Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 11/1/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Production On the Up
Nov 1, 2016 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Rosalie Starling
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the US Chemical Production Regional Index (US CPRI) expanded by 0.2% in September, following a 0.3% decline in August and flat growth in July. -
Revised TSCA Raises Questions over Limits on EPA Penalty 'Overfiling'
Oct 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohanan
A provision in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that bars states and EPA from pursuing penalties for violations of the law beyond the federal government's maximum limit is raising questions over whether the language is at odds with... -
Processors Will Be Hit by TSCA Reform
Nov 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
Companies processing chemicals in the US need to be aware of the implications of TSCA reform and closely monitor and engage in the rulemaking process. -
What FR Apparel Manufacturers Need to Know About the Lautenberg Act
Oct 31, 2016 | Apparel
By Nicholas Clark
From the mid-1970s until recently, America’s main law governing chemical safety was the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
NIOSH Gives Exposure Limits for Coffee, Butter Flavor Chemicals
Nov 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
After more than five years of deliberations, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issued final recommended exposure limits Oct. 31 for diacetyl and a related substance, 2.3-pentanedione. -
OSHA Director Backs EPA Worker Safety Update
Nov 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
OSHA “strongly supports” a proposed rule by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (RIN:2070-AJ94) to update the worker safety provisions of its new chemical rules, the agency said. -
California to Update Chromium VI, Nickel Public Health Goals
Nov 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has initiated a review of its drinking water public health goals (PHGs) for four substances. -
Small Business Regulatory Relief in California Starts with Prop 65
Oct 28, 2016 | Investor's Business Daily
By Alfredo Ortiz
Election Day this November marks the 30th anniversary of California's Proposition 65, the poster child of bad government regulation. -
Spokane PCB Suit Against Monsanto Gets Green Light
Nov 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
The city of Spokane, Wash., may proceed with its suit against Monsanto for allegedly polluting public waterways with PCBs it made decades ago, a federal trial court ruled (Spokane v. Monsanto Co., 2016 BL 357230, E.D. Wash., No. 15-CV-00201, 10/26/16). -
It’s So Hard to Make Blue Jeans Without Nasty Chemicals
Nov 1, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
What’s in your jeans? A rogue’s gallery of unpronounceable chemicals whose effects on humans are suspect. -
EU Member States Grant Authorisation for TCE Uses
Nov 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A majority of EU member states have agreed to grant two companies authorisation for uses of the carcinogen trichloroethylene (TCE). -
Business GE, Baker Hughes Create Powerful New Player in Energy Sector
Oct 31, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By David Koenig
General Electric is taking advantage of a prolonged energy slump to become a bigger player in the oil and gas drilling business, a bet that could pay off big when prices recover. -
Noble Energy, Consol Energy End Marcellus Shale Partnership
Oct 31, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Mike D. Smith
Noble Energy and Pittsburgh-based Consol Energy on Monday said they have ended their shale exploration partnership in the Marcellus drilling region. -
4 More Companies Join EPA's Voluntary Methane Program
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
As part of its ongoing effort to slash methane emissions from oil and gas operations, U.S. EPA rolled out a second round of commitments to its Methane Challenge Program last week. -
US Crude Shipped to 22 Countries over Six-Month Period: EIA
Oct 31, 2016 | Platts
By Brian Scheid
The US exported an average of 657,000 b/d of crude oil to foreign markets in August, the second most exported in history, the US Energy Information Administration said Monday. -
Largest U.S. Fuel Pipeline Shuts After Work Crew Triggers Blast
Nov 1, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Laura Blewitt
The biggest fuel pipeline in the U.S. shut its mainlines Monday after an explosion and fire in Alabama that killed at least one person. Gasoline futures surged and U.S. refiner stocks gained. -
Companies Agree to Settle West Virginia Chemical Spill Suits
Oct 31, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher
A water company and a chemical manufacturer agreed to pay up to a total of $151 million to settle a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of more than 200,000 West Virginia residents whose water was contaminated by a chemical spill in early 2014. -
California Can't Charge $45 Hazardous Materials Rail Car Fee
Nov 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lars-Eric Hedberg
A federal judge has enjoined California from imposing a $45 charge for each railway car crossing into or loaded in the state that carries certain hazardous materials... -
UPS to STB: Forced Access Forces Us Off the Rails
Oct 31, 2016 | Railway Age Magazine
By William C. Vantuono
The U.S. Surface Transportation Board would be doing itself a favor if chooses not to mess with UPS and heed the gargantuan railroad customer’s call to deep-six forced access, otherwise known as “reciprocal switching.” -
EPA, States Spar over Legality of Rule to Outlaw Clean Air Act Waivers
Oct 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA and several states are sparring over the legality of the agency's rule forcing 36 states to remove provisions from their state implementation plan (SIPs) that exempted some industrial emissions from Clean Air Act limits, with EPA fighting the states' claim... -
California Air District Rejects 'Absurd' out of Area EPA Emissions Policy
Oct 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A California air district is pushing back against EPA's new policy disallowing areas in nonattainment with federal air standards from claiming credit for out of area emissions reductions in order to satisfy Clean Air Act mandates for “reasonable further progress” (RFP)... -
China Calls on Trump to Uphold Global Carbon Deal
Nov 1, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Brian Spegele
China’s top climate negotiator called on Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump to uphold a global carbon deal championed by the Obama administration if he’s elected. -
Corps Sends Final NWPs To OMB For Review
Oct 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Army Corps of Engineers has sent its final streamlined Clean Water Act (CWA) permits to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) for review, a crucial last step before the Corps can issue the new final permits to replace the existing permits...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Production On the Up
Nov 1, 2016 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Rosalie Starling
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the US Chemical Production Regional Index (US CPRI) expanded by 0.2% in September, following a 0.3% decline in August and flat growth in July. In September, chemical production rose across all regions, with the largest gains in the Ohio Valley, Gulf Coast and Midwest regions.
Also measured on a three month moving average (3MMA) basis, chemical production was mixed. There were gains in the production output trend of adhesives, fertilisers, pesticides, coatings, organic chemicals, synthetic rubber, plastic resins, pharmaceuticals and other speciality chemicals. These gains were offset by declines in the output trend in inorganic chemicals, consumer products, industrial gases, dyes and pigments, and manufactured fibres.
Nearly all manufactured goods are produced using chemistry in some form or another. Thus, manufacturing activity is an important indicator for chemical production. On a 3MMA basis, manufacturing activity was flat in September, following marginal gains in July and August. Production expanded in several chemistry intensive manufacturing industries, including food and beverages; motor vehicles; construction supplies; computers and electronics; semiconductors; petroleum refining; plastic products; rubber products; textile products; and apparel.
Compared to September 2015, US chemical production was ahead by 0.6% on a year over year basis, an improving comparison compared to last month. Chemical production remained ahead of year ago levels in all regions with the largest gains in the Ohio Valley and Southeast regions.
The chemistry industry is one of the largest industries in the United States, a US$797 billion enterprise. The manufacturing sector is the largest consumer of chemical products, and 96% of manufactured goods are touched by chemistry. The US CPRI was developed to track chemical production activity in seven regions of the United States. The US CPRI is based on information from the Federal Reserve, and as such, includes monthly revisions as published by the Federal Reserve. To smooth month to month fluctuations, the US CPRI is measured using a three month moving average. Thus, the reading in September reflects production activity during July, August, and September.
https://www.hydrocarbonengineering.com/petrochemicals/01112016/us-chemical-production-on-the-up/
-
Revised TSCA Raises Questions over Limits on EPA Penalty 'Overfiling'
Oct 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohanan
A provision in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that bars states and EPA from pursuing penalties for violations of the law beyond the federal government's maximum limit is raising questions over whether the language is at odds with an appellate ruling that sought to prevent “overfiling” of state and EPA enforcement actions.
The updated toxics law includes a provision that caps the penalty on a violator of TSCA or a similar state statute that has not been preempted at the amount of the maximum federal penalty, said Jerry Couri, a senior environmental policy advisor to the House Energy & Commerce Committee, speaking Oct. 27 just on his own behalf.
Couri, in remarks at the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials’ (ASTSWMO) annual meeting in Washington, D.C., said the language means that if EPA first settles with a violator at less than the maximum federal penalty allowed, a state can only seek to assess the remainder, up to that maximum, against the violator, and vice-versa so that the combined penalties do not exceed the federal cap.
He explained that drafters of the TSCA legislation did not want to prompt a situation whether the state and federal governments were in a race to get their hands on the penalty money first and cut the other party out. “And we didn’t want a situation where folks were getting penalized twice for the same thing.”
But during a question and answer segment at the meeting, Tammie Hynum, with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and chair of ASTSWMO’s hazardous waste subcommittee, questioned whether the language might be at adds with an appellate ruling that aimed to prevent overfiling of enforcement actions.
Hynum cited the landmark decision issued in 1991 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in Harmon Industries Inc. v. Carol M. Browner, which she said effectively barred states and the federal government from pursing the same violations against an individual party alleged to have violated federal or state law.
Harmon was a Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) case, rather than a TSCA enforcement action, but in it the 8th Circuit found that “EPA’s practice of overfiling, in those states where it has authorized the state to act, oversteps the federal agency’s authority under the RCRA,” according to the court ruling.
'Overfiling' Ruling
The case involved a Missouri RCRA site where employees at a facility owned by Harmon Industries Inc. disposed of hazardous wastes by pouring them onto the ground. EPA notified the Missouri Department of Natural Resources in 1990 -- two years after the state became aware of the contamination -- that EPA would bring suit against the facility unless the state initiated an enforcement action within 30 days under its authorized RCRA powers.
When the state failed to act, the petition states, EPA filed an administrative complaint against Harmon in September 1991 demanding that the company close the disposal area in accordance with the requirements of RCRA and seeking civil penalties. According to a Department of Justice filing in the case, it was not until March 5, 1993 that the state simultaneously filed a complaint against Harmon and entered into a consent decree with the company.
The state charged Harmon with violations of the Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Act (HWMA), but notified the company that any issue of civil penalties was between EPA and Harmon.
Despite the state's HWMA settlement, EPA continued with its case seeking civil penalties against Harmon and in December 1994 an administrative law judge ordered the company to pay $586,716.
In June 1997, Harmon filed a federal court action challenging EPA's penalty. The district court sided with Harmon, dismissing the case on the grounds that under the language of RCRA and the legal doctrine of res judicata -- which bars the relitigation of the same matter -- EPA could not continue with its administrative enforcement action once the state had entered into a consent decree. EPA appealed the ruling but the 8th Circuit upheld it.
In particular, the decision blocked EPA from overfiling if the delegated state “had already ‘taken enforcement action,’” a 2002 article in The Florida Bar Journal says. But other courts have clarified the decision, or diverged, the article says, noting that EPA adopted the ruling as binding only in those states governed by the 8th Circuit. These are: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska.
Penalty 'Ceiling'
But Couri at the ASTSWMO meeting indicated Congress did not seek any impact on the Harmon ruling. “There was no desire to overturn Harmon,” he said of the new TSCA language.
“There was no desire to affect it,” he said. “The only thinking at the time was whoever gets in, if both entities want a piece of the action so to speak, that there was going to be a ceiling.”
He said the ceiling would be whatever the federal limit is, and if a second party --whether it is the state or federal government -- wants to seek a penalty, it would be limited to only that part of the maximum penalty that had not already been assessed.
Hynum then inquired about the appeal aspect of that. “To me, that leaves the door open for an appeal.”
Couri said that was “a very good question. We did our best. We weren’t omniscient.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/revised-tsca-raises-questions-over-limits-epa-penalty-overfiling
-
Processors Will Be Hit by TSCA Reform
Nov 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
Companies processing chemicals in the US need to be aware of the implications of TSCA reform and closely monitor and engage in the rulemaking process.
This was the message of speakers at the Chemical Watch Regulatory Summit in Washington, DC last week.
Julie Froelicher, North America regulatory and technical relations manager, global product stewardship, at Procter & Gamble, said some processors believe manufacturers and importers will take care of the requirements of the reformed law. But, she said, it is important they understand what their role is and what the impacts might be.
René Viñas, toxicologist, consumer product safety for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, advised processors to:
· be proactive in their communications with the EPA and trade associations;
· have good internal communication with R&D, regulatory affairs, and legal teams;
· know which chemicals are core to their business; and
· get involved in advocacy at the early stages of rulemaking.
Ms Froelicher said processors should be aware that the EPA may continue its trend of increasing use of significant new use rules (Snurs) as a risk management tool, especially in terms of addressing all conditions of use. She said companies should be ready to manage materials impacted by a Snur. All Snurs need volume tracking, first-level customer distribution records, and Section 12(b) export notification obligations.
Inventory reset
Ms Froelicher also noted the possibility that processors may be needed to notify substances to the TSCA inventory reset.
The agency is expected to propose a rule outlining how the inventory will be reset in December. A final rule is scheduled for implementation in June 2017. As well as watching for their obligations, she said, processors need to:
· know their full ingredient portfolio;
· work with R&D to identify materials coming down the pipeline;
· identify reasonable replacements if supply of critical substances is likely to be affected;
· communicate with suppliers to ensure notification, remembering to align nomenclature; and
· review confidential status.
Mr Viñas also said processors may also be brought into Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) under section 8(a) of TSCA. Such a broadening of the reporting obligation would be a significant burden on processors in the next reporting window in 2020, he added.
Other impacts
Ms Froelicher added that processors should also be aware:
· if they use substances on EPA's work plan chemicals list, from which the first batch of ten high priority chemicals will be selected;
· the new chemical review process is likely to take more time than in the past, resulting in longer times for market introduction; and
· of opportunities in the risk evaluation stage to provide knowledge of how chemicals are used and the expected exposure scenarios.
She said the agency must have started evaluations for 20 high priority substances within three and a half years. And it will be required to consider if a substance poses an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant under its conditions of use.
Mr Viñas said processors must work with chemical suppliers to determine relevant conditions of use as intended for consumer products. He also noted that the EPA now has "flexible authority" to request information it needs.
He said products not under the scope of the Lautenberg Safe Chemicals Act may see impacts as their safety could be questioned as a result of EPA-mandated testing for risk evaluations. These could include food packaging, or products that might fall under dual agency authority.
Under the Act, processors are defined as a company that prepares a chemical substance or mixture (non-reactive blending) for distribution in commerce; and may include shaping a material (for example, cutting or moulding).
https://chemicalwatch.com/50661/processors-will-be-hit-by-tsca-reform
-
What FR Apparel Manufacturers Need to Know About the Lautenberg Act
Oct 31, 2016 | Apparel
By Nicholas Clark
From the mid-1970s until recently, America’s main law governing chemical safety was the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Many critics alleged TSCA was fatally flawed, allowing tens of thousands of potentially dangerous chemicals to remain on the market without any safety review — and permitting companies to put hundreds of new chemicals on the market every year without any demonstration they were safe. This situation changed on June 22, 2016, when the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LSCA) was signed into law. What are the implications of the law and how should the flame-retardant (FR) apparel industry respond?
From TSCA to LSCABefore getting into the specifics of the answer, some context is necessary. LCSA makes a number of significant changes to TSCA as a result of an increasingly apparent need for further evaluation of existing chemicals. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the new law includes requirements such as mandatory evaluation of existing chemicals, a new risk-based safety standard, and improved public transparency for chemical information. Obviously these changes apply across the chemical industry and will have some impact on apparel and textile applications. At this time, it is difficult to determine specific impacts since this law is still very new and being analyzed.
However, with regard to the general public, the goal is clear: LCSA is designed to protect both consumers’ health and the environment. Since the passing of TSCA years ago, the U.S. has seen a number of instances where the hazards for widely used chemical products were identified in hindsight and were rectified slowly. This new legislation will work to improve on this and provide the general public with greater confidence that the public and environmental safety are protected.
Given the great scrutiny that FR compounds have received over the past five years, it is to be expected that these compounds will be on the short list for EPA review in the years to come. As a result, the implications are likely to be felt industry-wide. Let’s look at this in a bit more detail.
Implications for FR manufacturersThe passage of LCSA will likely have a profound effect on some FR chemical developers as well as their customers — including the sector of the apparel industry that employs FR materials. In recent years, certain FR developers have made it a priority to focus on environmentally friendly chemical solutions. The goal is to provide the apparel and the entire textile industry with products that can provide a safer alternative to the FRs in question. Such FR developers may see themselves as a resource to the textile industry to transition away from these legacy FRs.
Given the fairly complicated and extensive changes that may result from LCSA, the effects on these manufacturers will likely be gradual as the government and industry fully grasp the scope of these changes. With that said, it is likely to inspire key changes that will affect FR developers, manufacturers and their customers. The stakes are high: FR apparel manufacturing, with a collective volume of 997 million square meters, accounted for 57.9 percent of the global industrial protective clothing market in 2015 — a market that is projected to grow in size to more than $14 billion by 2023, according to market research firm Global Market Insights.
Next steps for the FR apparel industry
What are the next steps? In a nutshell, FR apparel manufacturers that utilize FR chemistry should do the following:
Seek to do business with providers of specialty FR chemistries and that are safer for consumers and manufacturers. These suppliers can provide their customers with turn-key formulations that can be readily integrated into the customers’ manufacturing processes.
Be aware that some chemical products — and particularly FRs — may ultimately be removed from this market as their usage is restricted. And again, it is impossible to estimate the extent and range of these restrictions. While that may be unsettling for the industry, one fortunate change is that EPA actions will influence future state laws in some cases, thus making it easier for chemical providers and users to understand where and how these products can be used.Research the economic consequences of the new legislation. Should the industry expect LCSA to increase the price of FRs due to greater restrictions on certain chemicals? Not in the near term, but in the long term, price increases are plausible. LCSA gives the EPA greater ability to require more extensive testing on chemical products, and ultimately this testing may increase the cost to develop new products. In some cases, apparel manufacturers may see price increases due to restricted use of legacy FRs that then must be replaced by newer, safer alternatives. While increased costs for safer alternatives are by no means the rule, sometimes they are.
Stay informed in a proactive way. Those in the industry should communicate with their suppliers to understand any changes or expected changes to their products.
Follow trade magazines and conferences. Any significant changes to textile chemical products due to LCSA should be gradual, and apparel manufacturers are likely to see where suppliers are diligently working to provide alternatives in anticipation of this.The ultimate impact of the new legislation will be significant and wide-ranging, though all of us — including those in the apparel industry — will only really grasp the specifics over a period of time. While there will assuredly be some frustration (both inside and outside the apparel world) due to these changes, as a whole, these changes are expected to benefit the industry. It will direct those in the FR apparel industry toward safer alternatives where needed and provide them with greater assurance that what they produce is safe for their customers.
Nicholas Clark is CEO of Alexium International Group Limited, which holds proprietary patent applications for a process developed initially by the U.S. Department of Defense, which allows for the surface modification and attachment of nanoparticles or multiple chemical functional groups to surfaces or substrates to provide functions such as fire retardancy, waterproofing, oil proofing, and antimicrobial treatments.
http://apparel.edgl.com/news/What-FR-Apparel-Manufacturers-Need-to-Know-About-the-Lautenberg-Act107595
-
NIOSH Gives Exposure Limits for Coffee, Butter Flavor Chemicals
Nov 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
After more than five years of deliberations, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issued final recommended exposure limits Oct. 31 for diacetyl and a related substance, 2.3-pentanedione.
The recommended exposure limits call for exposures of no more than 5 parts per billion for diacetyl and up to 9.3 parts per billion for 2.3-pentanedione on average over an 8-hour per day, 40-hour work week. The document, “Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Diacetyl and 2,3-Pentanedione,” keeps recommended exposure limits from a draft document the agency issued last year.
NIOSH added the recommendations for short-term exposures of no more than 25 parts per billion for diacetyl and 31 parts per billion for 2.3-pentanedione over a 15-minute period.
Diacetyl occurs naturally in activities such as brewing coffee and making butter, cheese and other foods, and artificial forms of the chemical have also been used as a flavoring additive in products such as microwaved popcorn. The NIOSH document cited “extensive reports” of employees suffering serious respiratory disease and irreversible reduced lung function after being exposed to diacetyl, including at microwave popcorn plants in the mid-2000s.
The chemical 2.3-pentanedione is structurally similar to diacetyl and thus may present some of the same problems, NIOSH found. The NIOSH guidance recommends limiting 2.3-pentanedione “to a level comparable to that recommended for diacetyl,” but it cannot be reliably measured below 9.3 parts per billion, the document said.
“We know these flavoring compounds can pose a great risk for workers who may be exposed on the job, causing serious and irreversible damage to their lungs,” NIOSH Director John Howard said in a statement Oct. 31.
Howard said the document “reflects not only our review of the science and understanding of the hazard, but also outlines our recommendations for controlling workplace exposures to these compounds.”Companies may be able to reduce employees’ exposure to the chemicals by using engineering controls like personal protective equipment, including respirators, for workers in high-risk exposure scenarios, the document said. Employers should use comprehensive monitoring programs for workers in settings where the chemicals are present, NIOSH said.
Fallout From Recommendations
While NIOSH's recommendations do not create new legal obligations for employers on their own, OSHA could one day use them as the basis for new permissible exposure limits for the chemicals. OSHA could also seek to cite employers under the Occupational Safety and Health Act's general duty clause for exposing workers to the chemicals at levels about NIOSH's recommended exposure limits if it can prove an employer knew of a hazard that could cause death or serious injury and that a feasible means to abate or substantially reduce the risk exists.
Robyn Robbins, the health and safety director at the United Food and Commercial Workers, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 31 the recommended exposure limits will help the union press for new safety measures at plants where workers are exposed to the chemicals.
Joe DeRupo, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 31 the group is concerned the NIOSH limits are unreasonably low and unrealistic—a position it previously took in response to the draft proposal.
The NIOSH levels are “not much beyond the level of detection,” DeRupo said, describing what he called a difficult process for employers to reduce exposures.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99956466&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99956466&jd=99956466
-
OSHA Director Backs EPA Worker Safety Update
Nov 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
OSHA “strongly supports” a proposed rule by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (RIN:2070-AJ94) to update the worker safety provisions of its new chemical rules, the agency said.
The changes would “continue to make workplaces safer and healthier for our country's more than 150 million workers,” Occupational Safety and Health Administration Director David Michaels said in public comments filed to EPA.
Michaels’ comments, dated Oct. 25, were posted by EPA Oct. 28.
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, amended earlier this year, EPA reviews new chemicals before they can be manufactured or imported to the U.S. The agency can require workplace restrictions on these chemicals through significant new use rules (SNUR), but previously developed these controls under its own existing regulations, without considering OSHA's.
EPA's changes would align worker protection portions of new chemical rules with updated OSHA requirements. In addition, EPA is proposing clarifying that worker safety requirements it establishes for the manufacturers of new chemicals should be consistent with OSHA's hierarchy of controls approach for workplace health and safety.
This approach, Michaels wrote, “is widely accepted by the safety and health professional community and has been a fundamental principle of industrial hygiene since the first half of the 20th century.”
In addition, any hazard warnings required by EPA would be consistent with OSHA hazard warnings, which have been harmonized with the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Chemical Classification and Labeling, or GHS.
Industry Criticizes Changes
In comments filed Oct. 11, Derek Swick, manager of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, wrote that the group supports the proposed changes “as far as they are necessary to ensure that SNUR requirements for specific worker protection measures do not contradict OSHA requirements.”
Swick wrote that the EPA's proposal seems to propose a hierarchy of controls that it “different, lengthier, and more complicated” than OSHA's requirements.
EPA should also be more transparent about how it works with OSHA before proposing action to reduce workplace exposures, Swick wrote.
EPA is continuing to accept public comments on the proposed rule until Nov. 21.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99956452&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99956452&jd=99956452
-
California to Update Chromium VI, Nickel Public Health Goals
Nov 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has initiated a review of its drinking water public health goals (PHGs) for four substances.
PHGs are concentrations of chemicals in drinking water that are not anticipated to produce adverse health effects.
They are non-regulatory, but are used as the health basis to update the state's primary drinking water standards.
Oehha is considering updates to the existing PHGs on:
· hexavalent chromium;
· nickel;
· cis-1,2-dichloroethylene; and
· trans-1,2-dichloroethylene.
The move is based on the availability of new data, methodology updates, occurrence in drinking water supplies, and/or potential public health significance.
Oehha will accept comments helping to update the substances' risk assessments until 28 November.Lead petition rejected
Separately the agency has rejected a petition calling for a modification to the basis for lead's listing as a female reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65.
NGOs Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics and the Ecological Rights Foundation submitted the petition in September.
It called for the basis of the existing female reproductive toxicity listing to be expanded to include findings by the EPA and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) that lead is known to cause delayed onset of puberty in females.
But Oehha says its longstanding interpretation of the statute is that only developmental effects resulting entirely, or predominantly, from prenatal exposure to a chemical are relevant to listing chemicals under Prop 65. It therefore could not grant the petitioners' request related to the EPA or NTP findings.
Lead and related chemicals are currently listed under Prop 65 for cancer and reproductive toxicity (male reproductive, female reproductive, and developmental toxicity endpoints).
https://chemicalwatch.com/50662/california-to-update-chromium-vi-nickel-public-health-goals
-
Small Business Regulatory Relief in California Starts with Prop 65
Oct 28, 2016 | Investor's Business Daily
By Alfredo Ortiz
Election Day this November marks the 30th anniversary of California's Proposition 65, the poster child of bad government regulation.
Passed by ballot initiative in 1986, this law requires all businesses that operate in California to put warning labels on products that have a one in 100,000 chance of causing cancer over a 70-year period. Because this definition is so broad, nearly all products in the state from umbrellas to Disneyland include the label.
For businesses that operate in the state, it's a sad anniversary. They have had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements for so-called violations of this regulation over the past three decades. And recently released data shows that in 2015, businesses paid $26 million in Prop 65 settlements.
How is that figure so high? Violating Prop 65 does not come with a simple fine. The law allows trial attorneys to launch massive lawsuits against violators — up to $25,000 per violation per day. This can quickly add up to massive payouts. Policymakers need to pursue common sense tort law reform to protect small businesses from such predatory lawsuits.
Because lawyers know that it is in businesses' interest to settle rather than face an expensive trial, an industry of bounty hunter attorneys who specialize in trying to make a quick buck off Prop 65 violations has sprung up. Some of them go from business to business looking for products with missing labels. Others take products home to test for trace amounts of Prop 65 chemicals.
It's been happy hunting. The vast majority of settlement payouts go to trial attorneys. In 2015, $18 million — or 68% of the total collected — went to law firms. California's Attorney General indicates that more than 70% of Prop 65 settlements has gone to attorneys over the last 30 years.
Such lawsuits hit small businesses, which do not have the resources or the capital to defend themselves against bounty hunters, the hardest. Settlements can severely hamper their business operations or even put them out of business altogether.
These are businesses like health supplement company Super Nutrition, which has had to pay over $3 million in Prop 65 settlements. They're businesses like golf accessory manufacturer West Coast Trends, whose golf club cover was hit with a Prop 65 violation. They're businesses like Durascoop, whose revolutionary pooper scooper was hit with a Prop 65 lawsuit. In other words, they're the type of small businesses that are the heart of Main Street.
But if Prop 65 is keeping Californians safe, then maybe the compliance hurdles faced by small businesses are acceptable consequences. However, studies show that Prop 65 has had no effect on state cancer rates or public health. That's largely because products have only trace amounts of chemicals — often less than what naturally occurs in a serving of vegetables.
In other words, Prop 65 is a regulation that's been all pain and no gain (except for trial lawyers, of course). And Prop 65 is just one of many regulations that trial lawyers take advantage of to extract payouts from small businesses. Tort reform that protects them from such frivolous lawsuits is needed.
While lawsuits may be an existential threat to small businesses, the regulations themselves pose a death by a thousand cuts. According to a national poll of small business owners commissioned earlier this year by the Job Creators Network, regulations are cited as one of the biggest hurdles that respondents face. In fact, three out of five respondents said that they impede their ability to thrive. Prop 65 is a textbook example of one of the type of burdensome regulations they are facing.
Governor Jerry Brown has already called for Prop 65 reform to address the bounty hunter aspects of it. But to make its 30th anniversary something to truly celebrate, more substantive reform to ensure that it only applies to products with a clear health risk is needed. Policymakers looking to bring small businesses regulatory relief should start with Prop 65.
Ortiz is the president and CEO of the Job Creators Network.
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/small-business-regulatory-relief-in-california-starts-with-prop-65/
-
Spokane PCB Suit Against Monsanto Gets Green Light
Nov 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
The city of Spokane, Wash., may proceed with its suit against Monsanto for allegedly polluting public waterways with PCBs it made decades ago, a federal trial court ruled (Spokane v. Monsanto Co., 2016 BL 357230, E.D. Wash., No. 15-CV-00201, 10/26/16).
Spokane and six other cities—Seattle, Portland, Ore., San Diego, San Jose, Oakland and Berkeley, Calif.—sued Monsanto under a novel theory of public nuisance based on third-party use of the product.
The suits represent an intersection of hazardous waste and toxic torts, and huge sums are at stake.
The court rejected Monsanto's argument that the public nuisance claim is barred because the city doesn't own the Spokane River.
“The public harm at issue here comes from PCBs reaching the river, but the nuisance itself is Monsanto's production, marketing, and distribution of the PCBs,” the court said.
Spokane's alleged injury is the cost it will incur to reduce the PCBs discharged from its storm and wastewater systems into the river. “The complaint adequately alleges a causal connection between the public nuisance and this injury,” the court said.
The cleanup cost may add up to hundreds of millions of dollars; cleanup in Portland alone may top out at $1 billion.
The same issue of standing to sue is being fought out in suits brought by the other cities.
In September, the Southern District of California ruled that claims by the Port of San Diego may proceed, but tossed that city's claim on the ground that it failed to show an injury to city property.
The Northern District of California ruled in August that San Jose, Oakland and Berkeley, Calif. lacked standing to sue, but granted them three weeks to file amended complaints.
The cities refiled their claims in September, alleging they are incurring costs of reducing PCBs from stormwater and runoff.
Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. issued the ruling here.
Baron & Budd PC in Dallas represents the city.
Latham & Watkins LLP in San Francisco represents Monsanto.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99956467&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99956467&jd=99956467
-
It’s So Hard to Make Blue Jeans Without Nasty Chemicals
Nov 1, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
What’s in your jeans? A rogue’s gallery of unpronounceable chemicals whose effects on humans are suspect.
Perfluorochemicals, phthalates and azo dyes are among the substances that are widespread in making clothes. Under pressure from consumers demanding safer alternatives to harmful chemicals, American companies including Levi Strauss & Co. are taking a more European approach. The European Union has banned or restricted more than 1,000 chemicals; in the U.S., fewer than 50.
Consumer demand for safe products has global companies scrambling for greener ingredients, but obstacles are daunting. Suppliers are often reluctant to share their formulations, buyers balk at higher costs, and in some cases cost-effective safer substitutes simply aren’t available.
Levi’s has prohibited certain chemicals since 2000, but this is different. The jeans maker and other companies are asking suppliers to use materials generated from bacteria, fungus, yeast and methane gas to replace the petroleum-based substances that make up more than 95 percent of U.S. products’ inventory of chemicals.
Millennial Interest
There are plenty of incentives to change. A Pike Research report estimates that the global market for green chemistry will increase to almost $100 billion by 2020, from $11 billion last year. Millennials are overwhelmingly interested in sustainable investing, according to Morgan Stanley. And innovating can give companies a competitive advantage, said Monica Becker, co-director of the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council, which works with companies including Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Companies can make false promises that a product is consistent with green-chemistry practices, Becker said, but guarding against that are assessment methods used by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Safer Choice program.
Rules can also confound the efforts of U.S. companies. To approve chemicals and processes, the European Union uses a so-called hazard-based approach that the Chinese government is also considering. Manufacturers need to prove their products meet safety standards before they bring them to market. The U.S. method is risk-based. It involves weighing metrics, such as quantity and duration of exposure, to assess the danger in an existing product -- if data exist.
Tiny Exposure
Proponents of a hazard-based approach argue that exposure to even tiny amounts of some chemicals correlate with learning disabilities, asthma, allergies and cancer.
“Shouldn’t it be that chemicals are guilty until research proves them innocent?” said Amy Ziff, founder and executive director of Made Safe, a new hazard-based certification program. Levi’s said its goal is to use only chemicals that pass hazard-based screens by 2020.
Even as some suppliers push back, “we wouldn’t give up on hazard-based,” said Bart Sights, Levi’s director of global development.
Levi’s already uses some green methods to make its signature blue jeans. To give them a worn look, Levi’s uses an enzyme derived from fungus and tumbles the jeans in ozone gas instead of bleach -- a process that Sights estimated has had the added benefit of saving the company a billion gallons of water in the past three years.
Environmental Compliance
“Some companies are spending the same amount on environmental compliance as they are on research and development,” said John Warner, president and chief technology officer of Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, who created the first green-chemistry Ph.D. program in the U.S., at the University of Massachusetts at Boston.
Companies can be roiled by the use of non-green chemicals. Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc. was beset by lawsuits last year after a “60 Minutes” investigation said it used unsafe levels of formaldehyde. Shares plunged before a government probe ended without a product recall. The company no longer sells the flooring.
Such problems have investors taking notice, said Mark Rossi, whose company, Clean Production Action, created the Chemical Footprint, modeled on the carbon footprint, that investors can use to measure risk and costs. It also developed and licenses a chemical-screening method used by Levi’s and others.
Rossi has signed on firms including BNP Paribas, Calvert Investments and Trillium Asset Management, while companies like Johnson & Johnson and Clorox Co. participated in the first survey to assess their footprint. Gojo Industries Inc., maker of Purell hand sanitizer, has pledged to cut its chemical footprint in half by 2020.
Greenpeace Campaign
In the five years since it launched a campaign to spur clothing makers and sellers to get rid of toxic substances, Greenpeace International has signed on 78 brands, said Kirsten Brodde, head of the organization’s Detox My Fashion campaign.
At the Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry, across the Bay Bridge from Levi’s San Francisco headquarters, students have worked with the jeans maker and companies such as outfitter Patagonia Inc., office-furniture maker Steelcase Inc. and Mango Materials Inc., which manufactures plastics out of methane gas, to develop safer materials, including a non-toxic resin for Autodesk’s 3D printers.
Initial Step
But an overnight change for the greener just isn’t possible.
“When it comes to materials, we’re at the very initial step, which is figuring out what the heck is actually in our products,” said Marty Mulvihill, a founder of the Berkeley Center and its former executive director. “A lot of companies are just completing that first step.”
A comprehensive replacement for formaldehyde, for example, hasn’t been developed, Mulvihill said.
Mulvihill is now a partner at Safer Made, a new venture-capital firm he co-founded that’s seeking investments in companies that use green chemistry. It’s looked at more than 100 companies, with plans to invest in 10 to 15 firms in the next five years, he said.
Patagonia has also invested in green chemical companies. A Levi’s supplier, Beyond Surface Technologies, is one of a dozen the Ventura, California-based clothing maker has seeded out of 1,400 prospects it’s looked at since 2013.
“Ultimately, some of these companies that we fund could be able to help us clean up our own supply chain,” said Phil Graves, Patagonia’s director of corporate development.
Green Alternatives
There are 20 environmentally friendly chemicals available for the company’s textile finishes, compared with 200 to 300 that contain non-green chemicals, said Matthias Foessel, Beyond Surface’s founder and chief executive officer.
Developing safer alternatives can take years, while acceptable green substitutes for some substances used in waterproofing and stain protectants, such as perfluorocarbons, don’t exist, Foessel said.
New chemicals often behave differently than expected. Beyond Surface had been trying to create a water repellent when it developed a fabric that absorbs sweat instead.
Still, Foessel’s eight-year-old firm, based near Basel, Switzerland, now has more than 100 customers, including Adidas AG.
“Ten years ago, people wouldn’t have even talked to us,” Foessel said. “People accepted that you had to use chemicals that pose a risk.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-01/those-nasty-chemicals-in-your-blue-jeans-aren-t-easy-to-replace
-
EU Member States Grant Authorisation for TCE Uses
Nov 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A majority of EU member states have agreed to grant two companies authorisation for uses of the carcinogen trichloroethylene (TCE).
Use of the substance in the EU has been prohibited since last April, except for those granted authorisation, or for which authorisation applications are outstanding. The first approval for an authorisation application was granted last year.
At the 26 October REACH committee meeting, member states discussed authorisation applications from TCE producer Chimcomplex and two downstream users, hydraulics and pneumatics supplier Parker Hannifin, and chemicals and polymers producer Domo Caproleuna.
A large majority approved Parker Hannifin's application to use TCE as a process solvent for the manufacturing of modules containing hollow fibre gas separation membranes. The review period is 12 years.
The company had asked for a transition period for 18 years. It said it is searching for substitutes and argued the substance's use in the aviation industry involves long implementation times for alternatives and added it faces tough requirements from authorities.
But Echa's Socio-economic Analysis Committee (Seac) said this was not an "exceptional case" worthy of an extended review period.
Domo Caproleuna's application for the industrial use of TCE as an extraction solvent for the purification of caprolactam from caprolactam oil passed with only one vote against. The review period is seven years under the condition the company conducts regular occupational exposure measurements.
However, the REACH Committee decided it needs further discussion on Chimcomplex's application for the industrial use of TCE as a degreasing agent in closed systems.
The draft Commission Decision notes Echa's Risk Assessment Committee's (Rac) concerns about risks to workers, and that Seac has said the information in the application is insufficient and does not validate the conclusion on the feasibility of alternatives across the broad scope of the use.
However, the draft Decision says that based on RAC and Seac's opinions, the application should be granted, provided the risk management measures and operational conditions it proposes are applied. The draft Decision says a review period of 24 months would be appropriate.
Chimcomplex and Dow are the only producers of TCE in Europe. In August 2014 Dow submitted an authorisation application for its use in surface cleaning in closed systems, plus additional uses such as asphalt testing. This was one of the first authorisation applications prepared by a manufacturer of a substance, rather than a user.
In March last year Seac and Rac agreed draft opinions on a majority of uses in 12 authorisation applications covering 17 uses.
Meanwhile in the US, the EPA's roadmap of activities for implementing the recently reformed TSCA includes plans to propose risk management actions to address the use of TCE in degreasers, spray fixatives and stain removers.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50634/eu-member-states-grant-authorisation-for-tce-uses
-
Business GE, Baker Hughes Create Powerful New Player in Energy Sector
Oct 31, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By David Koenig
General Electric is taking advantage of a prolonged energy slump to become a bigger player in the oil and gas drilling business, a bet that could pay off big when prices recover.
GE and Baker Hughes Inc. will combine their oil and gas operations, creating a major player in the oilfield-services industry at a time when the energy sector is bogged down by weak and volatile commodity prices.
The new publicly traded company will still be called Baker Hughes, but GE will own 62.5 percent of it.
On a call with investors, GE CEO Jeff Immelt said the deal was intended to create a more technically sophisticated company that can provide the kinds of advanced services that oil companies will demand.
It will also be better able to weather the slump in oil prices, and “if pricing gets better, it allows us to benefit from that as well,” Immelt told CNBC.
The major oil-service companies — Baker Hughes, Schlumberger Ltd. and Halliburton Co. — are among the first to feel the pinch of weak prices, as major oil companies cut capital spending and renegotiate contracts with suppliers.
After severe declines in the price of oil and gas during the recession, prices appeared to recover and stabilize as production charged forward. But oil prices began to slide again in mid-2014, creating new headwinds and thousands of layoffs at Baker Hughes and its rivals.
If Monday’s deal is completed and further consolidates the services business, it could boost pricing power for all the major companies. But there is no guarantee that the transaction will succeed.
Halliburton attempted to buy Houston-based Baker Hughes but abandoned the $35 billion bid this year after U.S. antitrust regulators opposed it and suggested they would demand large divestitures.
Most analysts, however, say Baker Hughes and GE’s oil and gas operations have little overlapping business, making big divestitures less likely.
With the combined company, “you get technical oil and gas expertise from Baker and also that manufacturing prowess from GE, which hopefully get costs down quite a bit and offer some pretty good solutions” for oil companies, Jonathan Garrett, an energy analyst with Wood Mackenzie, said in an interview.
Baker Hughes is the smallest of the three leading international oilfield-services companies, which help oil and gas companies drill and keep wells running.
Schlumberger and Halliburton are likely to continue dominating for basic services such as drilling and hydraulic fracturing, Garrett said. The new Baker Hughes, he said, will stick to its current strategy of touting expertise in drilling pumps, fluids and other niche products.
Baker Hughes has a market capitalization less than a third that of industry leader Schlumberger Ltd. By combining with GE, however, its annual estimated revenue will more than double to $32 billion, much closer to Schlumberger, which has annual revenue of $35.5 billion.
Because the deal is structured as a combination of two companies, it will cost GE far less — a $7.4 billion contribution plus its oil and gas business, with about $13 billion in sales — than an outright acquisition. Yet GE will still be able to capture more of the upside if oil prices rebound.
The deal was unanimously endorsed by directors of both companies but needs the approval of Baker Hughes shareholders and regulators. Baker Hughes shareholders would get a one-time cash dividend of $17.50 per share and own 37.5 percent of the new company, with GE owning the rest. The companies expect to close the deal in mid-2017.
GE said the deal would add about 4 cents per share to its earnings in 2018 and 8 cents per share by 2020.
The new Baker Hughes would have headquarters in Houston and London. Lorenzo Simonelli, president and CEO of GE’s oil and gas business, would become CEO, Immelt would be chairman, and current Baker Hughes CEO Martin Craighead would be vice chairman. GE would pick five of the nine directors.
Cowen and Co. analyst Gautam Khanna said the companies fit well together strategically, and “we like the timing of the deal” during the trough of the oil-industry cycle.
Shares of Boston-based General Electric Co. fell 12 cents to close Monday at $29.10. Baker Hughes’ stock fell $3.72, or 6.3 percent, to $55.40.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ge-baker-hughes-create-powerful-new-player-in-energy-sector/2016/10/31/d52e0b90-9f56-11e6-8864-6f892cad0865_story.html
-
Noble Energy, Consol Energy End Marcellus Shale Partnership
Oct 31, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Mike D. Smith
Noble Energy and Pittsburgh-based Consol Energy on Monday said they have ended their shale exploration partnership in the Marcellus drilling region.
Houston-based Noble and Consol in 2011 forged an agreement for joint exploration and development of 669,000 acres across Pennsylvania and West Virginia, producing 1.07 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas equivalent, according to a joint statement from the companies.
Noble now will have 363,000 acres, producing about 450 million cubic feet per day of natural gas equivalent. Consol has 306,000 acres producing 620 million cubic feet per day.
In a statement, Noble President and CEO David Stover said that the relationship with Consol was “outstanding,” but that separation is a good move for both companies.
“It provides us with greater control and flexibility over the future pace of development in the Marcellus,” Stover said in a statement.
As a result of the separation, both companies will own their own properties in the region, each will be able to pursue future developments and both companies will continue to ship their products through Cone Midstream Partners. Noble also will pay Consol $205 million upon closing.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/10/31/noble-energy-consol-energy-end-marcellus-shale-partnership/
-
4 More Companies Join EPA's Voluntary Methane Program
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
As part of its ongoing effort to slash methane emissions from oil and gas operations, U.S. EPA rolled out a second round of commitments to its Methane Challenge Program last week.
Four companies — Kinder Morgan Inc., National Grid PLC, Southern Co. Gas and Southwestern Energy Co. — joined as founding partners under the so-called Our Nation's Energy (ONE) Future emissions intensity commitment option.
EPA launched the Methane Challenge Program this spring with 41 founding partners under the separate best management practice (BMP) commitment (Greenwire, March 30).
The membership list mostly included utility companies with natural gas interests, not firms involved in exploration and production.
Under the BMP option, Dominion Resources Inc., Duke Energy Corp., Exelon Corp. and dozens of other firms committed to companywide implementation of agency-recommended practices, such as replacing old pipelines and reducing leaks.
The ONE Future option provides each company with the flexibility to determine the most cost-effective practices to meet its targets.
Companies can incorporate corporate considerations, such as capital and resource constraints, into their decisionmaking, in addition to the environmental and operational benefits of lower emissions.
Formed in 2014, the ONE Future Coalition is an industry-led partnership with a goal of reducing methane emissions associated with the U.S. onshore natural gas value chain to 1 percent or less by 2025.
ONE Future companies encouraged the agency to incorporate their approach into the voluntary program. EPA agreed, finalizing the option in August.
Each company in the Methane Challenge Program pledges to demonstrate progress according to specific reporting protocols determined by EPA.
The agency in recent days also said two additional companies have joined as partners under the BMP option, bringing the total number to 46. National Grid is a partner under both the commitments.
"Our voluntary Methane Challenge Program is an important part of the Obama administration's strategy to reduce methane emissions, and we are pleased to expand the program to include the ONE Future commitment," said Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.
"These partner companies are leading a path to cleaner energy production in the natural gas sector by agreeing to reduce methane emissions and track their progress," McCabe added.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/31/stories/1060045067
-
US Crude Shipped to 22 Countries over Six-Month Period: EIA
Oct 31, 2016 | Platts
By Brian Scheid
The US exported an average of 657,000 b/d of crude oil to foreign markets in August, the second most exported in history, the US Energy Information Administration said Monday.
The majority of US exported crude is still going to Canada, but US crude is going to markets it has never been shipped to before, according to data in EIA's newest Petroleum Supply Monthly.
US crude was exported to 12 countries in August alone, including 452,000 barrels of US crude which was sent to Liberia and 411,000 barrels to South Africa, neither of which had received US crude before, according to the EIA.
March through August, over 100.5 million barrels of US crude was shipped to 22 countries. More than half, about 54.5 million barrels, was shipped to Canada.Since all restrictions on US crude exports were lifted in December 2015, more than 122.6 million barrels of US crude have been exported, or about 495,000 b/d. August's crude export level was the most since May when an average of nearly 662,000 b/d were exported, the most ever.
Among the August data, some notable exports included a total of 649,000 barrels sent to Singapore, 1.02 million barrels to Colombia and 1.14 million to Italy, the most ever for those three markets.
The Marshall Islands, which has not received a shipment of US crude since April, will likely be a stop for US crude in the future, according to the EIA.
In a report last week, EIA said that a combination of infrastructure limits and low tanker rates are compelling US exporters to ship to the Marshall Islands.
"Currently, no US port is capable of loading the larger vessels typically used to transport crude oil, so US crude exporters must use more expensive smaller vessels," EIA wrote. "However, with lower tanker rates, exporters may be able to load smaller ships at US ports and transfer the cargoes onto larger vessels offshore for transport to final destinations at an attractive per-barrel cost."
EIA said this may explain why some crude exports in US Customs data shows US crude going to the Marshall Islands "where many vessels are registered but are unlikely taking deliveries."
The Marshall Islands, located roughly halfway between Hawaii and Australia, does not have a refinery or any crude storage tanks, but received nearly 1.53 million barrels of US crude in March and 557,000 barrels in April, according to EIA.Edited by Richard Rubin
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/washington/us-crude-shipped-to-22-countries-over-six-month-21938527
-
Largest U.S. Fuel Pipeline Shuts After Work Crew Triggers Blast
Nov 1, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Laura Blewitt
The biggest fuel pipeline in the U.S. shut its mainlines Monday after an explosion and fire in Alabama that killed at least one person. Gasoline futures surged and U.S. refiner stocks gained.
Colonial Pipeline Co., which carries refined products to New York Harbor from Houston, shut the lines for the second time in two months. A contract crew working miles from the site of a Sept. 9 spill ran into the pipeline with a trackhoe, igniting gasoline and causing a fire, Colonial said in a statement. One person died at the scene and five others were transported to Birmingham-area hospitals for treatment. The spill in September shut the line for 12 days, cutting supplies to 50 million Americans in the Southeast.
The pipelines remained shut and fire continued to burn as of 10:45 p.m. Monday local time, Colonial said in the statement. Emergency crews built a barrier 8 feet (2.4 meters) tall and 80 feet long to contain the burning fuel, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley wrote on Twitter. Major fuel suppliers began notifying wholesalers in South Carolina late Monday of allocations.
The southeastern U.S. is “highly dependent on pipeline supplies from Colonial and, ultimately, Colonial flows form the baseline of U.S. East Coast supply,” Robert Campbell, head of oil products research at Energy Aspects Ltd. in New York, said in a note. The longer the mainlines are offline, “the more upward pressure will be placed on U.S. East Coast fuel prices, while downward pressure will be exerted on U.S. Gulf Coast product prices.”
ecember gasoline futures rose as much as 21.56 cents, or 15 percent, to $1.6351 a gallon, the biggest intraday gain for an active contract since 2008. The New York Mercantile Exchange contract, which is for supplies delivered into New York Harbor, traded at $1.5775 at 1:37 p.m. Singapore time.
The explosion and fire comes as the U.S. oil industry faces a backlash from environmentalists opposed to building new pipelines, including the controversial $3.8 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline. Last year, the Obama administration rejected the Keystone XL project. In early October, climate change activists disrupted oil flows by turning off valves in several remote pumping stations along the Enbridge Inc.’s main pipeline, which runs from Canada to the U.S. Midwest
Close all those tabs. Open this email.Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.Sign Up
Colonial, owned by a group that includes Koch Capital Investments Co. and a unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, had to shut its 1.3 million-barrel-a-day gasoline line after an 7,370-barrel leak was discovered Sept. 9. It built a temporary bypass that allowed it to resume shipments on Sept. 22, which its had planned to remove between late-October and mid-November. Now both the gasoline mainline and the mainline that transports diesel and jet fuel are shut.
Colonial -- and to a lesser extent the smaller Plantation Pipe Line Co. -- play a key role in supplying the U.S. Southeast because there aren’t any refineries between Alabama and Pennsylvania that produce substantial quantities of transportation fuels. The region is supplied primarily by pipelines from refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
While Colonial has a capacity of 2.6 million barrels a day of refined products, the Plantation pipeline carries just 700,000 barrels a day.
Several major U.S. refiners gained in after-market trading as gasoline’s premium to Brent crude, a theoretical profit margin for many fuel makers, jumped as much as 60 percent to $18 a barrel before paring gains to about $14. Phillips 66, which operates a refinery near New York City, gained 1.7 percent to $82.50 on the New York Stock Exchange after closing at $81.15 a share Monday. Valero Energy Corp. and Marathon Petroleum Corp. also rose.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-31/largest-u-s-gasoline-pipeline-shuts-after-alabama-explosion
-
Companies Agree to Settle West Virginia Chemical Spill Suits
Oct 31, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher
A water company and a chemical manufacturer agreed to pay up to a total of $151 million to settle a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of more than 200,000 West Virginia residents whose water was contaminated by a chemical spill in early 2014.
On Jan. 9, 2014, an estimated 10,000 gallons of a chemical mixture used to process coal leaked from a storage tank into the Elk River and entered Charleston’s drinking water system, operated by West Virginia American Water Co. Eastman Chemical Co.manufactured the chemical, known as Crude MCHM.
Residents were unable to use their tap waterfor up to nine days, before the chemical was flushed from distribution pipes, and many complained of physical symptoms and financial losses. The case also exposed gaps in federal regulation.
Attorneys for a class of 224,000 individuals and 7,900 businesses alleged in a federal lawsuit that the water company failed to adequately prepare for and respond to the spill, and they claimed that Eastman failed to fully warn the storage company about the hazards of the chemical.
According to settlement terms made public Monday, West Virginia American Water agreed to pay up to $126 million, while Eastman Chemical agreed to pay $25 million to resolve the lawsuit and all claims stemming from the 2014 spill. The companies, which have denied the allegations, admitted no fault in settlements they reached separately with the plaintiffs.
West Virginia American Water said in a statement that the settlement will allow it to move forward without the distraction of ongoing litigation, and it noted that government investigations into the chemical spill have never found that the company violated any law during the water crisis.
“We still firmly believe the suits brought against our company were without merit,” the water company said.
A representative for Eastman couldn’t be reached to comment.
The case had been scheduled for trial beginning Oct. 25, but U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver, Jr., delayed the start to allow settlement talks to continue.
West Virginia American Water agreed not to raise rates to recoup the $4 million it said it spent responding to the chemical spill, or to recover settlement payments.
Kevin Thompson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the settlement was a fair result because it avoided protracted litigation. “It could have taken years to determine how much people would have gotten in compensation,” he said. “So this settlement achieved the ends of justice.”
In September the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, an independent federal agency charged with investigating chemical accidents, said the storage-tank operator Freedom Industries failed to internally inspect its corroding tanks before the accident, and that maintenance could have prevented the spill. The company declared bankruptcy shortly after the spill.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-agree-to-settle-west-virginia-chemical-spill-suits-1477965273
-
California Can't Charge $45 Hazardous Materials Rail Car Fee
Nov 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lars-Eric Hedberg
A federal judge has enjoined California from imposing a $45 charge for each railway car crossing into or loaded in the state that carries certain hazardous materials (BNSF Ry. Co. v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 2016 BL 360644, N.D. Cal., No. 16-cv-04311-RS, 10/28/16).
In an Oct. 28 order, Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by BNSF Railway Co. and Union Pacific Railroad Co.
They had asked the court to prohibit the state from enforcing or implementing the hazardous material charge provisions of California Senate Bill 84, California's Fee Collections Procedures Law, and its implementing regulations.
The court ruled the railroads have shown a likelihood of success on the merits; they may suffer irreparable harm; and the public interest doesn't weigh against granting the preliminary injunction.
The railroads argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 preempts the state law. They also wrote it violates the federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which allows states to impose fees for hazardous materials transport if they are “fair.” The railroads wrote that the fee at issue isn't fair because it discriminates against railroads in relation to trucking and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, which provides that states can't unduly burden interstate commerce.Charge Would Fund Railroad Response
California's Office of Emergency Services adopted the charge regulation in June.
The railroads would collect the fee from the shipper and pass it to the California State Board of Equalization, which would place the collected fees in the Regional Railroad Accident Preparedness and Immediate Response Fund, according to the court.
The fee would apply to rail cars containing acetonitrile, certain alcohols, anhydrous ammonia, ammonium hydroxide, calcium hypochlorite, chlorine, certain corrosive liquids, diesel fuel, environmentally hazardous substances, ethanol, gasoline, hydrogen peroxide, liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied gas, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, nitric acid, petroleum crude oil, phenol, phosphoric acid, potassium hydroxide, propylene, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, toluene and vinyl acetate.
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, and David Joseph Feder, Los Angeles, represented BNSF.
Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., represented Union Pacific.
The California Department of Justice represented the board.http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99956464&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99956464&jd=99956464
-
UPS to STB: Forced Access Forces Us Off the Rails
Oct 31, 2016 | Railway Age Magazine
By William C. Vantuono
The U.S. Surface Transportation Board would be doing itself a favor if chooses not to mess with UPS and heed the gargantuan railroad customer’s call to deep-six forced access, otherwise known as “reciprocal switching.”
United Parcel Service, which moves more than one million containers and trailers by rail every day at an annual cost of about $1 billion a year—and ships the equivalent of 6% of U.S. gross domestic product and has significant lobbying clout on Capitol and with the U.S. Department of Transportation—says that if the STB’s proposed rulemaking on forced access is enacted, it will be forced to abandon rail for trucks, for its long-haul surface transportation needs.
In comments filed with the STB, UPS, a railroad customer for the past 40 or so years and, with J.B. Hunt and other major transportation firms, among the rail industry’s largest intermodal customer, said it is gravely concerned that rail service levels will deteriorate if forced access imposed, even though this regulatory change would not pertain to UPS shipments.
UPS said its “experience in other contexts leads it to conclude the implementation of a new reciprocal switching scheme will lead to decreased network velocity, diminished capital investments into the freight network, and deteriorating rail intermodal service levels. Ultimately, if rail intermodal service levels fall below UPS’s time-in-transit obligation standards, we would have no business option but to shift intermodal traffic back to the highway.” In addition to hurting rail network velocity,” forced access would force the railroads to incur significant costs that will compromise service and raise rates, UPS noted.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/regulatory/ups-to-stb-forced-access-forces-us-off-the-rails.html
-
EPA, States Spar over Legality of Rule to Outlaw Clean Air Act Waivers
Oct 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA and several states are sparring over the legality of the agency's rule forcing 36 states to remove provisions from their state implementation plan (SIPs) that exempted some industrial emissions from Clean Air Act limits, with EPA fighting the states' claim that the rule is unjustified and exceeds the agency's air law authority.
In final briefs filed in Walter Coke, Inc., et al. v. EPA, et al., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, EPA defends its June 2015 decision to disapprove or “call” the SIPs from 36 states, which it says contain various regulatory exemptions that are inconsistent with D.C. Circuit precedent and agency policy.
The SIPs contain air limit exemptions for periods of facility startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM), when air pollution controls are inoperative and emissions levels can rise sharply. Some of the exemptions are considered “automatic” by EPA, while others may rely on state pollution agencies' “director's discretion.”
Also included in the agency's “SIP Call” rulemaking are “affirmative defenses,” which shield industry from civil liability in the event of malfunctions deemed unavoidable by EPA.
The D.C. Circuit has also found that affirmative defenses are unlawful in federal regulations because they deprive courts of the right to determine penalties for air law violations, prompting EPA to remove such provisions from its own regulations and demand that states do the same.
The rule sets a Nov. 22 deadline for the affected states to remove the targeted provisions from their air law compliance plans, but critics are urging the D.C. Circuit to scrap the regulation.
States and industry groups opposed to the SIP Call say EPA has abused its SIP Call authority provided by the Clean Air Act by disapproving state plans that it simply deems inadequate, when the SIP Call provision must be tied to SIPs' “substantial inadequacy” to meet specific provisions of the law.
In its final opening brief filed Oct. 31, a group of 17 states says, “In the SIP Call, EPA did not set out to address threats to air quality. The only basis EPA identified for the calls was the SIPs’ alleged failure to meet certain legal requirements of the [air act] as EPA now interprets it. But the SIP call process is not designed to address any and all perceived shortcomings.”
The states note that EPA changed its view of the appropriateness of affirmative defenses based not on its own policy assessment but on a 2014 D.C. Circuit ruling in Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, which caused the agency to reverse course on the issue.
They argue that the ruling did not speak to such defenses in SIPs, and that the 5th Circuit in its 2013 ruling in Luminant Generation Co., LLC. v. EPA has explicitly approved the measures for inclusion in Texas' SIP.
The states again say EPA wrongly refused to consider “simultaneously operating general-duty requirements that limit emissions during SSM periods just because they were not cross-referenced in the SSM provisions EPA deemed inadequate.”
Also, “EPA incorrectly applied its definition of emission limitation to determine that certain SSM provisions did not limit emissions, even though, on their face, those provisions require sources to limit emissions at all times, including SSM periods, to avoid a violation.”
DOJ's Defense
In its Oct. 28 final brief, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of EPA rejects these accusations, and defends its view of its SIP Call authority.
“First, emission limitations in SIPs must be continuous and not intermittent. Second, States cannot revise EPA-approved emission limitations without complying with the Act’s procedural and substantive requirements for SIP revisions. Third, those emission limitations must be enforceable, including by EPA, States, and citizens, at all times during a source’s operation, consistent with [air law] requirements. Fourth, if an enforcement action is brought, the district courts have jurisdiction to determine whether an emission limitation has been violated, and if so, to fashion an appropriate remedy,” DOJ says.
States and industry have long opposed EPA's argument that emissions limits must be continuously applicable, which they say is a misreading of the air law and ignores the reality of running industrial facilities, where unavoidable SSM events produce more pollution than regulatory limits allow. EPA has shifted toward allowing for such events through “enforcement discretion” on a case-by-case basis.
The state exemptions at issue would cause emissions limitations to be “discontinuous and unenforceable,” DOJ argues. DOJ further defends EPA's fundamental authority to disapprove measures it considers “substantially inadequate.”
“EPA properly rejected Petitioners’ arguments that [air law] section 7410(k)(5) requires that EPA make State- and fact-specific determinations demonstrating specific adverse effects from a deficient SIP provision before issuing a SIP call. The findings of substantial inadequacy at issue require no such demonstration. Here, States have legally-deficient SIP provisions that fail 'to otherwise comply with any requirement' of the Act.” DOJ says.
Industry's Criticisms
Meanwhile, a coalition of industry groups including the Utility Air Regulatory Group, representing power generators, in its Oct. 31 final reply brief warns of the adverse impact of the SIP Call and largely agrees with state petitioners' conclusions.
“The SIP Calls will force more than two-thirds of the states to reassess and revise SIPs previously approved by EPA and re-submit them for EPA approval. This broad mandate is not based on any new statutory requirement or on EPA’s issuance of new regulations. Nor is it mandated by any court decision or tied to any demonstrated air quality problem. Rather, it is based solely on EPA’s erroneous legal conclusions that isolated provisions of those SIPs, adopted by states in recognition of the limitations of even well-designed and -operated control technology, are 'facially inconsistent' with the structure” of the air law, the industry petitioners say.
“EPA did not make a 'finding,' based on 'available information,' that the SSM provisions EPA identified render the SIP as a whole 'substantially inadequate,' or that revisions to the SIPs are 'necessary to correct such inadequacies,' as the statute requires, the groups say.
They assert that EPA is positing “an unstated requirement” in the air law “that a state must subject any source it decides to regulate to emission limitations that (1) apply under all circumstances and (2) are contained in a single portion of the SIP.” This position is unsupported by the law, the groups argue.
Oral argument has not yet been scheduled in the case.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-states-spar-over-legality-rule-outlaw-clean-air-act-waivers
-
California Air District Rejects 'Absurd' out of Area EPA Emissions Policy
Oct 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A California air district is pushing back against EPA's new policy disallowing areas in nonattainment with federal air standards from claiming credit for out of area emissions reductions in order to satisfy Clean Air Act mandates for “reasonable further progress” (RFP) in cutting air pollution, claiming it leads to “absurd results.”
In its Oct. 28 reply brief in South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al. v. EPA, et al., now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the district, which manages air quality in greater Los Angeles, says that EPA's RFP policy is nonsensical and should be vacated by the court.
The suit challenges EPA's March 6 rule setting out implementation requirements for states to meet the agency's 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb). In the consolidated litigation, environmentalists are challenging numerous aspects of the rule, including EPA's tolerance of emissions trading as a compliance mechanism, the agency's revocation of the prior 1997 standard expressed as 84 ppb, and “anti-backsliding” measures the group says are insufficient to prevent worsening air quality.
However, South Coast is focused on overturning the rule's prohibition on out of area emissions cuts from counting toward 3 percent annual reductions in ozone precursors required in some areas in nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS.
EPA altered the prior policy in response to a 2009 D.C. Circuit ruling in Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA that said air law language relating to reasonably available control technology (RACT) -- a level of emissions control mandated in nonattainment areas -- requires that emissions cuts come from “in the area.”
However, South Coast argues in is brief that, “EPA’s rigid new view causes absurd results because it requires EPA to disapprove a plan for a downwind area that cannot meet the 3% emission reduction requirement even though (1) total pollution in the downwind area is reduced by 3% per year; (2) emissions in the entire upwind and downwind 'transport couple area' are reduced by 3%; and (3) the downwind area will attain the air quality standard by the statutory date.” South Coast uses the term “transport couple area” to denote both the downwind nonattainment area and the upwind area contributing to the downwind pollution problem.
“Based on the differing purposes and functions of the term 'in the area,' it is ambiguous in the context of reasonable further progress,” South Coast says. “EPA may legitimately interpret the term “in the area” to include the entire area which contributes to the nonattainment problem, including an upwind area that contributes significantly to pollution in the downwind area,” according to the brief.
Also, South Coast claims that EPA failed to outline its reasoning for the policy shift in the rule itself, introducing its argument instead in legal briefing as a “post-hoc rationalization.”
In the rule, EPA said its policy change was mandated by NRDC, but in litigation the agency has said instead that its position is a “reasonable interpretation” of the law. This change in rationale “violates a basic principle of judicial review,” that an agency's action must be judged by the rationale given by the agency itself in the administrative record, South Coast says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/california-air-district-rejects-absurd-out-area-epa-emissions-policy
-
China Calls on Trump to Uphold Global Carbon Deal
Nov 1, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Brian Spegele
China’s top climate negotiator called on Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump to uphold a global carbon deal championed by the Obama administration if he’s elected.
Under the agreement, which goes into effect Friday, the U.S. has pledged to cut net greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. China promises to peak its carbon emissions by about 2030.
Mr. Trump has pledged to “cancel” U.S. commitments to cut these emissions if he wins the Nov. 8 election.––
Asked at a news conference on Tuesday about how China would work with the U.S. on climate change if Mr. Trump was elected, Xie Zhenhua, China’s special representative for climate-change affairs, said Mr. Trump could encounter significant opposition if he sought to abrogate the U.S. commitment, adding that the trend of limiting carbon emissions would continue to play out worldwide.
“I don’t think ordinary people would agree if you were to reject that trend,” Mr. Xie said. “I’m convinced, if it’s a wise leader—especially a political leader—he ought to know that all his policies should conform to the trends of global development.”
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has pledged to uphold the agreement, reached in Paris last year, describing climate change as an “urgent threat.”
Chinese leaders haven’t stated a preference for either U.S. presidential candidate. Both Mr. Trump and his rival have voiced criticism of China during their campaigns.
The international agreement seeks to limit the rise in global temperatures to well below 2 degrees Celsius and envisions a broad shift away from consumption of fossil fuels in the coming years. Mr. Trump, by contrast, has pledged to boost the U.S. coal sector and encourage domestic oil and gas output to create jobs at home.
Both the U.S. and China are needed for any climate agreement to succeed. The countries are the world’s biggest carbon emitters. Cooperation to secure a climate deal by U.S. and Chinese leaders has been a rare bright spot in the countries’ diplomatic relationship.
Mr. Xie was speaking ahead of the latest round of climate discussions among leaders, due to begin next week in Morocco. He told reporters that China was particularly interested in making sure developed countries lived up to their promise to mobilize $100 billion per year in funding for developing countries by 2020.
The latest discussions and uncertainty from the U.S. presidential election comes as China’s economy is also slowing, making it easier for leaders to peak its carbon emissions. China’s coal consumption—which is closely correlated with total carbon emissions—fell more than 3% last year. That led many experts to question whether China’s target of capping emissions by 2030 was ambitious enough.
China has defended in 2030 target, and Mr. Xie said Tuesday that uncertainty remained over when coal demand in China would enter a permanent decline.
“It’s still too early to tell whether China’s coal consumption has peaked,” he said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-calls-on-trump-to-uphold-global-carbon-deal-1477990751
-
Corps Sends Final NWPs To OMB For Review
Oct 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Army Corps of Engineers has sent its final streamlined Clean Water Act (CWA) permits to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) for review, a crucial last step before the Corps can issue the new final permits to replace the existing permits that are slated to expire in March.
OMB received the final rule issuing nationwide permits (NWP) for 2017 through March 2022 on Oct. 28, according to OMB's website.
NWPs govern actions with limited environmental impacts -- confined to half an acre -- and aim to speed permitting. Activities that the Corps determines would have significant environmental impacts must be authorized under individual CWA section 404 permits. These permits involve a more rigorous, site-specific review of potential adverse effects, give EPA a stronger oversight role and often become the target of environmentalist litigation.
The CWA requires the Corps to reissue its NWPs every five years as a way of streamlining the permitting process for dredge-and-fill operations conducted in "waters of the United States" that are associated with minor impacts to the aquatic environment.
The current NWPs expire on March 18, 2017, meaning the draft permits, once final, would immediately take effect for 2017 through March 2022. The Corps' NWP proposal includes new permits for bank stabilization techniques known as living shorelines, and for removal of low-head dams, and a proposed new "general condition" setting a higher approval threshold for projects that would alter or occupy structures built by the federal government.
The plan would revise a number of existing NWPs, including NWP12, for utility line activities, NWP14, for transportation projects, NWPs for land- and water-based renewable energy generation and other activities.
Environmentalists have raised concerns over the permits, saying they would violate the Endangered Species Act and are "basically guaranteeing litigation" if the Corps finalizes the permits absent any consultation with federal wildlife authorities.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/corps-sends-final-nwps-omb-review
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested