Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 11/2/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) D.C. Circuit Poised To Hear Arguments In Waste Recycling Rule Challenge
Nov 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is set to hear oral argument Nov. 3 from both industry and environmental groups challenging EPA's 2015 definition of solid waste (DSW) rule with the goal of revising the regulation that sets requirements for recycling hazardous waste. -
(ACC Mentioned) Linde Receives Its Second Responsible Care Certification Under ACC
Nov 1, 2016 | Gas World
By Jemima Owen-Jones
Linde LLC has received its second certification of its Kittery, Maine, air separation plant under the American Chemistry Council (ACC) Responsible Care® program. -
(ACC Mentioned) Global Chemical Production Ends 3rd Quarter On A Soft Note, ACC Says
Nov 1, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) shows that growth in the industry has been nearly flat most of the year thus far. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Chemicals Rules Coming, but Later Than Expected
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency aims to submit two proposed rules underpinning the new federal chemicals law to the Office of Management and Budget by Thanksgiving, a top agency official said Nov. 1. -
US EPA ‘Very Confident’ In Meeting TSCA Deadlines
Nov 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA is “very confident” that it will be able to meet the tight deadlines under the new TSCA, according to remarks at last week’s Chemical Watch US Regulatory Summit from Wendy Cleland-Hamnett of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). -
Chemicals in Your Blue Jeans Aren't Easy to Replace
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
What's in your jeans? A rogue's gallery of unpronounceable chemicals whose effects on humans are suspect. -
EPA Defends Synergistic Risk Review In Expanded Pesticide Registration
Nov 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA has proposed expanding its registration of the controversial herbicide Enlist Duo to allow use of the mixture on corn and soybeans in 19 additional states and on cotton, after re-affirming its initial 2014 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration decision that the product's two active ingredients do not pose synergistic risks. -
Dow Weed Killer Re-Approved After Patent Raises Questions
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Environmental Protection Agency once again gave its stamp of approval to a new weed-killing pesticide from Dow Chemical Co. following a review a court granted in response to an agency request. -
EU Commission Opens Consultation On REACH REFIT Evaluation
Nov 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has opened the online consultation on its REACH REFIT evaluation. It runs three months, until 28 January. -
Messy Battles Over Energy Are on the Ballot Across U.S. States
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter and Mark Chediak
As if choosing the next president of the U.S. wasn't confusing enough, states from Nevada to Florida have energy measures on the ballot this year that have left many voters befuddled. -
Largest U.S. Fuel Pipeline Shuts After Workers Trigger Blast
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Laura Blewitt
The biggest fuel pipeline in the U.S. shut its mainlines Oct. 31 after an explosion and fire in Alabama that killed at least one person. Gasoline futures surged, refiner stocks gained and traders rushed to book cargoes from Europe. -
Exclusive: Oil Majors Join Forces In Climate Push With Renewable Energy Fund
Nov 2, 2016 | Reuters
By Ron Bousso
Top oil companies including Saudi Aramco and Shell are joining forces to create an investment fund to develop technologies to promote renewable energy, as they seek an active role in the fight against global warming, sources said. -
America's Energy Revolution Hits a Historic Milepost
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric Roston
The U.S. passed another historic marker in its energy revolution this year. In February, U.S. transportation emitted more carbon dioxide than the fossil-fuel-heavy power sector for the first time since 1978. Overall, the U.S. has seen a 25 percent drop in carbon-dioxide emissions since 2008, the Department of Energy said, a function of the rise of natural gas and smarter energy use. -
Oil Drilling Could Have Caused Early 20th Century SoCal Quakes, Report Says
Nov 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Some earthquakes in Southern California in the early 20th century, including a temblor that killed 120 people in Long Beach, could have been caused by oil drilling in the area, according to a report by two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) geologists in Pasadena, CA, that was published Tuesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Daily Mail Editorial: Most Chemical Companies Know To Operate Safely
Nov 1, 2016 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
As has been previously reported, the Chemical Safety Board’s final report on the January 2014 water crisis concluded the chemical leak that fouled drinking water for 300,000 West Virginians was preventable. -
Criminal Investigation Underway in Toxic Chemical Release
Nov 2, 2016 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Dan Elliott
Military and civilian authorities are investigating whether any laws were broken in the unexplained discharge of 150,000 gallons of wastewater tainted with toxic chemicals at an Air Force base in Colorado. -
Toxics Board, IG Say No Inquiry of Member's Union E-Mails
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A literal interpretation of federal law restricting improper grass-roots lobbying would hamstring what U.S. Chemical Safety Board members can do in pursuit of the board's mission, some lawyers—and the safety board—contend. -
Eastman, Water Company Settle W.Va. Chemical Spill Case for $151M
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes and Sam Pearson
A Charleston, W.Va.-area water utility and the manufacturer of a coal-cleaning chemical will pay up to $151 million under an Oct. 31 settlement agreement, stemming from a 2014 chemical spill (Good v. American Water Works Co., S.D. W.Va., No. 14-cv-01374, settlement 10/31/16). -
Trump Says Plan to End Climate Spending Would Save $100B
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Renee Schoof and Dean Scott
Donald Trump says he would save $100 billion over eight years by cutting all federal climate change spending—a sum his campaign says would be achieved by eliminating domestic and international climate programs. -
Jobs, Air Rules Review Could Take Years, EPA Tells Court
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency isn't sure how long it will take to re-evaluate the employment impacts of its air pollution rules in line with a recent federal court's order, but it could take more than two years, the agency said Oct. 31 (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, N.D. W.Va., No. 5:14-cv-00039-JPB, 10/31/16).
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) D.C. Circuit Poised To Hear Arguments In Waste Recycling Rule Challenge
Nov 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is set to hear oral argument Nov. 3 from both industry and environmental groups challenging EPA's 2015 definition of solid waste (DSW) rule with the goal of revising the regulation that sets requirements for recycling hazardous waste.
In the consolidated case American Petroleum Institute (API), et al. v. EPA, industry groups are seeking to loosencertain requirements where they allege EPA has overreached, and environmentalists are arguing certain exemptions from hazardous waste requirements exceed EPA's authority.
The rule sets requirements for recycling hazardous waste, attempting to close what the Obama EPA saw as regulatory gaps in a 2008 Bush-era rule. Exempting hazardous secondary materials from the definition of solid waste also exempts them from hazardous waste regulation under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA).
The court has specified a schedule that allots industry and environmental petitioners time limits for discrete issues they are challenging, giving industry time to argue against the rule's legitimacy factors, verified recycler exclusion, and EPA's treatment of off-specification products, according to an Oct. 17 order from the court. Meanwhile, environmental petitioners will be given time limits for their challenges to the rule's verified recycler exclusion and pre-2008 exclusions. EPA will also be given an opportunity to respond to both sets of arguments, according to the order.
In addition, industry respondent-intervenors will be allotted four minutes to respond to the environmental petitioners' arguments.
The industry parties challenging the rule include API, the power sector including the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group and Edison Electric Institute, as well as the American Gas Association, among others.
Environmental group litigants include the Sierra Club and California Communities Against Toxics, among other parties. Intervenors are numerous and include American Chemistry Council and Environmental Technology Council, Inc.
