. For example, the California Safer Consumer Products program requires companies to carefully choose the safest alternative to toxic chemicals in order to avoid “regrettable substitution” replacement chemicals that are also harmful. Washington State requires reporting of hazardous chemicals in children’s products so that consumers can choose safer products.
At the national level, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has banned some phthalates from children’s products and child care articles and is proposing to ban additional phthalates. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is accepting public comments on a petition to ban all phthalates from food. Learn moreabout how to protect our families and children from toxic chemicals.SIMPLE STEPS TO REDUCE YOUR EXPOSURERemove dust from your hands. Wash your hands and your children’s hands frequently, and always before eating. Use plain soap and water, avoiding fragranced and antibacterial soaps.
Keep household dust to a minimum. Dust with a damp cloth, regularly go over floors with a wet mop, and use a vacuum with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.Use the Silent Spring Detox Me app. This free smartphone app walks you through simple, research-based tips on how to reduce your exposure to potentially harmful chemicals where you live and work, and it keeps track of your progress.Explore further resources to find safer products:
Environmental Working Group Skin Deep
Healthy Babies, Bright Futures parents’ resource
https://www.nrdc.org/resources/not-just-dirt-toxic-chemicals-indoor-dust
-
US EPA Releases Final IRIS Report On Trimethylbenzenes
Sep 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has released its final report on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicological review of trimethylbenzenes (TMBs).
Vehicle emissions are a major anthropogenic source of TMBs. This is due to the widespread use of the C9 fraction as a component of gasoline, says the report.
Other uses include:solvents in research and industry;dyestuff intermediate;paint thinner; andan ultraviolet oxidation stabilizer for plastics.
The assessment addresses the potential non-cancer and cancer human health effects from long-term exposure to TMBs.
It is the first such assessment for the substances that can be used by the agency's programme and regional offices. It is intended to provide human health data to support the EPA's regulatory decisions.
The report says effects on the nervous, respiratory, and hematological systems have been reported in occupationally- and residentially-exposed people. But these effects were observed "following exposure to complex mixtures containing TMB isomers, thus making it difficult to determine the contribution of each TMB isomer to the observed health effects".
Health effects that are roughly analogous to those seen in humans have been observed in animals exposed to the individual isomers, it says.
Of these, effects on the nervous system, including cognitive effects and decreased pain sensitivity, are the most widely observed.
Effects on other systems, including the respiratory and hematological systems, have also been seen in animals. Researchers have observed both 1,2,4-TMB and 1,3,5-TMB elicit effects on pregnant animals and developing fetuses. However these were at exposure levels greater than those that cause effects on the nervous system. There is inadequate information to evaluate the carcinogenicity of TMBs, the report says.
According to classifications of the substance "trimethylbenzene" provided by companies to Echa, it:is very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects;causes severe skin burns and eye damage;is harmful in contact with skin;is harmful if swallowed or inhaled;causes serious eye irritation; andis suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child.
The agency released a draft IRIS review of TMBs for public comment back in 2012.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49615/us-epa-releases-final-iris-report-on-trimethylbenzenes
-
New Jersey Weighs PFOA Drinking Water Limit Stricter Than EPA Advisory
Sep 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) advisory board is proposing a first-in-the-nation enforceable drinking water standard for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), suggesting a level much stricter than EPA's drinking water advisory for the chemical and questioning whether EPA's level would sufficiently protect against cancer.
In documents released by the advisory body, New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI), state scientists are recommending a health-based maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PFOA of 14 parts per trillion (ppt) for chronic drinking water exposure.
After taking public comment on the documents, DWQI will vote on a formal recommendation to DEP, which then has discretion on whether to adopt the MCL. In 2014, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin asked DWQI to recommend an MCL for PFOA and two other perfluorinated chemicals, according to a support document for the proposed health-based MCL.
New Jersey has a higher incidence of PFOA in its drinking water than the nation as a whole. While some other states have drinking water guidelines for the chemical, New Jersey would be the first state MCL in the nation. Advocates for communities facing PFOA contamination have sought a federal MCL but EPA has not announced any plans for such action.
PFOA, a persistent, toxic non-stick chemical, was used in a slew of consumer and industrial applications, and has been linked to adverse health effects, including kidney and testicular cancers.
The DWQI panel of scientists that developed the proposed standard bases its recommended 14 ppt MCL on a reference dose of 2 nanograms/kilogram/day (ng/kg/day) for increased relative liver weight -- a non-carcinogenic effect -- and on a cancer slope factor of 0.021 (milligrams/kilogram/day)^-1, which derived from an increased occurrence of testicular tumors in a chronic rat study, the support document says.
While the scientists evaluated 54 epidemiological studies, they note "human data have limitations and therefore are not used as the quantitative basis for the Health-based MCL.
"Instead, the potential Health-based MCLs developed . . . are based on sensitive and well established animal toxicology endpoints that are considered relevant to humans based on mode of action data," the support document says.
Serum Level
In an unusual move, the scientists also developed a so-called Target Human Serum Level -- which the document says is analogous to a reference dose but on a serum level basis. "For increased relative liver weight, the Target Human Serum Level is 14.5 [nanograms/milliliter (ng/ml)] and the Reference Dose is 2 ng/kg/day," the document says.
"This Target Human Serum Level and Reference Dose incorporate uncertainty factors to protect sensitive human subpopulations, to account for toxicodynamic differences between human and experimental animals, and to protect for more sensitive endpoints that occur from developmental exposures (delayed mammary gland development, persistent hepatic toxicity, and others)," it says.
"Continued exposure to even low drinking water concentrations results in substantially increased serum PFOA levels," the support document says. "Based on the clearance factor, each 10 ng/L in drinking water is predicted to increase serum PFOA by 1.1 ng/ml with an average water consumption rate, and 2.0 ng/ml with an upper percentile water consumption rate."
The support document adds that the MCL of 14 ppt would correlate with a 1 in 1 million lifetime cancer risk.
But the DWQI panel in an appendix attached to the supporting document is critical of various scientific aspects of EPA's drinking water health advisory for PFOA, released in May. EPA set a health advisory of 70 ppt in drinking water for chronic PFOA exposure, but also recommended that the combined concentrations of PFOA and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), if found together in drinking water, not exceed 70 ppt. The health advisory is not an enforceable standard, but has triggered calls among communities around the country that drinking water be treated to meet the health advisory level.
In the appendix's side-by-side comparison between the New Jersey DWQI's proposed MCL and EPA's health advisory for PFOA, the state advisory panel doubts EPA's level would achieve a 1 in 1 million lifetime cancer risk, instead suggesting risk would be 40-fold higher.
EPA's Approach
Both EPA and DWQI's cancer assessments were based on a higher incidence of testicular tumors in rats, the appendix says, but "[t]he two assessments differ in the approach used for animal-to-human conversion." It says that "DWQI used the ratio of half-lives to account for interspecies phamacokinetic differences, since serum PFOA data are not provided in this study," while EPA used the default animal-to-human extrapolation for its cancer risk assessment, which the panel says "does not account for interspecies pharmacokinetic differences."
The panel goes on to say that EPA's "use of an approach that does not account for pharmacokinetic differences for cancer risk assessment, although pharmacokinetic differences were considered for non-cancer risk assessment, does not appear to be logical or consistent."
Further, in comparing DWQI's stricter reference dose of 2 ng/kg/day to EPA's of 20 ng/kg/day, the panel says these were identical numerically, except for the DWQI's application of an additional uncertainty factor of 10 "to account for more sensitive developmental endpoints."
Also, the panel notes in the comparison that while EPA developed a "clearance factor" that correlates human PFOA exposures to human PFOA serum levels, and used it in a part of the agency's assessment, the agency "does not acknowledge that it is possible to predict the increase in serum PFOA that will result from ongoing exposure to a given concentration of PFOA in drinking water."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-jersey-weighs-pfoa-drinking-water-limit-stricter-epa-advisory
-
Drug, Other Companies Must Report Mercury Uses to EPA
Sep 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Battery, lamp, pharmaceutical and switch manufacturers that use mercury or mercury compounds will have to provide the Environmental Protection Agency with information under the amended chemicals law.
All sorts of manufacturers that make products normally excluded from the Toxic Substances Control Act will periodically have to report to EPA, Charles Auer, a former senior EPA chemicals official, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 13. He now is a senior regulatory and policy adviser for the Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. law firm.
Auer discussed the mercury inventory provision (Section 8(b)(10)) of TSCA as amended June 22 by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182) with Bloomberg BNA during a webinar the law firm held Sept. 12.
This one section of the Lautenberg Act is atypical, because it applies to more types of companies than the rest of the law does, Auer told Bloomberg BNA.
Provision Applies to Products Otherwise Excluded from TSCA
The rest of the law specifically excludes chemicals in products such as pesticides, food additives, medicines and firearms, because these are regulated under other statutes.
The mercury inventory provision of the Lautenberg Act, however, applies to any company using mercury or mercury compounds even if the products the company makes would normally be excluded from TSCA, Auer said.
Congress wanted to cast a wide net with this provision so that the EPA could understand the extent to which mercury remains in use in the U.S., Auer said.
That wide net is further illustrated by Congress’ definition, which included mercury and mercury compounds, he said. Mercury compounds include mercuric chloride, mercuric nitrate and mercuric oxide.
List Kept of Products, Processing for Mercury
The Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable, which includes regulatory officials, businesses and other organizations from eight U.S. states and Ontario, Canada, maintains a list of products and manufacturing processes that use mercury and mercury compounds. These include pharmaceutical manufacturers that may use mercury, or thimerosal, as a preservative for human and veterinary products; manufacturers of fluorescent, high-intensity discharge and other lamps; and manufacturers of many different types of switches.
Abbott Laboratories, Dell Inc., Energizer Battery Manufacturing Inc., and Ford Motor Co. are among the manufacturers with products that can contain mercury, albeit very small amounts, according to the Mercury-Added Products Database maintained by the Interstate Mercury Education & Reduction Clearinghouse. The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to coordinate its mercury inventory activities with the clearinghouse to avoid duplication.
The law also requires the EPA to issue an initial inventory of mercury supply, use and trade in the U.S. by April 1, 2017, and to update that inventory every three years.
By June 2018, the EPA must issue a final rule describing the mercury uses, products and other information that companies will need to report periodically to the agency and how they must report that information.
Lack of Data, Treaty Spurred Requirement
Prior to supporting the Senate's June 7 passage of the Lautenberg Act, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) described why he pushed for the mercury provision to be included in the bill.
“Despite an EPA commitment in 2006 to collect this data, there is not yet any good data on mercury supply and uses in the United States,” Leahy said on the Senate floor.
“This lack of data has impacted our ability to reduce health risks from mercury exposure and would compromise our ability to comply with the Minamata Convention of Mercury, which will come into force next year and to which the U.S. Government has agreed to become a party,” Leahy said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97222165&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97222165&jd=97222165
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Revolution Keeps Growing
Sep 13, 2016 | Corpus Christie Caller Times
By J. Winston Porter
The importance of our new role as the world's largest natural gas producer is still only beginning to come into focus. Thanks to the shale revolution, our now vast and inexpensive supply of natural gas is reshaping how we generate electricity, attract many billions of dollars in manufacturing investment and turn the geopolitics of natural gas exports in our favor.
For all of the attention paid to the resurgent U.S. oil production, it's our natural gas resources that may be more important. The Corpus Christi area is increasingly important in LNG exports and other natural gas activities.
Consider that in the near blink of an eye natural gas has overtaken coal as the country's largest fuel for electricity generation. Coal generated more than 50 percent of U.S. power just a decade ago. Today, it produces just a third of our electricity and is poised to fall further. Since natural gas produces just half the carbon emissions when used to generate electricity, this shift from coal to gas has been a boon to our emissions-reduction efforts. No country is reducing carbon emissions faster than the U.S.
Second, our same supply of low-cost gas is leading a manufacturing resurgence. Along the Gulf Coast and in shale fields in Pennsylvania and Ohio huge manufacturing facilities — be they steel or chemical plants — are now either entering production or are under construction. Chemical producers who use natural gas as the building blocks for their products can now make the same products here for a fraction of what they can overseas.
The American Chemistry Council, the trade association for the nation's chemical companies, now reports that nearly 270 new chemical projects are in play, totaling $170 billion in investment. Roughly 60 percent of that investment is coming directly from overseas. Affordable, abundant natural gas is proving decisively positive for U.S. manufacturing. Jobs and investment that once slipped away are now returning.
And last, but not least, we are on the verge of becoming one of the world's largest natural gas exporters. Just a few years ago, America was poised to become a major natural gas importer. It has been a remarkable turn of events.
The nation's first liquefied natural gas export terminal started operation earlier this year and U.S. natural gas has now made its way to Europe, South America, the Middle East and even East Asia. With several more LNG export terminals either under construction or planned, including Cheniere's Corpus Christi LNG facility, the U.S. seems poised to rival Qatar and Australia as the world's foremost LNG supplier.
LNG exports are helping pump billions of dollars into U.S. ports and stimulate increased U.S. energy production. But, perhaps more importantly, our gas exports are now directly competing with the golden goose for some of the world's most unsavory regimes. Both Russia and Iran are natural gas exporting giants and have wielded their gas supplies as geopolitical weapons. With increased competition now in the global marketplace, their customers are renegotiating gas supply contracts. Less money is flowing into Russian and Iranian state coffers and our allies are benefiting from increased energy security.
Be it greater use of natural gas for electricity generation, a resurgent manufacturing sector or the emergence of the U.S. as a major natural gas exporter, the shale revolution keeps delivering unexpected benefits to consumers, our environmental agenda and even our foreign policy.
Finally, whoever takes the White House would be wise to encourage, not limit, our ability to produce natural gas and provide an obvious point of bipartisan agreement.
http://www.caller.com/opinion/forums/shale-revolution-keeps-growing-3c16112b-5d3d-3b90-e053-0100007f4d0e-393180311.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Gas Surge Triggers U.S. Petrochemicals Wave
Sep 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The upsurge in U.S. shale gas production has triggered waves of expansion projects for manufacturers of petrochemicals, plastics and fertilizer that are expected to create thousands of long-term jobs and many new revenue sources.
It also may change some trade patterns.
High volumes of natural gas from shale, combined with moderate prices, have given a strong economic advantage to companies that turn gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) into intermediate chemicals and an array of finished synthetic products that are among the most commonplace manufactured objects in modern life.
Some 268 petrochemical and fertilizer plant projects linked to shale gas, with an estimated investment of $170 billion, are in various stages of study or construction, Kevin Swift, chief economist with the trade group American Chemistry Council , told Bloomberg BNA. At the end of 2010, less than $10 billion in such projects had been announced.
“About 9 percent of that figure already has been finished,” Swift said. “There was a little bit of caution in 2009 and 2010, but this is the real thing.”
For petrochemical manufacturing, the first wave of capacity increases may peak in 2017-2018 when ethylene, propylene and related facilities open for business at the Gulf Coast chemical complexes of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Phillips Co., Dow Chemical Co., Sasol Ltd., Formosa Plastics Group and others. Tens of billions of dollars are being invested in these expansions—$6 billion for the Chevron Phillips project, $11 billion for the Sasol project and the other big ones likely having similar costs.
It can take a few years of planning and analysis to come to an expensive expansion decision, then about three years to build a large set of petrochemical production units. Construction of the largest projects in the first wave has been going on since 2014, moving them beyond the tentative or speculative stage into concrete reality taking shape on the ground.
More Projects in Planning Stages
Another wave may follow. In June, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell Plc committed to building a petrochemical complex in western Pennsylvania, where NGLs from the Marcellus and Utica shales will provide feedstocks. In July, Exxon Mobil said it and SABIC, the Saudi Arabian petrochemical giant, are evaluating whether to build a new petrochemical complex in Texas or Louisiana.
Taiwan's Formosa Plastics Group, already building a large complex in Lake Charles, La., continues to study a plan for an exceptionally large project in Louisiana, while Thailand's PTT Global Chemical is considering a big project in Ohio. Foreign companies are prominent among those wanting to invest in U.S. petrochemical manufacturing.
At the same time, capacity to make fertilizer is being added rapidly. The plants will use natural gas and nitrogen to make ammonia, the first step in making nitrogen fertilizers, and they also will turn much of that ammonia into urea, one of the next steps.
Along with those manufacturing projects, pipeline companies are preparing to build more capacity to bring natural gas and NGLs to manufacturing sites and export points, including the novelty of a point of export to Europe.
‘These Are Long-Term Commitments.'
The petrochemical plants often have lives of 30 years or more, “so these are long-term investments,” Swift said.
A sizable plant also produces hundreds of permanent jobs after the initial rush of construction jobs, so they tend to be welcomed by state governments. In Pennsylvania, for example, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) has expressed concerns about hydraulic fracturing and has signed into law increased protections for the environment from fracking, but in July, he enthusiastically welcomed Shell's announcement of a plan for a petrochemical complex in Monaca, Pa.
The American Chemistry Council also has been tracking announced plans for expansions of plastics processing—the manufacturing farther downstream in the product chain that turns the chemical intermediates into finished products or components of products. The number for those projects had reached 597 by late August, according to the council .
Ethylene, made from ethane, is the most important of the petrochemicals, followed by propylene, made from propane. Ethylene and propylene are turned into polyethylene and polypropylene resins which then are turned into an array of plastics, from auto parts to food packaging. In liquid form, ethylene and propylene are also are used to make such products as antifreeze and aircraft deicer.
Environmental advocates have mounted campaigns against shale gas development and pipeline construction in recent years. Petrochemical plant expansions will provide additional incentives for gas field and pipeline development. The plants themselves have seen far less opposition, probably because they usually are located in existing industrial centers.
Markets Will Cope, Analyst Says
The construction now underway should not be enough to crash the prices for ethylene and the other basic products, in the assessment of Mark Eramo, vice president for global business development at consulting company IHS Markit Ltd.
“This current wave of North American capacity, while large, will not overwhelm the global balance,” Eramo, a Houston-based specialist in petrochemicals, told Bloomberg BNA. “We don't really see a global glut of ethylene.”
Part of the reason for his outlook is the global demand growth. In addition, there have been some announcements of construction delays leading to estimates being pushed back for completion dates. Contractors are straining to meet the demand for engineering and construction, including the demand for skilled labor such as electricians and welders, Eramo said.
The delays are good for the market, because they smooth out the impact of new supplies over several years, approximately 2017 through 2019, he said.
There is always the possibility that feedstock gas prices could rise, potentially squeezing petrochemical makers, but as things now stand, North America appears likely to be flush with natural gas and gas liquids for years to come, and that expectation is part of the bet that manufacturers are making, he said.
“So there's risk. You can't build these things risk-free,” Eramo said. But the volume trends for gas, and the dampening effect those trends have on gas prices, appear to be reasonably good for the petrochemical makers for several years, in his estimation.
Much May Be Exported
U.S. output of ethane, propane and other natural gas liquids has risen rapidly since 2008, so much so that they have outstripped demand. In many cases, they have been sold along with methane as gas rather than separated for sale as gas liquids.
Between 2014 and 2018, U.S. petrochemical capacity expansion projects are projected to increase domestic demand for ethane by nearly 600,000 barrels per day and propane by nearly 200,000 barrels per day, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Because the domestic market for petrochemicals is not growing as fast as the supply, much of the new manufacturing capacity, especially on the Gulf Coast, will be used to make intermediate and finished products for export.
Swift said the exported petrochemicals probably would displace many of those made from naptha, which is distilled from oil. It is especially common in Europe and Asia to make petrochemicals from naphtha. In the U.S., gas-based petrochemicals are more common.
“We see global demand for chemicals rising by nearly 45 percent, or about 4 percent per year, over the next decade,” Exxon Chemical Co. President Neil Chapman said at the IHS World Petrochemical Conference in Houston in March. “That's significantly faster than projected growth in global GDP, and faster than overall energy demand.”
Chevron Phillips Chemical, a 50-50 joint venture of Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co., is investing $6 billion to expand its Gulf Coast petrochemical assets with the expectation of capitalizing on global market growth. The global middle class is predicted to grow to nearly 5 billion people in 2030 from less than 2 billion now, a Chevron Phillips executive said earlier this year.
“The economic growth that accompanies this rise of the middle class will fuel demand for plastic consumer products,” Mark Lashier, executive vice president of Chevron Phillips, said earlier this year.
Low-Cost Advantages
The American Chemistry Council uses a rough estimate for when U.S. Gulf Coast ethane crackers, technology used to produce ethylene from ethane, have an economic advantage over naphtha crackers. The estimate is that when Brent crude oil prices, in dollars per barrel, are at least seven times higher than Henry Hub natural gas prices, in dollars per thousand cubic feet, the ethane crackers have a cost advantage.
Brent crude, produced in the North Sea, is the benchmark market-price crude for much of the world's oil, while Henry Hub is the primary benchmark for natural gas in U.S. gas markets. Brent can serve as an indicator of feedstock costs for European naphtha crackers, while Henry Hub gas can serve a parallel role for the ethane crackers of the Gulf Coast.
Gas prices fell in 2012, drifted lower in the following two years and then slumped again through 2015 and early 2016. Although oil prices also fell in 2015 and early 2016, gas still provides petrochemical makers a big advantage. The ratio of Brent crude to Henry Hub gas in August was about 17-to-1.
“The United States is now the low-cost producer of most petrochemicals,” Swift said.
Feedstocks are 60 percent to 70 percent of the cost of making petrochemicals, according to the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. With natural gas and ethane prices low, ethylene makers benefit not only from low feedstock costs but from low energy costs when burning natural gas to power an energy-intensive petrochemical complex.
Exxon Mobil has not divulged the cost of its current expansion project in Baytown, Texas, and in nearby Mont Belvieu other than to say it is a multibillion-dollar set of projects expected to be completed in 2017. It involves a 1.5 million tons-per-year ethane cracker to produce ethylene, and two other 650,000 tons-per-year units for producing polyethylene from the ethylene.
Dow Chemical has similarly described the expansion of its petrochemical complex in Freeport, Texas, as a multibillion-dollar effort. A propylene production unit, unusually large with a 750,000 tons-per-year capacity, came online in December. A 1.5 million tons-per-year ethane cracker is to be completed in 2017 along with two polyethylene units and other equipment. Chevron Phillips Chemical's big expansion is also set to come online in 2017.
Cyclical Rise for Fertilizer
The development of shale gas triggered a wave of fertilizer plant construction that got started in 2014 and 2015 and within a few years will displace a little more than half of the nitrogen fertilizers that are currently being imported, according to Glen Buckley, chief economist at consulting company NPK Fertilizer Advisory Service.
“A number of plants are going to be coming online in 2016 and 2017,” Buckley said. “Close to 20 million tons of capacity has been proposed, but most of it is not going to get built.”
World-scale fertilizer plants cost $2.5 billion to $3 billion to build, making it difficult to get financing for more than what is already committed for the 5 million tons of capacity Buckley is estimating will come online in this wave. Natural gas prices are as much as 90 percent of the cost of making ammonia for fertilizers, and gas prices are volatile, as are urea prices, creating big risk premiums for capital investment Buckley said.
The global market for nitrogen fertilizers now is very oversupplied, with prices only about half what they were a few years ago, Buckley said. The new capacity essentially will be for the domestic market, he said.
In the highly cyclical fertilizer business, this up-cycle of construction is expected to counterbalance the last down cycle. About 27 ammonia plants, or 44 percent of U.S. capacity, closed during 1998-2007, said Harry Vroomen, vice president of economic services at the Fertilizer Institute, a trade group.
Before those closings, the U.S. imported about 25 percent of its nitrogen fertilizers. Afterward, imports rose to more than 50 percent. The latest up-cycle could cut the imports back to 25 percent, Vroomen said.
CF Industries Holdings Inc. just started up new capacity in Donaldsonville, La., with an annual capacity to make 1.3 million tons of ammonia, 1.3 million tons of urea and 1.7 million tons of urea ammonium nitrate. CF and competitor OCS Iowa Fertilizer both plan to start up large new fertilizer plants in Iowa within months.
More Pipelines for NGLs
In many shale gas and oil regions, production of gas liquids is constrained by inadequate infrastructure to take the NGLs away. That is notably true in the Marcellus and Utica shales of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia and the Bakken shale of North Dakota. Even in Texas, in the Eagle Ford Shale, moving NGL to market can be a challenge.
“Certainly, the Eagle Ford could use more takeaway capacity,” said Owen Kean, senior director of energy policy for the American Chemistry Council .
New capacities have started to supply foreign as well as domestic markets. Ethane exports to Canada restarted a few years ago on two pipelines after a 25-year hiatus, and in March the first cargo of Marcellus Shale ethane was shipped from Marcus Hook, Pa., to a petrochemical plant in Norway. It was the first time ethane had been exported from the U.S. to Europe.
INEOS Group AG, based in Switzerland, acquired the ethane under a 15-year contract from Range Resources Corp. for the shipments to its complex in Norway. On the day that the first ethane cargo sailed from Pennsylvania, INEOS Chairman Jim Ratcliffe put out a statement saying, “Shale gas economics has revitalized U.S. manufacturing. When U.S. shale gas arrives in Europe, it has the potential to do the same for European manufacturing.”
To get the ethane to Marcus Hook from western Pennsylvania, Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. revamped an existing oil products pipeline and added a relatively short leg to it. The line started transporting propane in December 2014 and ethane in February 2016. Called Mariner East 1, it can carry 70,000 barrels a day of the two primary natural gas liquids.
Sunoco Logistics plans to start constructing Mariner East 2, parallel to the first line, in the late summer or fall to carry mostly propane and butane. It will be built initially with 275,000 barrels a day capacity and could be boosted to 450,000 barrels a day with addition of more horsepower. It could free up Mariner East 1 to focus entirely on ethane.
Austrian petrochemical company Borealis AG has signed a 10-year contract to buy ethane produced by Antero Resources Corp. from the Marcellus and Utica shales to feed an ethane cracker in Sweden. Those feedstocks will ship from Sunoco Logistics’ Marcus Hook complex, a former refinery.
Sunoco Logistics is now holding an open season for bids by companies to use another planned pipeline, dubbed Mariner East 2X. It would be built to take ethane, propane, butane or mixtures of hydrocarbons and would be closely parallel to Mariner East 2.
Going South and North
The only pipeline carrying ethane south to the Gulf Coast from the Pennsylvania-Ohio-West Virginia shale gas region is the ATEX line, formally called the Appalachia-to-Texas Express pipeline, which reaches Mont Belvieu, Texas. The pipeline, owned by Enterprise Products Partners L.P., may get competition.
Kinder Morgan Inc. has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for permission to convert a natural gas pipeline to carry natural gas liquids. The company also would have to build some new line to link to the converted line. If Kinder Morgan gets the permission from FERC, it can then hold an open season to seek shipper commitments for moving NGLs to the Gulf Coast from the Marcellus and Utica shales.
Kinder Morgan has moved further along on a plan to build a pipeline across Ohio to take ethane and ethane-propane mixtures northward. The Utopia line would link to an existing pipe that would move the NGLs to Ontario for petrochemical manufacturing. Nova Chemicals Corp. has signed a long-term contract with Kinder Morgan to use the line. Construction is expected to start in the first quarter of 2017.
The Utopia line will compete with Sunoco Logistics’ Mariner West line, a 2-year-old line carrying ethane from Pennsylvania across Ohio and Michigan to Ontario.
Sunoco Logistics is looking for more than just exports for shale gas liquids. “We are actively talking to people about domestic uses for ethane,” company spokesman Jeff Shields said. “And the same with propane.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97222143&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499240000&searchid=28401301&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
API Details Opposition To Moving RFS 'Point Of Obligation'
Sep 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is detailing its opposition to a push from other refiners for EPA to move the “point of obligation” for compliance with the renewable fuel standard (RFS), claiming the change would “distract” from true reform or repeal of the program and halt recent momentum toward that goal in Congress.
On a conference call with reporters Sept. 13, API Downstream Group Director Frank Macchiarola reiterated the group's position that the request by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and others to move the point of obligation will not fix fundamental problems that have “broken” the RFS.
Under the program, refiners and importers must surrender biofuel credits, known as renewable identification numbers (RINs), sufficient to cover their obligation to blend increasing volumes of renewable fuel into the fuel supply. AFPM, representing much of the refining industry, is petitioning EPA to move this obligation further upstream, to blenders at the refinery “rack,” where fuel is blended prior to distribution to retailers.
Reporters on the call pressed Macchiarola on why last year API supported AFPM's push to move the point of obligation -- yet this year has strongly opposed the suggestion, sending EPA an Aug. 15 letter opposing it.
Macchiarola called the issue “a mere distraction” from what API sees as the main problem with the RFS, which is the “blend wall,” or the point at which vehicle and infrastructure constraints mean no more biofuel can be blended into the fuel supply. “Efforts to tinker with the RFS at the margins will simply not work,” he warned.
Both API and AFPM say that current EPA policy sets renewable fuel volumes required for blending too high, breaching the blend wall and possibly producing price hikes at the pump, or damaging vehicles' engines by forcing use of higher ethanol blends than car manufacturers recommend.
Macchiarola on the call rejected a “simplistic” depiction of “Big Oil” companies -- represented by API -- defending the status quo against small refiners who cannot blend their own fuels, and therefore must buy RINs to comply, saying this picture is “not accurate” and pointing to API's broad membership.
He further declined to say whether API now considers the obligation to be on the correct entities, saying only that API does not believe there should be a point of obligation at all.
API's official position remains “repeal or reform” the RFS. Macchiarola said the point of obligation dispute risks undermining momentum in Congress toward this goal, as exemplified by a bipartisan bill, H.R. 5180, by Reps. Bill Flores (R-TX) and Peter Welch (D-VT), that now has 111 co-sponsors. API hopes the next Congress will resume work on the bill if as expected lawmakers are unable to move it during the current election season rush.
Meanwhile, Emily Skor, CEO of pro-ethanol group Growth Energy, in a Sept. 13 response said, “This conversation is about competition among oil companies, not finding ways to embrace advanced biofuels. Shifting the point of obligation would only interrupt America’s progress toward making clean, renewable biofuels available to consumers. The RFS is working as designed."
A Growth Energy official further tells Inside EPA that some small fuel retailers' assertion that shifting the obligation would improve the RFS' functioning and sell more biofuel is false. “The RFS works because everyone in the fuel system has a stake. If you take the refiners out of the equation, there is no incentive for them to provide access to the fuel market for renewable fuels,” the official says.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/api-details-opposition-moving-rfs-point-obligation
-
How a Recent Court Ruling Could Transform Energy Policy
Sep 13, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Richard L. Revesz
Richard L. Revesz is dean emeritus and Lawrence King Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, where he directs the Institute for Policy Integrity. He is the co-author of “Struggling for Air: Power Plants and the ‘War on Coal.’”
A recent federal court ruling may have opened a new chapter in U.S. climate and energy policy. In early August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit sided with the Department of Energy (DOE) in a challenge to the agency’s energy efficiency standards for commercial refrigerators. The court upheld DOE’s use of the social cost of carbon(SCC) in its analysis of the regulation. The SCC is the U.S. government’s official estimate of the economic damage caused by each ton of carbon dioxide emissions, and this metric is the best available tool for evaluating policies that reduce such emissions. The impact of this case could be profound.
This judicial decision marks the first time that a federal court has explicitly considered the validity of an agency’s reliance on the SCC. Now that the Seventh Circuit has formally endorsed its use, the SCC could become one of the primary tools used to shape climate and energy policy, leading to a new wave of economically efficient measures on environmental regulation, energy efficiency, natural resource leasing, and environmental impact quantification. (Full disclosure: theInstitute for Policy Integrity, which I direct, submitted a brief for the court case, focusing on the SCC.)
Economists have worked for years to translate estimated climate change impacts into economic terms, modeling how projected changes in agricultural production, the spread of disease, coastal destruction and other factors will affect the economy. In 2010, the Obama administration convened an Interagency Working Group to review the most prominent models and economic literature, and establish an official SCC estimate for federal agencies to use when evaluating regulations. The working group meets periodically to ensure that the value reflects the best available science; the National Academies of Sciences is also working to keep the SCC as accurate as possible. The SCC’s current value is roughly $40 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted.
By quantifying the climate impacts of policy decisions, the SCC allows policymakers to compare the costs and benefits of a proposal, set the stringency of a regulation, and determine which measures will ultimately improve societal well-being. The metric has already been used to justify many regulations, including several energy efficiency standards, and has played a role in the analysis of EPA’s Clean Power Plan. But many of these rules have been challenged in court, with industry groups trying to overturn regulations by claiming that the SCC is not sufficiently credible (as was the case in the Seventh Circuit litigation). A petition for Supreme Court review is possible, but it is unlikely that the court would take the case.
Now that a federal appeals court has endorsed the use of the SCC and rejected many arguments that are often used to challenge rules that reduce emissions, the practice is on much stronger footing. This development might therefore lead to a new crop of economically sound policies. And it is definitely good news for the Clean Power Plan and other rules with pending legal cases in which the use of the SCC to justify regulation was challenged.
The SCC is applicable in numerous contexts. It is useful for evaluating nearly all federal energy regulations and environmental rules.New York state recently decided to use the SCCto calculate the value of carbon-free electricity provided by nuclear power plants, as part of the state’s new Clean Energy Standard. An administrative law judge in Minnesota also determined that utilities should use the federal SCC to calculate their environmental and economic impacts. And now that California has revamped its approach to cap-and-trade, the SCC will be the best option for officials seeking to prioritize emissions-reduction projects.
The SCC could also play a critical role in improving federal natural resources management. When the Interior Department leases public lands or waters for mining or drilling, it uses woefully outdated fiscal terms that deprive taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars each year and ignore climate impacts. Some onshore oil and gas leasing parameters have not been updated since 1920, and the Interior Department recentlyissued a moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands in order to explore reforms. By using the SCC to gauge the climate impacts of leases and help determine new royalty rates, the Interior Department could vastly improve these leasing programs.
Project developers can use the SCC to quantify the climate effects of proposed projects. The White House Council on Environmental Quality recently released guidance on National Environmental Policy Act reviews, suggesting that federal agencies use the SCC in their environmental impact assessments. If use of the SCC in these contexts becomes widespread, the environmental review process will become far more consistent and rational.
The Seventh Circuit court’s ruling sent a clear message: the SCC is an important tool that policymakers should use to inform decisions on energy and environmental matters. This metric was developed through a rigorous, transparent process, and it is grounded in the best available science. The SCC is an ideal guidepost for those crafting the next generation of economically sound climate and energy policies.
http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2016/09/13/how-a-recent-court-ruling-could-transform-energy-policy/
-
Protesters Slam North Dakota Pipeline but Company 'Committed'
Sep 14, 2016 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
ATLANTA — Holding signs and banners and chanting "Oil Kills," protesters in Atlanta and other U.S. cities on Tuesday shouted support for Native American activists trying to stop construction of a North Dakota pipeline they say will desecrate sacred land and pollute water.
The protests against the Dakota Access pipeline have drawn international attention, sparking a renewal of Native American activism and prompting the U.S. government to block its construction on federal land, even as the company building the line expressed its commitment to the project on Tuesday.
“We were all moved by the spirit to be here,” said Linda James Thomas, 59, who attended the Atlanta rally in support of the Georgia State Tribe of the Cherokee.
When fully connected to existing lines, the 1,100-mile (1,770 km), $3.7 billion pipeline would be the first to carry crude oil from the Bakken shale directly to the U.S. Gulf.
Protests were scheduled throughout the day in Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and numerous other cities. Previous demonstrations have drawn celebrities including actresses Shailene Woodley and Susan Sarandon, and on Tuesday U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, a former Democratic U.S. presidential candidate, spoke at a rally in the nation's capital.
"We cannot allow our drinking water to be poisoned so that a handful of fossil fuel companies can make even more in profits," Sanders, flanked by activists in tribal dress and business suits, told the cheering crowd in Washington, D.C.
In Ohio, about 100 people gathered at a Cleveland intersection, some clutching bunches of sage and beating drums.
Tracey Hill, 46, a Cleveland resident who is one-eighth Cherokee, said she went last week to protest at the site of the pipeline project in North Dakota. “People are sick of being run roughshod over by corporations,” Hill said.
Activists took to social media to dub Tuesday's rallies a national "Day of Action" against the pipeline. Many used the hashtag #NoDAPL to show their opposition.
Outside the United States, activists said on social media they planned protests in countries including Britain, Spain, South Korea and New Zealand.
Last week, the Obama administration, responding to the issues raised by the Standing Rock Sioux, whose land runs about a half-mile south of the pipeline's route, said it would temporarily halt construction on federal land. Acting moments after a federal judge denied the tribe's request for a halt to construction, the administration asked the company building it to refrain from construction on private land as well.
On Tuesday, Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, whose Dakota Access subsidiary is building the pipeline, said in a letter to employees it was committed to the project.
The letter did not address the federal request for a temporary halt of construction. But company officials said they would meet with government administrators.
"We are committed to completing construction and safely operating the Dakota Access Pipeline within the confines of the law," Kelcy Warren, Energy Transfer Partners' chairman and chief executive officer, said in the letter.
He dismissed as "unfounded" worries that oil would contaminate water in the Missouri and Cannon Ball rivers, and said the pipeline would address safety concerns connected with vehicle transport of oil.
"We have designed the state-of-the-art Dakota Access pipeline as a safer and more efficient method of transporting crude oil than the alternatives being used today, namely rail and truck," he said.
In 2013, a runaway oil train in Canada crashed, killing 47 people, and in June 2016 a train carrying crude oil derailed and burst into flames in Oregon.
In coming weeks, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will review its initial decision to permit the pipeline and decide whether it correctly followed federal environmental law in granting permits.
Later this fall, the federal government will meet with Native American leaders to decide whether to reform its process for building infrastructure projects that will affect tribal lands.
In North Dakota, protesters have vowed to remain until the project is halted.
(Additional reporting by Kim Palmer in Cleveland, Catherine Ngai in New York, Valerie Volcovici and Ruthy Munoz in Washington, and Olga Grigoryants in Los Angeles)
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/09/14/us/14reuters-usa-pipeline-native-americans.html?_r=0
-
Hundreds Rally At White House For Obama To Kill Project
Sep 14, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder and Hannah Northey
Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and hundreds of protesters rallied outside the White House yesterday calling for a halt to the $3.7 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline, even as the developer vowed to move forward.
Accusing Energy Transfer Partners LP of flouting the administration's decision to temporarily freeze construction near a critical water crossing in South Dakota, Sanders said President Obama must step in immediately. He also expressed confidence a full environmental vetting would lead to the pipeline's demise.
"In absence of the pipeline company's compliance, further administration action is needed," Sanders said. "I am calling on President Obama today to ensure that this pipeline gets a full environmental and cultural impact analysis."
Sanders joined members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in Lafayette Square. Also there was Van Jones, a former White House green jobs aide, who has defined the debate over Dakota Access as a litmus test on tolerance and environmental justice.
"Water is life," Jones said to a round of cheers. "Oil is death."
Struggling to overcome the noise of applause, Sanders said the future of the U.S. energy economy is not more pipelines, oil or carbon emissions.
"It is the transformation of our energy system away from oil and away from pipelines," he shouted.
Pipeline critics are mounting pressure for the White House to get involved in a permitting issue that would otherwise rest solely with state and federal regulators.
The administration last week took the unprecedented step of halting some pipeline construction after a federal judge rejected a request by Native American advocates to block entire project (E&ENews PM, Sept. 9).
"I used to work in that building over there," Jones said as he looked at the White House. "And I know the people in there who work in the White House, who come every day. They don't come here for bad reasons, but they come under tremendous pressure from bad interests that make it very hard for them to do what they know is right."
Energy Transfer CEO Kelcy Warren wrote in a letter to employees that concerns over water contamination were unfounded and that the nearly 1,172-mile project crossed private land and wouldn't disturb sacred sites.
Members of the Sioux tribe shot back yesterday, saying the pipeline would cross ancestral lands that are sacred and historically significant.
Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney for the Lakota People's Law Project and Standing Rock Sioux reservation resident, said the tribe and protesters were up against big corporate interests in trying to defend water resources.
"We don't have energy security unless we have water security," he said.'Dangerous precedent'
Also looking to the White House for answers and action are oil and gas companies. Executives yesterday said the administration's interference threatens much-needed infrastructure.
American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard told reporters on a call yesterday that protestors were trespassing on what is mostly privately owned land.
He also expressed dissatisfaction and bafflement that the administration stepped in to override the federal judge's decision.
"Now the administration, unfortunately, has unilaterally attempted to change the rules in the middle of the game," Gerard said. "This change sets a dangerous precedent for our country that could threaten all other infrastructure projects like bridges, road and electricity transmission."
Despite strong messages from both tribal and industry advocates, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) has remained cautious of taking a definitive position on Dakota Access.
While voicing support for the pipeline, Heitkamp has also maintained that all sides of the issue should be heard and that the pipeline would help diversify crude shipments out of the Bakken Shale play.
"I think that this is first and foremost a state siting question," the senator said during an interview on Capitol Hill. "There was obviously federal involvement ... as a result of the river crossing." She looks to the courts to help settle the dispute.
Sean McGarvey, president of North America's Building Trades Unions, reiterated Gerard's concerns on the conference call, adding that the fight over infrastructure reaches far beyond the Dakota Access project.
He asked, "What does this speak to for any other construction projects in the United State that a particular group has an issue with?"
McGarvey said he wanted clarification and answers from the Obama administration and an investigation into damages to personnel and equipment along the construction site.
"We thought there was a process to be followed — the rule of law," he said.
Opponents of Dakota Access are planning more demonstrations in Washington, D.C., today and around the country.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/09/14/stories/1060042789
-
Obama Administration Dakota Pipeline Intervention 'Unprecedented,' API, Union Officials Say
Sep 14, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
As a coalition of Native American and environmental activists staged protests in Washington, DC, and around the nation Tuesday, energy industry and construction trades officials pushed back against the Obama administration's eleventh-hour interference in the Dakota Access oil pipeline project now under construction.
American Petroleum Institute (API) CEO Jack Gerard and North American Building Trades Unions President Sean McGarvey said the intervention last Friday (see Shale Daily, Sept. 9) by three federal agencies changes “the rules in the middle of the road."
Those "unprecedented" actions came immediately after a federal district judge had ruled in favor the ongoing, nearly 1,200-mile pipeline project cutting through North/South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois, and they carry a "chilling effect" on future U.S. infrastructure projects that transcends the energy industry, Girard and McGarvey said during a conference call Tuesday.
Gerard called the move by the Departments of Justice and Interior, along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a "dangerous precedent" for the nation's future infrastructure projects. McGarvey, whose union has many idled pipeline construction workers, called for a return to the “rule of law.”
Political observers said such a fast coordinated response from totally separate parts of the administration could only have come directly from the White House.
"New and expanded energy infrastructure is necessary to get supplies of oil and natural gas to market to fulfill the energy demands of our nation," said Girard, citing a recent study showing new U.S. energy infrastructure development could mean up to $1.1 trillion in capital investment and up to 1.5 million jobs. "Moving forward, it is critical that the rule of law is followed as the need for new infrastructure grows."
McGarvey said his union's research so far cannot find a similar situation in which an approved infrastructure project was stopped. "These federal agencies have not provided any legal justification for halting pipeline development that is already permitted and working," he said.
McGarvey drew a sharp distinction between the ill-fated TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline and Dakota Access. In that regard, he said the union "respected but did not agree" with the Obama administration's decision to reject Keystone XL. In the case of Dakota Access, "all the procedures and policies were followed, permits were issued, and then due to some demonstrations and violence in and around the project, somehow the administration made the decision to overrule a federal judge who had said the proper processes were followed."
From the union's standpoint, McGarvey said his members are looking for answers from the Obama administration related to the decision to suspend the project and also an investigation of their allegations that opponents of the project have physically harmed workers and equipment.
Meanwhile, opponents pushed their protest activities to a reported 100 events spread across 35 states and Washington, DC, on Tuesday, and the Standing Rock Sioux Nation reiterated that it will continue to fight the project through the courts and other means. They were critical of a statement from the pipeline project sponsor Energy Transfer Partners (ETP).
ETP CEO Kelcy Warren said in an internal memo made public that ETP "intends to meet with officials in Washington to understand [the government's] position and reiterate our commitment to bring the Dakota Access Pipeline into operation." Warren also says the company has met with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe nine times over the course of the permit application process. "We -- like all Americans -- value and respect cultural diversity and the significant role that Native American culture plays in our nation’s history and its future and hope to be able to strengthen our relationship with the Native American communities as we move forward with this project."
Opponents of the pipeline were staging protests at different points across the nation Tuesday. In Washington DC, it was difficult to tell protesters against the pipeline, from the crowds protesting the opening of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s new downtown hotel, or those protesting a new government ban on the herb, Kratom, which is said to relieve pain.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107735-obama-administration-dakota-pipeline-intervention-unprecedented-api-union-officials-say
-
NGSA Advocates For Pipeline Projects in New York State
Sep 14, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) has stepped up in support of two pipeline projects in New York State, pushing back against environmentalist objections to one and arguing for approval of a delayed state air permit for another.
The "New York situation" has "become really tough (understatement)," NGSA spokesperson Daphne Magnuson said in an email.
In a brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, NGSA called on the Court to deny a petition by Catskill Mountainkeeper, et al., challenging FERC's environmental review of the long-delayed Constitution Pipeline (see Shale Daily, July 26).
The environmentalists are arguing, as they have before, that new infrastructure would induce increased natural gas production. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has rejected this argument in the past, as does NGSA, which said production precedes pipeline construction.
"The true aim of the petition is to advance Sierra Club's [Beyond Natural Gas campaign] to eliminate the use of fossil fuels...which would deprive the region's businesses and consumers of the benefits of abundant and accessible clean natural gas supplies.
"Petitioners incorrectly argue that authorization of the Constitution Pipeline itself will cause cognizable increases in domestic natural production...incorrectly reversing the causal connection between natural gas production and the infrastructure necessary to transport natural gas."
Earlier this year, the state of New York denied a water permit to Constitution Pipeline LLC, which has stalled the Marcellus/Utica shale takeaway project which filed for a FERC certificate three years ago (see Shale Daily, April 25). The 125-mile pipeline would carry Marcellus Shale gas from Susquehanna County, PA, interconnecting with the Iroquois Gas Transmission and Tennessee Gas Pipeline systems in Schoharie County, NY.
Separately, NGSA wrote to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), urging it to "act promptly" and approve state air facility permits for compressor stations that are part of Dominion Transmission Inc.'s (DTI) New Market Project in Upstate New York (see Daily GPI, Oct. 21, 2015). FERC approved the project in April.
"...FERC notes in the certificate order that the analysis in its EA [environmental assessment] went beyond DEC's permit review requirements by requiring air quality impact modeling," NGSA told DEC. "Yet, DTI's air permits have now been pending before the DEC for more than two years, precluding DTI's ability to begin construction." New Market would provide 112,000 Dth/d of firm transportation service, with more than 33,000 hp added to Dominion Transmission's existing system. It would improve access for two National Grid subsidiaries, Niagara Mohawk and Brooklyn Union.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107737-ngsa-advocates-for-pipeline-projects-in-new-york-state
-
FRA Safety Grants Include Millions To Amtrak, Metro North, Short Lines
Sep 13, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) yesterday awarded $25 million in grants to increase safety at railroad crossings, train stations, and tracks across the United States.
A total of 23 projects in 14 states and the District of Columbia received funding, FRA officials said in a press release.
The agency received 40 eligible applications requesting $67.5 million in funding, nearly three times the amount that Congress provided in the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act that funds the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The Railroad Safety Infrastructure Improvement Grants fund safety improvements to railroad infrastructure, including the acquisition, improvement, or rehabilitation of intermodal facilities; improvements to track, bridges, rail yards, and tunnels; upgrades to railroad crossings; and the separation of railroad crossings and roads.
The grants include a $2.35 million awarded to Amtrak to provide a new emergency egress stairway and fire suppression system in the North Hangar and Clayton Concourse, which serve trains moving north and south out of Washington Union Station in the District of Columbia.
"These grants will improve safety at hundreds of railroad crossings and make important safety upgrades at stations across the country," said FRA Administrator Sarah Feinberg. "This is an investment that is desperately needed – and I urge state [departments of transportations] to join the FRA in investing more in improving safety at crossings.”
Other station-related grants include:
• $2.69 million to the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District to add two platform access points at the East Chicago Train Station in East Chicago, Ind., to distribute passengers along the full length of the train to reduce congestion and improve egress operations.
• $1.61 million to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) to construct a new pedestrian underpass and two new rail bridges at SEPTA's Lawndale Station in Philadelphia.
• $269,600 to Dallas Area Rapid Transit to provide safety improvements at 10 passenger-rail stations.
Grants related to crossings include:
• $1.91 million to the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to install CCTV cameras to record grade crossing movements at 43 identified grade crossings within MTA Metro‐North Railroad territory in New York to investigate specific incidents and analyze crossing/traffic operations for targeted modifications to improve safety. Metro‐North and MTA Long Island Rail Road will work separately as subsidiaries of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority on this project.
• $1.90 million to fund installing upgrades to three grade crossings to mitigate hazardous conditions between highway and rail traffic. The Metro-North Railroad project includes upgrading the roadway, pavement markings, and signage at a heavily used grade crossing in North White Plains. The Long Island Rail Road project will improve two public highway grade crossings in Deer Park and Oceanside, N.Y., with preemptive safety equipment and undertake roadway/traffic control improvements.
• $1.34 million to the NYSDOT to add highway traffic signal preemption to seven grade crossings on Metro-North's Harlem and Port Jervis Lines in New York to activate the traffic signals at the intersections and allow queued traffic to exit onto the highway prior to the activation of the railroad grade crossing warning systems.
• $1.06 million to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board in California to install safety measures at 10 grade crossings along the commuter-rail line in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Francisco counties.
• $129,537 to the Indiana Rail Road Co. in Indiana, to improve 321 grade crossings in 10 Indiana and Illinois counties by clearing vegetation from 201 crossings over highways and installing grade crossing warning signs at 120 private road crossings that intersect with the railroad.
• $700,000 to the Maryland Department of Transportation to improve four sequential, private grade crossings in Rosedale, Md.
• $640,000 to the Indiana Department of Transportation to upgrade four major at-risk grade crossings.
• $390,000 to the Mohawk, Adirondack & Northern Railroad in New York to to resurface 10 grade crossings and replace/upgrade passive warning devices in poor condition at 35 additional crossings on the Newton Falls Branch, which extends 46.25 miles into Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence counties.
• $385,000 to the Iberville Parish Government in Louisiana to improve two Iberville Parish grade crossings by installing signals and gates. The project also will reconstruct roadway approaches and railway crossings.
• $374,598 to the St. Louis and Lake Counties Regional Railroad Authority in Minnesota, to replace and upgrade the warning systems at four grade crossings along a passenger excursion line in Duluth to improve pedestrian safety and mitigate the risks associated with cars idling over the tracks.
• $328,707 to the South Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Public Railways to upgrade seven grade crossings that serve several industries, including the South Carolina Port Authority in North Charleston.
• $160,422 to Buffalo, Minn., to upgrade a single grade crossing at 2nd Street South and Canadian Pacific track in Buffalo.
Track-related grants include:
• $2.37 million to the Providence and Worcester Railroad Co. in Massachusetts to rehabilitate 12 miles of century-old rail to improve track conditions substantially with new continuous welded rail and ties along Providence and Worcester Railroad's Gardner Branch rail line in central Massachusetts.
• $600,000 to the Ohio Rail Development Commission to upgrade 9.7 miles of track to Class II track from Hamden to Red Diamond, Ohio, on the Jackson line to provide a safe rail corridor for the transportation of hazardous materials.
• $442,887 to the San Luis Central Railroad in Illinois to upgrade 2.15 miles of a 13.2-mile system, resulting in a total of 7.5 miles of 90-pound rail to Class I standards, capable of operating 280,000-pound rail cars along San Luis Central Railroad's main line between Vastine and Ansel stations in Rio Grande County, Colo.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/FRA-safety-grants-include-millions-to-Amtrak-Metro-North-short-lines--49452
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA: Court Should Retain Boiler Emissions Limits for Now
Sep 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Emissions limits covering industrial boilers should be left in place while the Environmental Protection Agency works to address legal flaws identified by a federal appeals court, the agency said in a court filing (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1108, petitions filed 9/12/16).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in July found that the EPA erred when it excluded certain high-performing units from its calculation of minimum emissions standards, known as MACT floors, for different subcategories of boilers. That decision, which included several victories for environmental organizations, also rejected all arguments raised by U.S. Sugar Corp., the American Chemistry Council and other industry petitioners (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 2016 BL 245584, 82 ERC 2107 (D.C. Cir. 2016)).
The D.C. Circuit panel's opinion in U.S. Sugar Corp. vacated the emissions standards for all major boiler subcategories that would have been affected had the EPA considered all sources, rather than excluding certain units from its analysis. The EPA petitioned the court Sept. 12 to instead leave the emissions limits in place while the agency works to address the D.C. Circuit's ruling.
Meanwhile, a utility and a coalition of environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project, separately asked the court to reconsider aspects of the U.S. Sugar Corp. ruling, which was issued by a three-judge panel. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg L.P., parent of Bloomberg BNA.
The maximum achievable control technology standards for major source boilers, commonly referred to as Boiler MACT, apply to more than 14,000 boilers found at petroleum refineries, chemical plants and other industrial facilities. The EPA estimated it would cost industry $1.6 billion annually to comply with the emissions standards.
EPA: Standards Pass Allied-Signal Test
The EPA said the issue with the affected boiler standards passes a two-part test used by the D.C. Circuit to determine whether it should vacate a regulation or remand the rule without vacatur. That two-part test, established in a 1993 ruling, involves a consideration of the seriousness of the legal flaw in the decision and the disruptive consequences of vacating a decision only to have it later be reissued (Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 988 F.2d 146, 300 U.S. App. D.C. 198 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).
“There is no question that EPA can promulgate revised standards in accordance with the court's opinion,” the EPA said. “Furthermore, vacatur will result not only in adverse environmental consequences, but will be disruptive in that sources will be subject to standards for some pollutants, but not others, with the mix varying depending on the particular subcategory a source falls in.”
The EPA also argued that vacatur of the emissions standards would be contrary to the relief sought by the environmental organizations which challenged the standards with an argument that the EPA's approach to screen out some of the best-performing sources resulted in standards that were less stringent than they otherwise would have been.
While requests for rehearing are often rejected, the EPA has had some past success in getting the D.C. Circuit to change its mind about vacating an environmental regulation. The D.C. Circuit in 2008 originally vacated the Clean Air Interstate Rule, a regulation intended to address power sector emissions that cross state lines, before opting to leave the regulation in place to allow for some level of emissions reductions to be achieved while the EPA worked on a replacement rule (North Carolina v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 05-1244, 12/23/08).
Rehearing Sought on Statistical Tool, Malfunctions
While the U.S. Sugar Corp. decision was largely favorable to environmental petitioners, those organizations asked the court to reconsider its ruling to uphold the upper prediction limit, a statistical tool used by the EPA to predict the level of emissions that the “best-performing” facilities in a source category are expected to meet.
The D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA's use of the upper prediction limit after finding that the agency “carried its burden” of showing that the tool does reflect a reasonable estimate of the emissions achieved by the best-performing sources.
In their petition for rehearing, the environmental organizations argued that in order to justify its use of the upper prediction limit, the EPA altered a long-standing interpretation of the word “average” under the Clean Air Act. The court incorrectly deferred to the EPA's decision-making in conflict with a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held it is unlawful for an agency to change a statutory interpretation without acknowledging and explaining the change, the environment groups argued (Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2016 BL 196078 (2016)).
American Municipal Power Inc. asked the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the Boiler MACT litigation in order to weigh in on the EPA's ability to address malfunctions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA previously included affirmative defense language that shielded industry from civil penalties related to unavoidable malfunctions, but the D.C. Circuit ruled in 2014 that such provisions were illegal (Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055, 2014 BL 108218, 78 ERC 1369 (D.C. Cir. 2014)).
EPA Using Enforcement Discretion
In the U.S. Sugar ruling, the D.C. Circuit panel rejected an industry argument that the EPA's approach to rely on enforcement discretion to address violations of the Boiler MACT standards caused by malfunctions represents a violation of a Clean Air Act requirement that the standards must be achievable.
“The panel decision upholds an EPA regulation that requires the impossible: perfect performance that even EPA admits is neither achieved nor achievable because malfunctions are an inevitable fact of industrial life,” the Ohio-based utility said in its petition. “Unless corrected, this decision will be felt in dozens of impending rulemakings impacting a broad swath of the American economy while generating a slew of unnecessary lawsuits in federal district courts nationwide.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97222161&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97222161&jd=97222161
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists, Utility Seek Rehearing Of D.C. Circuit Boiler MACT Ruling
Sep 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists and an electric utility are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rehear its ruling that largely upheld the agency's boiler air toxics standards, although advocates are pushing the court to force stricter limits while the utility is faulting parts of the rule as too strict.
The arguments are outlined in petitions for rehearing filed late Sept. 12, hours after EPA filed its own request with the court to remand part of the court's July 29 ruling that resolved challenges filed by various groups to EPA's package of combustion air rules. The regulations include an air toxics rule for large “major” source boilers, a rule for smaller “area” source boilers, and emissions standards for certain types of incinerators.
The cases were never consolidated but the court issued one ruling addressing all three challenges: the major source boiler maximum achievable control technology (MACT) suit in United States Sugar Corporation v. EPA, et al., the area source boiler rule suit in American Chemistry Council (ACC) v. EPA, and the commercial, industrial and solid waste incinerator rule litigation known as American Forest & Paper Association, et al. v. EPA.
While the court largely upheld the rules, it vacated some major source boiler MACT standards -- though EPA is asking the court to instead remand the standards to the agency so it can revise them.
Environmentalist and industry groups, meanwhile, are contesting various parts of the per curiam opinion by Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas B. Griffith they want reconsidered.
In U.S. Sugar, the court vacated numeric MACT standards for certain “subcategories” of major source boilers, because it said EPA's definition of boilers by fuel type resulted in some boilers being wrongly excluded from the setting of MACT “floors,” or minimum emissions standards. That decision is considered a win for environmentalists, as the vacated standards will likely become more stringent as a result of the ruling.
Major sources are defined as those emitting 10 tons per year (tpy) of one hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs, while area sources emit below this threshold.
Environmentalists' Concerns
In a Sept. 12 petition for rehearing in U.S. Sugar, the environmental groups Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Sierra Club, Clean Air Council, Partnership for Policy Integrity, and Environmental Integrity Project ask for both panel rehearing and rehearing by the full court en banc in order to overturn the court's acceptance of the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL). The UPL is a statistical tool used by EPA to calculate both the boiler MACT standards and emissions limits in other air rules, notably the agency's power plant MACT.
Environmentalists have long argued that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to use averages of the best-performing sources' emissions when setting MACT floors, and that the UPL is not a true average. Advocates claim that use of the UPL results in in weaker emissions standards than would otherwise apply.
“EPA made clear that the UPL is -- exactly as its name suggests -- an upper limit that EPA expects all the best sources’ emissions to 'fall below' virtually all the time. EPA’s claim that the 'average' emission level achieved by the best performing sources is an 'upper limit' it expects virtually all future emissions from all of these sources to 'fall below' marks a major departure from EPA’s previous interpretation of 'average' to mean a measure of 'central tendency' of the best performing sources’ emissions,” environmentalists argue in their petition.
“Because this departure went unacknowledged and wholly unexplained, it rendered EPA’s statutory interpretation 'unlawful,'” and precluded deference by the court to EPA's interpretation under the Chevron doctrine, applied by the court throughout the ruling, which directs courts to defer to agency's interpretations of ambiguous statutory terms, provided they are reasonable constructions of the statutes.
In their Sept. 12 petition for panel and en banc rehearing of the area source boiler ruling in ACC, the same groups say the court erred by accepting EPA's judgment that numeric MACT standards were not needed for the vast majority of smaller boilers, for which only tune-ups were required.
They say the court upheld the non-numeric standards based on a series of inferences unsupported by the administrative record, and that this is counter to both D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court precedent. “Because ACCupholds EPA’s non-numeric standards on grounds not articulated by EPA, it contravenes binding Circuit and Supreme Court authority. It is a foundational principle of administrative law that reviewing courts 'must judge the propriety of [agency] action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency,'” the environmentalists argue.
Malfunction Emissions
Meanwhile, the utility American Municipal Power, Inc. in a Sept. 12 petition for rehearing of U.S. Sugar either by the panel or en banc takes aim at the court's decision to uphold EPA's application of emission standards during periods of malfunction, in addition to startup and shutdown, when emissions can be higher than during normal operation.
The D.C. Circuit based its decision on its 2008 ruling in NRDC v. EPA, in which the court found that emissions limits must apply continuously. The agency has moved to remove language from its rulemakings that allow some Clean Air Act limit exceedances during periods of facility startup, shutdown and malfunction.
Utilities and others argue that the air law waivers are vital to ensure the facilities can operate properly, an argument that American Municipal Power echoes in its petition for rehearing. “The panel decision upholds an EPA regulation that requires the impossible: perfect performance that even EPA admits is neither achieved nor achievable because malfunctions are an inevitable fact of industrial life,” the utility says.
“Rehearing en banc is necessary so the full Court can decide if the Clean Air Act permits EPA to outlaw malfunctions and create federal cases out of unavoidable, no-fault events, rather than requiring the use of best practices to limit malfunction,” the utility says, calling on the court to also revise the 2008 finding in NRDC.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-utility-seek-rehearing-dc-circuit-boiler-mact-ruling
-
EPA Tweaks Area Source Boiler Emissions Standards
Sep 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is tweaking various compliance requirements under its federal emissions standards for area source boilers that it projects will not significantly change expected compliance costs and pollution reductions.
The final reconsideration rule, scheduled for publication Sept. 14, establishes a new alternative particulate matter standard for new oil-fired boilers that combust low-sulfur liquid fuel and alternative definitions of startup and shutdown that apply to area source boilers.
The area source boiler standards, issued in 2011, apply to about 183,000 boilers located at facilities across the U.S. More than 99 percent of those boilers are required to undergo only periodic tune-ups under the standards, while only about 600 coal-burning units are actually subject to emissions limits, according to an EPA fact sheet.
Under the Clean Air Act, an area source facility is one that has the potential to emit less than 10 tons annually of any single hazardous air pollutant or less than 25 tons annually of any combination of those pollutants.
Also in the reconsideration rule (RIN:2060-AS10) are a provision that will require additional particulate matter performance testing every five years for certain boilers and language requiring annual fuel sampling for some coal-fired boilers.
The EPA said the provisions of its final reconsideration rule will not significantly affect the costs, benefits, pollution reductions or compliance dates associated with the area source boiler standards. The rule is set to go into effect after its Sept. 14 publication in the Federal Register.
As a final agency action, the reconsideration rule is subject to judicial review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Any challenge to the rule must be filed with that court by Nov. 13.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97222170&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97222170&jd=97222170
-
Modified EPA Boiler MACT Revises Facility 'Startup, Shutdown' Definitions
Sep 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is modifying its contested boiler maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule to refine regulatory definitions for facility “startup” and “shutdown,” in response to criticisms from major industry groups that the initial definitions created regulatory uncertainty because they were too vague or were inaccurate.
In a final rule slated for publication in the Sept. 14 Federal Register, EPA also adopts a host of other changes to the regulation, one of many changes the agency has made over the years to its boiler rule.
The air toxics rule for smaller “area” source boilers is part of a package of combustion rules that also includes a MACT for larger “major” source boilers and emissions standards for certain types of incinerators. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently upheld many of the standards, although it vacated some. EPA is urging the court to scrap the vacatur and instead remand the limits to the agency for revision.
Separately, the agency has also processed several petitions for administration reconsideration of the combustion rules, including a November rulemaking that expands the definition of “clean fuels” approved as a compliance option to cut emissions during boiler startups to include certain types of biomass.
The new revised final rule for area source boilers makes changes to the definitions in response to industry input over the Feb. 1, 2013, rule being vague or unrepresentative of how the affected boilers actually function, but also makes other changes in response to criticism from environmentalists that some rule provisions are too lax.
Under the modified area source boiler MACT, emissions control requirements will be reduced during periods of startup or shutdown -- although for the area source category at issue, EPA exempted many boilers from tough numeric MACT emissions standards and mandated boiler “tune-ups” instead. Area sources are those emitting 10 tons per year (tpy) of one hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs.
Regulatory Definitions
Echoing the 2015 proposed version of the rule, EPA is eliminating references from the 2013 rule that define the end of startup based on when heat or steam is produced, substituting instead “useful thermal energy.”
EPA provides two alternative definitions based on this yardstick, relating to firing of fuel “for the purpose of supplying useful thermal energy for heating and/or producing electricity or for any other purpose,” or “for the purpose of supplying useful thermal energy for heating, cooling, or process purposes or for producing electricity, and ending 4 hours after the boiler supplies useful thermal energy for those purposes.”
The four-hour period is consistent with the approach taken to startup by EPA in its MACT rule for large electric utility boilers. EPA further refines its definition of shutdown to reflect real-world boiler performance.
In addition, EPA strips from the rule an “affirmative defense” provision, which shielded industry from civil liability in the event of a malfunction that the agency considers unavoidable.
EPA is removing such provisions from rules in response to rulings by the D.C. Circuit that found such regulatory exemptions unlawful.
The final rule makes several other changes to the MACT, setting alternative particulate matter limits for new oil-fired boilers that burn ultra low-sulfur liquid fuel; retaining a subcategory and more-lenient requirements for infrequently-used “limited-use” boilers; mandating further performance testing for certain boilers five years after their initial performance test, rather than eliminating such testing as provided for by the 2013 rule; and requiring further fuel sampling for mercury for certain coal-fired boilers every 12 months based on their initial compliance demonstration, rather than eliminating the requirement as under the 2013 rule.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/modified-epa-boiler-mact-revises-facility-startup-shutdown-definitions
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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