The RCRA rule mandates use of all four of EPA's criteria for determining that recycling of hazardous waste is legitimate, rather than just two under the 2008 rule. The four legitimacy factors are: that the hazardous secondary material provides "a useful contribution to the recycling process or product," that the recycling process results in a valuable product or intermediate, that the secondary material is managed as a valuable commodity, and that the recycled product is comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate, EPA says in a fact sheet.
The current rule also replaces a 2008 transfer-based exclusion from the solid waste definition with a stricter "verified recycler exclusion," allowing those who meet certain criteria an alternative to complying with strict hazardous waste rules, and affirms the legitimacy of 32 pre-2008 DSW exclusions, applying the codified version of EPA's definition of legitimacy to these exclusions.
EPA Defense
EPA in briefing the case has defended its rule, urging the D.C. Circuit to look to its own 2015 decision in Solvay USA Inc. v. EPA, which upheld an EPA non-hazardous secondary materials (NHSM) rule, as "instructive" in how it responds to the API case. The agency maintains that the legitimacy factors merely act as a test to determine if materials are really being recycled and that this test comports with the D.C. Circuit's precedents from American Mining Congress v. EPA in 1987 through its 2015 ruling in Solvay.
But industry parties counter that the additional legitimacy factors "have the look, feel, and effect of substantive regulations," restricting how industry may manage in-process materials and dictating acceptable chemical compositions. "EPA's heavy reliance on Solvay USA Inc. v. EPA . . . is misplaced. That unpublished opinion differs fundamentally as to the rulemakings at issue, challenges raised, and materials involved," they say in a May 19 brief.
For instance, industry says that "no party in Solvay raised the jurisdictional argument presented here -- that the legitimacy factors (even if satisfied) constitute substantive regulation that exceed EPA's statutory jurisdiction. There the relevant challenge to the legitimacy factors was a hard-look-review argument from environmental groups, not a Chevron Step 1 challenge questioning EPA's jurisdiction," they say, referring to the Chevron doctrine, under which courts defer to federal agencies' "reasonable" statutory interpretations where a statute is either silent or ambiguous on an issue.
In general, industry contends that EPA's legitimacy factors are "substantive regulation masquerading as a jurisdictional test." These factors "go beyond defining what is 'discarded,' and substantively regulate material that is not 'discarded' under that term's plain meaning," industry says. "Discard" is a term key to defining a material as a waste.
The agency is imposing "regulatory obligations on unambiguously non-discarded materials," industry argues. "Those obligations have no basis in statutory text, but restrict how material is handled, and cap its chemical composition."
Verified Recycler
Oral argument will also provide an opportunity for both industry and environmental groups to make their case for changes to the rule's verified recycler exclusion that EPA established under the rule. The verified recycler exclusion contains stricter requirements than the transfer-based exclusion that had been in an earlier version of the rule.
Industry has argued in briefs that the measure is too restrictive, while environmentalists say it is too lax. Industry parties say third-party recycling should not be considered "discard" at all, while environmentalists argue it is by definition "discard," particularly when third parties pay to transport materials to off-site recyclers.
EPA in its defense of the rule has said the fact that both industry and environmentalists are challenging the provision “simply underscores that EPA developed common sense and reasonably-tailored conditions to ensure that hazardous secondary materials transferred to third-parties for recycling are not in fact discarded."
Also scheduled to be heard are arguments from industry contesting a position EPA takes in a "response to comments" document accompanying the rule. "EPA's position that off-specification products that are reprocessed before use are 'secondary materials' subject to the legitimacy regulation intrudes into the manufacturing process," industry argues in its May 19 brief. "That is beyond EPA's RCRA authority, and represents an arbitrary departure from longstanding policy."
Industry explains in the brief that the manufacturing process sometimes results in products that fail to meet specifications. But it argues that "[w]here it is necessary to reprocess such products, EPA's rule effectively requires manufacturers to prove that their final products are products. EPA says such reprocessing must meet the legitimacy regulation."
EPA has in response contended that the court lacks jurisdiction to address this issue because industry's argument relates to a response to comments document, rather than a regulation.
Environmentalists also have been given time during oral argument to raise arguments they have made over EPA's decision not to finalize proposed revisions to 32 pre-2008 exclusions under the rule. EPA argues that the substance of these exclusions is not at play in the current rulemaking, and that the statute of limitations for any challenges to these has run out.
But environmentalists say in a brief filed earlier this year, "Contrary to arguments by EPA and intervenors, EPA's decision is a reviewable final action and Environmental Petitioners have standing to challenge it."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/dc-circuit-poised-hear-arguments-waste-recycling-rule-challenge
-
(ACC Mentioned) Linde Receives Its Second Responsible Care Certification Under ACC
Nov 1, 2016 | Gas World
By Jemima Owen-Jones
Linde LLC has received its second certification of its Kittery, Maine, air separation plant under the American Chemistry Council (ACC) Responsible Care® program.
The plant received its first certification in 2008.
The Kittery plant has been in operation since 1984. It separates air cryogenically to produce 485 tonnes a day of liquid oxygen (O), nitrogen (N) and argon (Ar). These products are then distributed throughout the New England states to be used in hospitals, electronics and semiconductor manufacturers, as well as customers in the food and beverage, pulp and paper and pharmaceutical industries.
“The re-certification of the Kittery plant is proof of Linde’s commitment to being a responsible provider of industrial gases,” said Bruce Toohey, Zone Production Manager - Kittery.
“The team’s continuing dedication to this certification stems from a long and meaningful relationship with the Kittery community, symbolised by the first image seen from I-95 as you enter the state – a large lobster decal (a well-known symbol of Maine) on our oxygen tank. The lobster truly represents our involvement in the community and our commitment to be a good and responsive corporate citizen.”
“I congratulate and thank my colleagues at the Kittery plant for this achievement which is aligned with our organisation’s commitment to reaching excellence by safely and effectively serving our customers and provide outstanding customer experience every day,” said Holly Jerdi, Head of Health, Safety and Environment.
https://www.gasworld.com/linde-receives-second-responsible-care-certification/2011673.article
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Chemical Production Ends 3rd Quarter On A Soft Note, ACC Says
Nov 1, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) shows that growth in the industry has been nearly flat most of the year thus far. The headline index for September showed no gain or loss on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. This follows six months of relatively stable activity after a fairly strong fourth quarter 2015. During September, chemical production increased in North America and Western Europe but fell elsewhere. The Global CPRI was up 1.6 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) on a 3MMA basis and stood at 108.5 percent of its average 2012 levels in September.
During September, capacity utilization in the global business of chemistry declined 0.3 percentage points to 78.8 percent. This is off from 80.3 percent last September and is below the long-term (1987-2015) average of 89.1 percent.
Results were mixed on a product basis during September, with weakness centered in the production of consumer products, inorganic chemicals, synthetic rubber, manufactured fibers, and other specialties. Gains were registered in pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals, organic chemicals, and coatings. Plastics resins activity was flat.
ACC’s Global CPRI measures the production volume of the business of chemistry for thirty-three key nations, sub-regions, and regions, all aggregated to the world total. The index is comparable to the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) production indices and features a similar base year where 2012=100. This index is developed from government industrial production indices for chemicals from over sixty-five nations accounting for about 98 percent of the total global business of chemistry. This data are the only timely source of market trends for the global chemical industry and are comparable to the U.S. CPRI data, a timely source of U.S. regional chemical production.
http://www.chemengonline.com/global-chemical-production-ends-3rd-quarter-on-a-soft-note-acc-says/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Chemicals Rules Coming, but Later Than Expected
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency aims to submit two proposed rules underpinning the new federal chemicals law to the Office of Management and Budget by Thanksgiving, a top agency official said Nov. 1.
The two Toxic Substances Control Act rules would address the procedures the EPA would use to determine which chemicals are a high or low priority for risk evaluation and how the agency will conduct that risk evaluation, Jim Jones, assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, said during a webinar organized by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
The EPA continues to work toward publishing these two and two additional proposed rules by the end of December, Jones said. The rules are required to implement the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended TSCA on June 22.
The first of the remaining two rules would propose the process the EPA would use to determine which chemicals are active in commerce. The fourth would propose fees that chemical manufacturers and perhaps processors would pay to help the agency partially recoup its expenditures overseeing their products.
Chemical trade associations, attorneys and other organizations and individuals that closely track the Toxic Substances Control Act expected all four rules to be submitted to the White House office no later than October. OMB reviews often take 90 days or longer, but a 60-day review was possible, they said.
Impact of Delay
The American Chemistry Council remains confident the EPA will issue its proposed Lautenberg Act implementation rules by the end of December following OMB's review, Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs for the council, told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 1.
A useful strategy to secure OMB's timely review of the proposals is for the EPA to lay out a range of possible regulatory options, Walls said.
Nancy Beck, senior director of regulatory science policy at the chemistry council and a former regulatory analyst with OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said the proposed rule stage makes it easier for OMB to reach consensus on rulemakings even if they affect other agencies.
Wrestling With Verdicts for 150 Chemicals
Jones discussed new chemicals and other aspects of the EPA's efforts to implement the Lautenberg Act.
Under the original and amended TSCA, chemical manufacturers or importers must submit premanuafacture notices (PMNs) to the agency before they can make a new chemical in the U.S. or import one.
The original TSCA gave the EPA the authority to intervene if it concluded the new chemical might pose an unreasonable risk, Jones said. For example, the agency could request more information from the manufacturer before allowing the chemical to enter commerce, or the EPA could impose production limits or other controls on the chemical.
A “pretty significant change” of the Lautenberg Act is that it requires the EPA to make an affirmative finding about new chemicals before they can be made in or imported into the U.S., Jones said. The three findings EPA can make are that the new chemical:
• presents an unreasonable risk;
• may present an unreasonable risk; and/or information is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the risk; or
• is not likely to present an unreasonable risk.
Deciding how to make and document the findings is “taking a fair amount of time,” Jones said. “More time, I'm sure, than most submitters are happy with.”Of the hundreds of PMNs the agency has been reviewing since June 22, about 150 chemicals are in the “may present an unreasonable risk” or “information is insufficient” category, Jones said. “We're looking to see how to move forward on those submissions.”
The agency's toxics program has about 350 staff, but Jones would like to hire another roughly 100 people, he said.
Impact of Amended Law
EPA's regulations implementing the Lautenberg Act will affect chemical manufacturers, companies that import chemicals, product manufacturers and importers, and retailers, said Charles Franklin, an attorney at Akin Gump who formerly worked in what is now the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Retailers, for example, may find customers reluctant to purchase products containing chemicals that the EPA has designated to be high priorities for risk evaluation, Franklin said.
The new law also could open up markets for companies able to design chemicals the EPA concludes are not likely to pose an unreasonable risk—the best finding the agency can make for a new chemicals, Franklin said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99972777&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99972777&jd=99972777
-
US EPA ‘Very Confident’ In Meeting TSCA Deadlines
Nov 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA is “very confident” that it will be able to meet the tight deadlines under the new TSCA, according to remarks at last week’s Chemical Watch US Regulatory Summit from Wendy Cleland-Hamnett of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT).
Passage of the Lautenberg Act set in motion a dauntingimplementation schedule that includes a number of six-month and one-year deadlines. Several “framework rules” are among the items that EPA must finalise by June of 2017; these include rules governing prioritisation, risk evaluation, and how the agency will designate substances as active or inactive on the inventory.
“There are a lot of very important, very challenging things” on the agency’s first year implementation plan, said Ms Cleland-Hamnett. But it is “so far on track to propose those [framework] rules in December; because otherwise, we see no way that we would get to a final rule by June of 2017.”
She said that the agency has benefited from its past experiences in prioritisation – via the TSCA work plan – as well as with conducting risk assessments in development of its framework rules. ““We’re very lucky that we’re not starting from scratch here,” she added.
“Although this is challenging and exciting, we feel very confident that we can do the job and we can meet the deadlines,” she said. Immediate changes
Ms Cleland-Hamnett also offered remarks on several provisions of the new TSCA that took effect immediately, including changes to the new chemicals programme.
She said that the agency feels that it will be able to keep pace with the some thousand new substance notifications it receives each year, notwithstanding the backlog of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) currently sitting at the agency.
“Despite our efforts, there is some backlog that was created by chemicals in process on 22 June plus new chemicals coming in,” she acknowledged. “Our goal is to eliminate [this] as quickly as possible, while processing the thousand-a-year chemicals” that continue to come in under the new chemicals programme.
New confidential business information (CBI) requirements also kicked in upon the law’s passage.
There is a lot of detail in section 14, said Ms Cleland-Hamnett; “I think that had the largest amount of statutory language changes.”
Under the new TSCA, manufacturers must substantiate certain CBI claims. The EPA must review all of these for chemical identities, and also at least 25% of other claims, such as production volume, use and manufacturer identity.
“All of this went into effect on day one. So we did some triage to figure out what’s most important for us to start doing right off the bat,” she said.
The agency issued a set of Q&As on its website this summer, and began routinely reviewing every fourth new CBI submission. Ms Cleland-Hamnett said the EPA wanted to make sure it was addressing these as they were coming in, to prevent it from having to go back and revisit them at a later date.
But she said that while the agency’s focus has been on these immediate aspects, “there are other provisions that we need to be taking some actions on.
“You’ll see some things coming out of the agency in the not too distant future as we continue to roll out these new provisions on CBI.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/50690/us-epa-very-confident-in-meeting-tsca-deadlines
-
Chemicals in Your Blue Jeans Aren't Easy to Replace
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
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; 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://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99972752&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99972752&jd=99972752
-
EPA Defends Synergistic Risk Review In Expanded Pesticide Registration
Nov 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA has proposed expanding its registration of the controversial herbicide Enlist Duo to allow use of the mixture on corn and soybeans in 19 additional states and on cotton, after re-affirming its initial 2014 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration decision that the product's two active ingredients do not pose synergistic risks.
The agency Nov. 1 sought comment on a new proposed registration of Dow AgroSciences' herbicide mixture of glyphosate and the decades-old 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). EPA's three-part proposal affirms that Enlist does not pose synergistic risks, expands the registration to new states, and allows use on genetically-modified (GM) cotton. EPA is seeking public comment on the proposal for one month, until Dec. 1.
EPA in October 2014 initially approved Enlist for use on GM corn and soybean crops in certain states. But in January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit hearing environmentalists' challenge to the registration remanded the approval to the agency.
The court's ruling came after EPA sought vactur of the registration after finding that Dow had claimed in filings with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that Enlist's ingredients have synergistic effects, without telling EPA.
Synergistic effects occur when multiple pesticides, combined either in a single product or in applicators' tanks, result in a stronger effect than when used separately.
In a Nov. 1 statement, EPA says it has re-affirmed its initial determination that Enlist does not pose synergistic risks, and that the agency conducted a second comprehensive review in order to allow use of the product on GM cotton.
“EPA’s review of those additional data on synergy confirms EPA’s initial findings of no synergy in the Enlist Duo formulation,” the agency says, adding that the finding resolves uncertainty stemming from the court's remand. “EPA’s protective and conservative human health and ecological risk assessments re-confirmed our 2014 safety findings."
Environmentalists have long argued that EPA fails to adequately consider synergistic risks in pesticide reviews. In July, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) petitioned EPA to issue a targeted rule strengthening its authority to require companies to submit data on their products' potential synergistic risks, a move apparently spurred by the Enlist case.
Environmentalists' Lawsuit
In 2014, groups including CBD and the Natural Resources Defense Council sued EPA in the 9th Circuit, arguing that the agency failed to adequately assess the product's risks under FIFRA and the Endangered Species Act. Advocates have long argued that Enlist Duo will drastically increase risks of glyphosate to monarch butterflies and also poses human health risks.
In January, before the case was decided, a panel of the 9th Circuit remanded the registration to EPA for further review. The remand followed EPA's request for vacatur based on the discovery of Dow's claims of synergistic effects in patent filings.
In the new proposed registration, EPA says it considers synergy “a rare event,” and follows National Research Council advice to consider pesticide mixtures as having additive effects unless there is data supporting synergism.
EPA says that the patent office filings claimed synergistic effects based on studies that used visual observation of weed control, which are not directly applicable to the agency's quantitative, scientifically-rigorous review process. After the court's remand, Dow provided EPA formula-specific toxicity data that did not show synergistic risks to plants.
“These data demonstrate that the combination of 2,4-D choline and glyphosate in Enlist Duo does not show any increased toxicity to plants and is therefore not of concern,” EPA says in the proposed registration.
The agency is also proposing to expand use of Enlist to 19 additional states, and to allow the product's use on cotton in those states, as well as in states where the product is already registered for use on corn and soybeans, a total of 34 states.
EPA's October 2014 registration approved Enlist for use on GM corn and soybean seeds in six Midwestern states where the agency determined the herbicide would not pose risks to endangered species. The agency later approved use on those two crops in nine additional states, so the product is currently approved for use in 15 states.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-defends-synergistic-risk-review-expanded-pesticide-registration
-
Dow Weed Killer Re-Approved After Patent Raises Questions
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Environmental Protection Agency once again gave its stamp of approval to a new weed-killing pesticide from Dow Chemical Co. following a review a court granted in response to an agency request.
The EPA's move allows Dow to continue selling its Enlist Duo pesticide, which is designed to be used alongside Dow's Enlist line of genetically modified seeds. Dow said in a 2014 annual report that it expects its Enlist line of products to generate $1 billion in revenue between 2014-2018, primarily on corn and soybeans.
Last year, the EPA took the unusual step of asking a federal court to give it another opportunity to review its initial approval of Enlist Duo. The agency told the court it had reviewed the application Dow had submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to patent Enlist Duo and discovered a discrepancy.
In the patent filing, the company had claimed the weed killer's mixture of two chemicals, 2,4-D and glyphosate, amplified each other's effects and created a pesticide more potent than the sum of its parts, according to EPA spokesman Nick Conger. However, Dow had not made these claims to the EPA during its review of the product's health and environmental risks, Conger told Bloomberg BNA.
Dow's stock price dipped by more than two percent the day the EPA's request to the court was first reported by Bloomberg BNA.
All Clear
Now, after a 10-month review, the EPA concluded that the data on Enlist Duo “confirms EPA's initial findings” that the chemicals do not amplify each other, according to an agency statement released Nov. 1.
The EPA's finding essentially preserves the status quo for Dow. The court that was hearing a lawsuit over Enlist Duo brought by several environmental groups chose to keep the EPA's 2014 approval of the weed killer intact, which meant Dow could continue to sell it to farmers during the agency's now-concluded review.
But the findings also raise the question of whether the claims Dow made in its patent application were false. Rachelle Schikorra, a Dow spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA that they were not.
She said the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has “a different standard of data requirements” than the EPA does and that the company's claims that the two chemicals amplified each other were “based on a limited dataset.” When looking at the entirety of the data on Enlist Duo, it's clear there is no amplification, Schikorra said in an e-mail.
In addition to completing its re-review of Enlist Duo, the EPA also announced a proposal to expand where it can be used and on which crops. Currently, it's used to suppress weeds on corn and soybean crops. The EPA is weighing whether to allow farmers to use the pesticide on cotton.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99972768&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99972768&jd=99972768
-
EU Commission Opens Consultation On REACH REFIT Evaluation
Nov 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has opened the online consultation on its REACH REFIT evaluation. It runs three months, until 28 January.
The objective, says the Commission, is to collect stakeholder views on REACH's strengths and weaknesses as well as any missing elements, but also those on the approach taken in the REFIT evaluation.
More information is available on the 2017 REACH REFIT evaluation page, where the results of the public consultation will also be published.
This forms part of the Commission's fitness check of its chemicals legislation, roadmaps for which were published in May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50681/eu-commission-opens-consultation-on-reach-refit-evaluation
-
Messy Battles Over Energy Are on the Ballot Across U.S. States
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter and Mark Chediak
As if choosing the next president of the U.S. wasn't confusing enough, states from Nevada to Florida have energy measures on the ballot this year that have left many voters befuddled.
In Florida there's an amendment that would make solar energy a constitutional right—but it's being fought by the solar industry. In Washington state a “stand-up economist“has gotten the nation's first carbon-tax on the ballot—but it's opposed by environmentalists. And in Nevada casino owners are rolling the dice, pushing a measure to allow them to break free from their electric utility to take their chances buying power in an open market.
Taken together these items underscore how energy companies are facing a hodgepodge of pressures at the state level, prompting big fights outside the Beltway. The stakes are so high because there hasn't been major federal energy legislation in nearly a decade.
There's “the realization that we are not going to make progress at the federal level,” said John Farrell, a director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a Washington-based non-profit that advises local governments on community development.
In addition, clashes between utilities and rooftop solar installers; customers and their power suppliers are intensifying as wind and solar power drop in price, making them competitive with utilities’ long-established coal and nuclear plants.
Solar spending
In Florida, utilities run by companies such as Duke Energy Corp., NextEra Energy Inc. and Southern Co. have spent $20 million in support of Amendment 1, which would help curb the ability of competitors to install panels on rooftops. Weighing in on their side is the advocacy group for the elderly, the 60 Plus Association, with $1.7 million. Fighting against them is the state's nascent solar industry; the Sunshine state ranks third in the nation for rooftop solar potential, but 14th in installed solar capacity, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. Opponents have spent about $2 million.
The one-page Florida amendment states that consumers have the constitutional right to use solar power—a right solar advocates say they already have. But it goes on to declare that consumers who don't have solar shouldn't have to “subsidize” those who do, a provision that could lead to bigger charges for panel owners.
The amendment is needed to prevent an “unfair cost shift” to non-solar users for the costs of keeping the grid functioning, said Screven Watson, a board member of Consumers for Smart Solar, which is representing the utilities supporting the measure.
“We are all connected to the grid, including solar users,” he said “You are charged on a consumption basis but part of what you pay is for the upkeep of the grid.“
Direct Impact
Amendment 1 could lead regulators or lawmakers to impose fees on solar or roll back the state's net-metering policies, according to David Pomerantz, executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute, a clean-energy advocacy group. Those fees could stunt the growth of solar in the Sunshine state, and that has led climate activists such as actor Mark Ruffalo and former Vice President Al Gore to weigh-in against it.
“They are trying to cloud the truth by putting forward a phony-baloney initiative that sounds like it protects solar. It doesn't protect solar,” Gore said at a joint appearance with Hillary Clinton in Miami on Oct. 11. “They are trying to fool you into amending your state constitution,” he added, saying the measure would “just kill the solar industry.“
A leaked recording, first reported in the Miami Herald, seemed to buttress Gore's point about misdirection.
Sal Nuzzo, a vice president at the James Madison Institute, told an industry event the amendment “would completely negate anything” solar advocates “would try to do either legislatively or constitutionally down the road.” He told representatives from other states that “solar polls very well,” and so a “political jiu-jitsu” is needed to promote their cause.
Watson said Consumers for Smart Solar was “not connected in anyway” with Nuzzo, and that there is nothing underhanded about the wording of the measure. Florida's Supreme Court reviewed the amendment language and OK'ed it. While JMI does support the measure, Nuzzo “misspoke in reference to JMI partnering with Consumers for Smart Solar in any capacity,” Dr. Bob McClure, president of the group, said in a statement.
Initial polls showed the measure with the support of nearly three in four voters, but that support likely dropped after the Nuzzo recording was first reported in the Miami Herald, according to Josh Altic of Ballotpedia.org, a nonpartisan politics website that tracks ballot initiatives. The initiative needs 60 percent of the vote to pass.
Evergreen State
In Washington, voters will decide on what could be the first carbon tax in the nation.
Supporters are facing opposition from the state's main utilities such as Berkshire Hathaway Energy subsidiary PacifiCorp and energy consumers such as Kaiser Aluminum and Nucor Corp., according to state filings. Unlike other environmental fights, in this case, the companies have also been joined by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club.
“It's weird that's for sure,” said Yoram Bauman, an economist and amateur comedian who is spearheading the initiative through the grassroots groups Carbon Washington. “They are the environmental community and they are opposing the only environmental measure on the ballot. Politics is a strange business.“
If approved, I-732, as the measure is known, would be the largest carbon tax in North America. It would place a tax on carbon from petroleum products and electricity consumed in Washington starting at $15 per ton and rising to $25 per ton in 2018. It would then increase 3.5 percent a year plus inflation every year until it reaches $100 per ton.
The carbon tax would “almost immediately” raise the price of a gallon of gasoline in the state by 25 cents, according to No on 732, the group opposing the amendment, which is sponsored by the Association of Washington Business.
The measure could also cut emissions by 10 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, the equivalent of what 2 million cars emit annually.
But it doesn't take the proceeds and invest in clean energy, and instead provides a direct rebate on the sales tax and to manufacturers. It also doesn't do enough to help poor people, according to environmental opponents, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Washington Environmental Council.
“Members of the Club expressed deep concerns that the initiative does not include all that is needed for an equitable climate policy,” the state's Sierra Club chapter said in a statement. “Given the urgency of the climate crisis, this was not a decision reached lightly.“
The most recent polling puts supporters of the measure ahead of opponents 42 percent to 37 percent, with 21 percent of voters still undecided. A majority is needed for it to pass.
Energy Gamble
In Nevada, voters will decide if consumers and businesses should be able to choose their electricity supplier. A ballot initiative would begin the process of ending the electricity monopoly of NV Energy Inc., the utility unit of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. Elon Musk and casinos such as the Las Vegas Sands Corp.support a campaign that could eventually lead to competition in the power market.
It would require the state constitution to be amended and the legislature draft a law by 2023 to create a competitive retail electricity market, ending NV Energy's monopoly. If it passes this year, it will require another ballot measure in the future.
So far, supporters of the initiative have raised $2.4 million including $925,000 from Las Vegas Sands and $1.5 million from Switch LTD, a data center service provider, according to a state filings. Opponents have raised $850,000 with backers including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 1245 and the Nevada State AFL-CIO.
NV Energy said it's neutral on the measure.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99972753&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99972753&jd=99972753
-
Largest U.S. Fuel Pipeline Shuts After Workers Trigger Blast
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Laura Blewitt
The biggest fuel pipeline in the U.S. shut its mainlines Oct. 31 after an explosion and fire in Alabama that killed at least one person. Gasoline futures surged, refiner stocks gained and traders rushed to book cargoes from Europe.
Colonial Pipeline Co., which carries refined products to New York Harbor, N.Y., 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 in the Southeast.
The owner of the pipeline, a group that includes Koch Capital Investments Co. and a unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, said it might resume service on its gasoline line at noon local time Nov. 5. The projected restart time for the line might change as it gets more access to the site of the blast, the owner said.
The pipelines remained shut and fire continued to burn as of 10:45 p.m. local time on Oct. 31, 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 later on Oct. 31 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.”
Trader Activity
Gasoline traders responded immediately to the possible shortages, rushing to book extra tankers for replacement fuel supplies from Europe, according to two shipbrokers directly involved in the trade. Freight costs for cargoes across the Atlantic surged to the equivalent of about $17 per metric ton from about $12.40, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Retail prices for regular unleaded gasoline in states including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia remain below the current national average of $2.206 a gallon, according to data updated at 3:39 a.m. EST by the U.S. motorist organization AAA.
December 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 $1.578 at 11:42 a.m. London time.
The explosion and fire come as the U.S. oil industry faces a backlash from environmentalists opposed to building new pipelines, including the $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 Enbridge Inc.’s main pipeline, which runs from Canada to the U.S. Midwest.
Southeast Supplies
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 Oct. 31. Valero Energy Corp. and Marathon Petroleum Corp. also rose.
With assistance from Ryan Sachetta, Lynn Doan, Catherine Traywick, Javier Blas, Dan Murtaugh, Firat Kayakiran and Brian Wingfield.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99972757&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99972757&jd=99972757
-
Exclusive: Oil Majors Join Forces In Climate Push With Renewable Energy Fund
Nov 2, 2016 | Reuters
By Ron Bousso
Top oil companies including Saudi Aramco and Shell are joining forces to create an investment fund to develop technologies to promote renewable energy, as they seek an active role in the fight against global warming, sources said.
The chief executives of seven oil and gas companies -- BP, Eni, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Royal Dutch Shell, Statoil and Total -- will announce details of the fund and other steps to reduce greenhouse gases in London on Friday.
The sector faces mounting pressure to take an active role in the fight against global warming, and Friday's event will coincide with the formal entry into force of the 2015 Paris Agreement to phase out man-made greenhouse gases in the second half of the century.
The group is part of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), which was created with the backing of the United Nations in 2014 and includes 11 companies representing 20 percent of global oil and gas production.
The company leaders are expected to detail plans to create an investment vehicle that will focus on developing technologies to lower emissions and increase car engine and fuel efficiency, according to the sources involved in the talks who declined to be named.
The size and structure of the fund were unclear.
The fund will also focus on ways to reduce costs of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which involves capturing carbon dioxide emissions produced from fossil fuel burning plants and re-injecting them into underground caverns.
OGCI, Shell, Total and BP declined to comment.
The CEOs are also expected to announce the next phase of their plan to reduce the oil sector's emissions, primarily by reducing flaring of excess gas at fields, increasing the use of CCS and limiting the release of methane, a highly polluting gas often emitted through pipe leaks.
OGCI leaders called on governments last year to set a price on carbon emissions to encourage the use of cleaner technologies, although some companies including Exxon Mobil have resisted the idea.
They now hope to show they can play an active role.
The drive to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century poses a threat to oil and gas companies as transport and power sectors gradually shift towards renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind.
Oil majors including Norway's Statoil, France's Total and Italy's Eni, have increased their investments in renewable energy in recent years, although it is still dwarfed by the main fossil fuel business.
Oil producers have also lobbied for the phasing out of coal in favor of the less pollutant natural gas in the power sector.
Total CEO Patrick Pouyanne said last month that OGCI leaders will announce plans "to work collectively to develop technologies which will be needed to face climate change issues."
Delegates from signatory nations meet in the Moroccan city of Marrakesh on Nov. 7-18 to start turning their many promises into action and draw up a "rule book" for the sometimes fuzzily worded Paris Agreement on climate change, reached last December.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-idUSKBN12X0WA?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews
-
America's Energy Revolution Hits a Historic Milepost
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric Roston
The U.S. passed another historic marker in its energy revolution this year. In February, U.S. transportation emitted more carbon dioxide than the fossil-fuel-heavy power sector for the first time since 1978. Overall, the U.S. has seen a 25 percent drop in carbon-dioxide emissions since 2008, the Department of Energy said, a function of the rise of natural gas and smarter energy use.
Why this should happen now is a function of several different market forces. First, low gasoline prices have encouraged Americans to drive more, increasing CO2 pollution from tailpipes. Second, natural gas has eclipsed coal as the leading fuel for electricity producers. That development, reinforced by Environmental Protection Agency regulation, has led to a historic bust for U.S. coal, which is a much more carbon-intensive fuel than natural gas.
Yes, gasoline is cheap. Yes, natural gas is killing coal. Yes, renewable energy is ramping up. These are the defining events of energy markets in recent years. But it leaves us with the question, now that the U.S. has a new, or at least emerging, energy mix, how did the old one get that way to begin with? The larger arc to this story goes back more than 50 years, when the oil embargo began a grand rethinking of energy infrastructure.
What the data show is the final lifting of the hangover from the 1970s energy crisis, when the oil shocks forced America to stop using oil for power. Oil made up a larger share of U.S. energy use before the late 1970s because it was more commonly used as a fuel in electricity generation, peaking around—you guessed it—1978 or so. Coal took up much of the slack, and pumped up CO2 emissions along the way.
This chart shows how the key sectors of the U.S. energy economy have produced their electricity since 1949. Note the decline in oil during the late 1970s, and the subsequent rise of coal and nuclear power.
With the global Paris Agreement on climate change set to take effect, and leading businesses increasingly taking energy-and-climate matters into their own hands, the shifting U.S. energy mix isn't just interesting trivia—it's a report card the rest of the world is scrutinizing to see if the globe's economic leader is setting an example to follow.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99972750&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99972750&jd=99972750
-
Oil Drilling Could Have Caused Early 20th Century SoCal Quakes, Report Says
Nov 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Some earthquakes in Southern California in the early 20th century, including a temblor that killed 120 people in Long Beach, could have been caused by oil drilling in the area, according to a report by two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) geologists in Pasadena, CA, that was published Tuesday.
Susan Hough and Morgan Page reviewed historic geological and oil drilling records for the first four decades of the last century, doing geologic detective work to potentially link the deadly 6.4-magnitude 1933 Long Beach quake to deep drilling in an oilfield in nearby Huntington Beach, CA, according to a report published in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.
The Long Beach quake hit not long after operators began drilling wells at different angles, the researchers found. They said the historic findings don't necessarily indicate any current risks in the region today from oil/natural gas drilling, because drilling technology has changed substantially since the 1930s.
Last year, another study by a different team of scientists at USGS and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) found no significant evidence of human-caused quakes in the greater Los Angeles area after 1935.
Until now, "we pretty much assumed that earthquakes in the L.A. area are natural and that induced earthquakes are either not happening or not significant," said Hough, who led the latest study.
Caltech seismology professor Jean Paul Ampuero characterized the Hough/Page study of past quakes as "a nice piece of seismological detective work," in a report in Tuesday's Los Angeles Times. He confirmed that the results are "speculative" because there were no modern seismic sensors in place in the period of the early 20th Century quakes.
Hough and Page assessed a series of quakes between 1915 and the early 1930s, tying in oil permits and drilling operations during that same time period. They discovered 13 cases of shaking that they concluded may have been caused by the ramping up of oil production.
Their work comes at a time when other USGS scientists have concluded that the injection of wastewater as part of the post-hydraulic fracturing (fracking) process in Oklahoma has contributed to a spate of quake swarms in the state in recent years (see Shale Daily, July 5). Seismologists have found no evidence of anything like that happening in Southern California, which was one of the world's major oil basins in the first half of the 20th Century.
Wastewater injection and fracking in other major shale plays, such as the Bakken in North Dakota, has not stimulated increased quake activity in those states.
Earlier this year a University of Texas and Southern Methodist University study found oil and gas activities over the past four decades are probably linked to at least 59% of induced earthquakes in Texas (see Shale Daily, May 18).
While the latest study could not be conclusive about a link between drilling and the historic Southern California quakes, it raises the possibility and should be further researched, according to independent scientists in the field, such as Frohlich and Bill Barnhart, assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Iowa.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108293-oil-drilling-could-have-caused-early-20th-century-socal-quakes-report-says
-
(ACC Mentioned) Daily Mail Editorial: Most Chemical Companies Know To Operate Safely
Nov 1, 2016 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
As has been previously reported, the Chemical Safety Board’s final report on the January 2014 water crisis concluded the chemical leak that fouled drinking water for 300,000 West Virginians was preventable.
That’s no surprise to chemical companies and distributors certified under their industry’s Responsible Care or Responsible Distribution programs.
Make no mistake, chemical manufacturers who are members of the American Chemistry Council and distributors who join the National Association of Chemical Distributors know many of the chemicals they make and distribute can cause death, destruction and damage when not properly handled.
That’s why more than 100 representatives of area chemical manufacturers and distributors gathered in Charleston last week to learn best practices and to explore efforts to improve chemical safety and security.
While they manufacture and distribute a wide variety of chemicals, for the most part they do so in an extremely safe manner. In fact, chemical manufacturers certified in the Responsible Care program boast a worker safety rate five times better than U.S. manufacturing as a whole.
The industry’s low overall incident rate may be surprising because accidents at the site of an occasional bad operator, like Freedom Industries, tarnishes the entire industry as unsafe.
Had Freedom Industries participated in the Responsible Care program, management would have followed a “Plan-Do-Check-Act” philosophy to correct errors and prevent mishaps and would have undergone mandatory certification by a independent, accredited auditor.
Surely, such a commitment would have caught the decrepit conditions at the Freedom site, brought about corrections and would have prevented the costly chemical spill.
There are always calls for more government regulation when a major accident happens. And new regulations are justified at times. But responsible operators regulate themselves better than government oversight can.
Residents, community leaders and state officials who are concerned about safety of a chemical operator near them should ask the operator’s management if they are certified in Responsible Care or Responsible Distribution.
Such certification can prevent a future catastrophe and save the operator — and the community — a lot of time, trouble and money.
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/daily-mail-editorials/20161102/daily-mail-editorial-most-chemical-companies-know-to-operate-safely
-
Criminal Investigation Underway in Toxic Chemical Release
Nov 2, 2016 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Dan Elliott
DENVER — Military and civilian authorities are investigating whether any laws were broken in the unexplained discharge of 150,000 gallons of wastewater tainted with toxic chemicals at an Air Force base in Colorado.
The Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are looking into the release of the contaminated wastewater at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, officials said Tuesday.
The chemicals flowed into the city's wastewater treatment system but didn't get into its drinking water, officials said.
The discharge was discovered on Oct. 12 and announced six days later.
Air Force officials have scheduled a news conference Wednesday to discuss the incident and other issues surrounding the chemicals, called perfluorinated compounds or PFCs.
PFCs are an ingredient in firefighting foam used at Peterson and other military installations. They have also been used in non-stick cookware coatings and other applications.
PFCs have been linked to prostate, kidney and testicular cancer, along with other illnesses. The Air Force announced in August it would switch to some other type of foam.
Air Force officials haven't said how high the levels of PFCs were in the wastewater released at Peterson.
The Colorado Springs wastewater treatment system isn't set up to remove PFCs, so they were still in the water when it was discharged into Fountain Creek, officials said. State officials said no communities take water directly from the creek downstream from the treatment plant.
The water was in a storage tank used to recirculate the water to a fire training area, officials said. It would have been re-used in firefighting exercises.
The discharge was discovered during a routine tank inspection. Air Force officials said they found no obvious defects in the tank.
The Air Force is also investigating whether Peterson is the source of PFC contamination found in well water in two other nearby communities, the town of Fountain and an unincorporated community called Security-Widefield.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/02/us/ap-us-firefighting-foam-water-colorado.html?_r=0
-
Toxics Board, IG Say No Inquiry of Member's Union E-Mails
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A literal interpretation of federal law restricting improper grass-roots lobbying would hamstring what U.S. Chemical Safety Board members can do in pursuit of the board's mission, some lawyers—and the safety board—contend.
CSB, like some other agencies, has no regulatory authority and can only advocate for its own safety recommendations, as generated by investigations into chemical incidents.
The issue came to light amid news reports reporting that CSB Board Member Rick Engler improperly coordinated with a labor union during California regulators’ development of new safety standards for oil refineries. The dispute hinges on how two federal laws, including a century-old law, the Anti-Lobbying Act of 1919, applies to CSB.
Doesn't ‘Come Close’ to Lobbying
The Anti-Deficiency Act bars agencies from spending federal funds in ways contrary to congressional spending bills, which include riders prohibiting funding grass-roots advocacy.
The other relevant statute is the Anti-Lobbying Act, which prohibits federal employees from lobbying Congress to take action on pending legislation.
A media report did not claim Engler's e-mail itself constituted grassroots lobbying, but said the wording suggests he improperly facilitated grass-roots lobbying at some point.
While a literal reading of the Anti-Lobbying Act would encompass career and political appointees and restrict lobbying aimed at a wider range of agencies, it's never been interpreted that way. Rather, according to a Public Citizen fact sheet, the Department of Justice has interpreted it more narrowly “due to constitutional concerns.”
Kenneth Gold, the director of the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 17 Engler “is not subject to the Anti-Lobbying Act as a Senate-confirmed official, right off the top.”
Outside Contacts Essential
Gold said “working with” a union in one e-mail does not seem to meet the legal definition of lobbying, Gold said, adding that there is no legal requirement barring Engler from discussing policy with outside groups.
No such prohibitions exist on contacting Congress regarding other actions, like pending nominations, or on federal agencies weighing in on pending state action, Gold said.
Tom Susman, the director of the governmental affairs office at the American Bar Association, took a more exact interpretation. Susman said “it sounds like” Engler violated the law as written, though he cautioned he needed more facts to offer a legal opinion.
Gold said in an e-mail that he believes Susman was “incorrect,” citing a 2003 Interior Department memorandum and U.S. Department of Agriculture guidance that the law is “framed in broad terms” but “in practice, these statutes have not been applied literally.”
Office of the Inspector General?
News reports claimed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of the Inspector General had opened an investigation into Engler's reaching out to unions on a California refinery regulation. California finalized the rules in July.
He was working on the refinery issue because CSB issued nine safety recommendations to California—including tougher regulations to prevent future safety incidents in the sector—after its investigation of a 2012 fire at a Chevron USA refinery in Richmond, Calif.
OIG spokesman Jeffrey Lagda said in an e-mail to Bloomberg BNA that the media reports’ “characterization that the OIG ‘opened an investigation’ is erroneous.”
Asked about the issue at a business meeting Oct. 20, CSB Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland said, “We take all compliance very seriously, but did not feel that, at this point, there was something to be overly concerned about.”
Engler said at the meeting he was “not aware of any actual investigation by the inspector general.”
Board Members’ Roles
Advocating on behalf of CSB initiatives is part of board member's duties, and many have connections to academics, unions and industry organizations forged over decades in the field.
A strict interpretation of the Anti-Lobbying Act would in many ways alter the CSB's function. In addition, other agencies like the National Transportation Safety Board and the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board play similar watchdog roles for different industries.
In the statement, the CSB noted that under its Drivers of Critical Safety Change program board members are tasked with advocating for the improvements, including by “engaging in written and verbal communication with recommendation recipients, other interested parties and important stakeholders on behalf of items” on the list. The agency has issued 780 safety recommendations since it was established—38 to federal agencies, 45 to state agencies and 21 to local agencies, while another 38 recommendations were for enforcement policies.
Expect ‘Nothing’
Given the laws’ limited use and Engler's role at CSB, it's not likely he will see legal repercussions from the allegation, said Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen.
“One could reasonably expect nothing would happen in this case,” Holman told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail Oct. 20.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99972765&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99972765&jd=99972765
-
Eastman, Water Company Settle W.Va. Chemical Spill Case for $151M
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes and Sam Pearson
A Charleston, W.Va.-area water utility and the manufacturer of a coal-cleaning chemical will pay up to $151 million under an Oct. 31 settlement agreement, stemming from a 2014 chemical spill (Good v. American Water Works Co., S.D. W.Va., No. 14-cv-01374, settlement 10/31/16).
More than 300,000 Charleston-area residents were without tap water for days beginning Jan. 9, 2014, when a coal-cleaning chemical, methylcyclohexanethanol or crude MCHM, leaked from a corroded storage tank owned by Freedom Industries into the Elk River—just upstream from the water utility's drinking water intake.
Plaintiffs alleged American Water Works Service Co., the parent company of West Virginia-American Water Co., could have taken steps to prevent or avoid the incident by taking better precautionary measures, complying with applicable regulations and using reasonable care.
Under the settlement, American Water Works Service Co. agreed to pay $126 million, while Eastman Chemical Co., which manufactured MCHM, will pay $25 million. Of the payments, up to $50 million of the water company's contribution and all of Eastman Chemical's payment will be set aside for eligible residents and businesses.
Water Company to Not Raise Rates
The water company agreed not to seek to raise water rates as a method of recouping its costs.
The agreement “is in the best interests of the community,” said Stuart Calwell, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, according to the Charleston Daily Mail-Gazette.
Eastman confirmed that it had reached a settlement on all claims arising from the spill.
“Eastman denies any liability related to the Freedom Industries chemical spill, but we worked with plaintiffs’ counsel to negotiate a global settlement to resolve all litigation and to provide benefits and closure to the community,” Eastman spokeswoman Amanda Alllman told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 1.
An e-mailed statement from West Virginia American Water said the company still believes the suit was without merit, adding that, “despite investigations by governmental agencies of the events on January 9, 2014, West Virginia American Water has never been found to have violated any law or regulation in connection with its response” to the spill.
The agreement still needs court approval.
The law offices of Thompson Barney and the Caldwell Practice represented named plaintiff Crystal Good and other plaintiffs.
Baker Botts and Jackson Kelly represented the water companies.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99972778&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99972778&jd=99972778
-
Trump Says Plan to End Climate Spending Would Save $100B
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Renee Schoof and Dean Scott
Donald Trump says he would save $100 billion over eight years by cutting all federal climate change spending—a sum his campaign says would be achieved by eliminating domestic and international climate programs.
“We're going to put America first. That includes canceling billions in climate change spending for the United Nations, a number Hillary wants to increase, and instead use that money to provide for American infrastructure including clean water, clean air and safety,” the Republican presidential candidate said Oct. 31 at a rally in Warren, Mich. “We're giving away billions and billions and billions of dollars,” he said.
In a policy statement from his campaign on the same day, “New Deal for Black America,” Trump said he would “cancel all wasteful climate change spending” under the Obama administration and plans by Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, a sum that Trump said would total $100 billion over eight years.
Trump Campaign Explains Number
The Trump campaign did not give a specific tally to account for the $100 billion total in response to a query from Bloomberg BNA.
But in an e-mail, the campaign press office said that the figure combined an estimate of what the Obama administration had spent on climate-related programs, the amount of U.S. contributions to an international climate fund that Trump would cancel, and a calculation of what Trump believes would be savings to the economy if Obama's and Clinton's climate policies were reversed.
The Trump campaign said the $100 billion total included $50 billion, or what it estimated the Obama administration has spent on programs related to climate change.
“Eliminating that spending will save similar amounts over the Trump administration,” it said.
Spending Estimate
The e-mail said the estimate was based on a Congressional Research Service report in 2013 that looked at federal climate change funding from fiscal year 2008 to the administration's budget request for FY 2014.
However, that report did not estimate the administration's full spending related to climate change over eight years. The nonpartisan research service reported that direct federal spending to address global climate change totaled about $77 billion from FY 2008 through FY 2013, and that 75 percent of that amount was for technology development and deployment, mostly through the Department of Energy.
The report said that the breakdown in the administration's FY 2014 request of $11.6 billion for these programs was about 68 percent for energy technology, 23 percent for science, 8 percent for international assistance and 1 percent for adaptation to climate change.
No Money for International Fund
Trump has said he would also cancel commitments for an international fund to help poor nations reduce carbon pollution and adapt to climate impacts. Negotiators at the 2015 Paris climate talks formalized a pledge for developed nations to ramp up donations to $100 billion per year by 2020.
Roughly one-third of that amount is projected to come from private sources. The U.S. is providing a fraction of the $100 billion total today, with the U.K., the European Union and more than 30 other nations pledging significant sums.
The U.S. pledged $3 billion over four years to a related Green Climate Fund that is counted toward the pledge. Congressional Republicans have fought unsuccessfully to kill the funding. The U.S. paid $500 million to the fund in March.
Total U.S. climate finance for developing countries—for adaptation, clean energy and sustainable landscape activities, but also development assistance and export credits—totaled $15.6 billion over six years between 2010 and 2015, according to a December 2015 State Department fact sheet, or roughly about $2.6 billion a year.
Trump in an often-quoted tweet in 2012 wrote, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
The Congressional Research Service in another 2013 report said that climate change was no longer controversial.
Broad scientific agreement exists on many points, it said, including that the Earth's climate is warming and that “human-related emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants have contributed to warming observed since the 1970s and, if continued, would tend to drive further warming, sea level rise, and other climate shifts.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99972776&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99972776&jd=99972776
-
Jobs, Air Rules Review Could Take Years, EPA Tells Court
Nov 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency isn't sure how long it will take to re-evaluate the employment impacts of its air pollution rules in line with a recent federal court's order, but it could take more than two years, the agency said Oct. 31 (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, N.D. W.Va., No. 5:14-cv-00039-JPB, 10/31/16).
The agency will seek advice from its Science Advisory Board to determine the best approach, a process that is expected to take more than a year, the EPA told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia in a brief responding to an Oct. 17 order. Then the EPA won't know exactly how long the new evaluations will take until it receives the board's advice, it said.
Throughout the brief the EPA maintained that it “reserves the right to appeal all aspects” of the order. “The United States does not concede that it would be necessary or proper for EPA to follow this plan and schedule in the absence of the October 17 order,” the agency said.
The court said in the order the agency didn't adequately consider how job losses relate to its air pollution rules in line with Section 321 of the Clean Air Act.
The court said that the EPA must review how the regulations affect employment, particularly in the coal industry. The EPA was given 14 days to submit a plan on how and when it would do so. It submitted that plan on Oct. 31.
Charges for Board
The agency said it would be helpful to receive advice from the science board on how to isolate Clean Air Act regulatory impacts from other factors and how to distinguish “correlation from causation”; how to address the widely varying actions under the Clean Air Act addressing different sources and pollutants; how to develop models and other tools to conduct employment evaluations; and to identify necessary employment and financing data needed for these evaluations and how to collect that data.
After the roughly two-year time frame the EPA laid out for the science board, the agency would determine “the precise timing, form and manner of such further evaluations.” For example, the agency may need to promulgate rules to gather the necessary data, it said. But timing also would depend on what resources and information are available to the agency, what information it needs to collect or request, and the methods required for evaluation.
Robert Murray, chief executive officer of Murray Energy Corp., the plaintiff, called the agency's response to the court “deeply offensive” and called for a stay of “all anti-coal regulations involving the Clean Air Act that have been issued under the Obama presidency.”
“Their filing makes it abundantly clear that they have absolutely no intention of following the Court Order and, instead, will try to continue to delay legal compliance for at least two (2) more years, all the while continuing to inflict pain and financial ruin on our Nation's coal miners and their families and in destroying the most reliable and lowest-cost electricity in America,” Murray said in a statement. “Murray Energy Corporation will continue to fight back in order to save these American jobs and family livelihoods, and the most reliable, lowest-cost electricity in America.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99972775&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99972775&jd=99972775
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested