Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 11/3
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Bottle Recycling Dips Slightly
Nov 2, 2016 | Platic News
By Jim Johnson
Post-consumer plastic bottle recycling dipped slightly in 2015 — the first drop in 25 years — at a time described as being difficult for the industry. -
(ACC Mentioned) BNA Insights: Increased Scientific Rigor for Chemical Management
Nov 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael P. Walls
Section 26 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 15 U.S.C. §2624) has played an important, if overlooked, role in supporting the federal chemical management system. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pollution, Suicide, History Up For Discussion In N.J. Senate
Nov 3, 2016 | North Jersey
By Nicholas Pugliese
A carcinogenic metal found in drinking water throughout New Jersey and new rules that would allow more septic systems in the protected Highlands Region are two of the roughly four dozen issues and bills set to be discussed during Senate committee meetings Thursday. -
Solvent Degreaser ‘Known’ Human Carcinogen: Federal Report
Nov 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Trichloroethylene, formerly a widely used solvent, will be listed as a “known human carcinogen” in a federal Report on Carcinogens to be published Nov. 3. -
EPA Greenlights 2,4-D And Glyphosate Mixture
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
EPA has cleared the way for the herbicide Enlist Duo—a combination of 2,4-D and glyphosate—to be used on genetically engineered corn and soybeans in more than a dozen U.S. states. -
WHO Cancer Agency Criticised For Outdated Chemical Risk Methods
Nov 2, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) agency that evaluates the cancer risk chemicals pose to the public uses outmoded hazard-based assessments, according to 10 well-known academic, government and industry scientists. -
Sheriffs Slam Obama Over Protests, Decry N.D. 'Powder Keg'
Nov 2, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The National Sheriffs' Association faulted President Obama today for saying his administration would allow protests surrounding the Dakota Access pipeline to "play out." -
Obama's Dakota Access Comments Won't Ease Pressure On Clinton
Nov 2, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
President Barack Obama’s surprising intervention into the Dakota Access pipeline standoff is unlikely to make the project any less of a nagging political headache for Hillary Clinton if she defeats Donald Trump on Tuesday. -
Clinton Ally Blasts Dakota Access Pipeline
Nov 2, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) said she opposes the controversial Dakota Access pipeline because the nation should move away from fossil fuels. -
Big Oil CEOs Said to Start New Fund for Low-Carbon Research
Nov 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rakteem Katakey
Some of the world's biggest oil companies are setting up a fund to invest in the research and development of technologies to cut emissions of greenhouse gases and promote clean energy, a person with knowledge of the matter said. -
Blast Shows East Coast Bound to Precarious Gasoline Lifeline
Nov 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Nussbaum and Laura Blewitt
A 40-inch-wide pipeline that snakes its way from the oil-soaked Gulf Coast to the tank farms of northern New Jersey carries a quarter of the gasoline used by East Coast motorists. -
Dems Call For Probe Of Company After Alabama Pipeline Blast
Nov 2, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of House Democrats on Wednesday urged federal officials to investigate the company that owns an Alabama pipeline that exploded this week. -
Petrochemical Growth Needs More From Trucks, Trains
Nov 2, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Andrea Rumbaugh
Some manufacturers are concerned that regional infrastructure won't be prepared for the impending influx of petrochemical-related cargo through the Port of Houston, a topic discussed Wednesday during the Harris County International Trade and Transportation Conference. -
EPA Unveils 2015 Ozone Standard Draft Implementation Regs
Nov 2, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA today rolled out a blueprint for implementing the 70 parts per billion ozone air quality standard adopted last year. The new document is meant to create the framework for bringing problem areas into compliance. -
Local Ozone Controls Required Despite International Pollution
Nov 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio and Andrew Childers
Areas that struggle to meet the 2015 ozone standards because of emissions transported from Mexico, Asia and Canada would still have to impose local pollution controls, according to a new Environmental Protection Agency proposal. -
EPA Implementation Proposal For 2015 Ozone NAAQS Echoes 2008 Policy
Nov 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has quietly issued a proposed rule for how states should implement its 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 70 parts per billion (ppb) that, as agency officials had suggested, largely echoes the approach EPA took in its contested rule for implementing the prior ozone limit of 75 ppb issued in 2008. -
GOP Platform Signals Data Act Challenges To Climate Studies
Nov 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Republican Party's 2016 platform signals that a Donald Trump administration would use the Data Quality Act (DQA) to “get rid” of studies that contradict its environmental agenda, especially on climate change findings used to justify EPA greenhouse gas (GHG) rules, a conservative speaker told a Nov. 1 Environmental Law Institute (ELI) panel. -
140 Countries Will Phase Out HFCs. What Are These And Why Do They Matter?
Nov 3, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Alexander Ovodenko
140 countries meeting in Kigali, Rwanda, agreed to reduce emissions of hydrofluorocarbon (HFCs), a potent greenhouse gas used as a coolant in refrigerators and air conditioners.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Bottle Recycling Dips Slightly
Nov 2, 2016 | Platic News
By Jim Johnson
Post-consumer plastic bottle recycling dipped slightly in 2015 — the first drop in 25 years — at a time described as being difficult for the industry.
A new report from a pair of trade groups, the Association of Plastic Recyclers and the American Chemistry Council, shows the overall recycling rate fell to 31.1 percent last year, down from 31.7 percent in 2014.
And the actual total weight of post-consumer bottles collected for recycling dropped by 0.5 percent to 2.977 billion pounds.
“The post-consumer plastic bottle recycling industry experienced a difficult year in 2015 with lower bale prices and lower competing virgin polymer prices for reclaimers. Margins were tight both for bale sellers and for plastic bottle reclaimers,” according to the report released Nov. 2.
The trade associations characterized post-consumer bottle recycling as holding “nearly steady” and staying “flat” year over year.
“The story here is the drop in collections as well as the increase in contamination. Demand remains strong for recycled resin, so we need to continue to focus on collecting more good material to be available for recyclers to process,” said Steve Alexander, APR executive director, in an email interview.
“We do not believe it is a trend, but certainly calls attention to efforts to boost collection, which in turn will boost supply,” he said.
PET bottles represent the largest segment of the overall category, with 1.797 billion pounds processed in 2015, a decrease from 1.812 billion pounds in 2014. High density polyethylene bottles, both natural and pigmented, totaled 1.144 billion pounds in 2015, down from 1.149 billion pounds in 2014, the groups reported.
Polypropylene bottles, a small but growing segment of the post-consumer plastic bottle recycling market, saw an increase to 31.8 million pounds in 2015. That’s up from 26.6 million pounds the year before.
The total number of pounds recycled was 2.977 last year, down from 2.991 in 2014, a 14-million-pound drop, according to the report.
Keith Christman, ACC’s managing director of plastics markets, called the decrease insignificant. “That’s why we thought it was important to say it’s basically flat,” he said.
“A lot of this has to do with how much is collected for recycling and makes it to a processor. Continuing a strong participation rate is an important part of it, people continuing to recycle their material, get them to the bin and make them available for our continued strong and growing domestic recycling industry for plastic bottles,” Christman said.
He also pointed to a longer-term trend of increased plastic bottle recycling while discussing the latest numbers.
“Plastic bottle recycling continues to grow over the long-term trend. The other thing you see in this report is strong domestic end use of plastic bottles. Less is getting exported over time compared to previous years and that’s good for the industry,” Christman said.
He pointed to work being done by ACC in conjunction with the Recycling Partnership and Keep America Beautiful as ways to keep recycling message in front of consumers.
“In our view, the longer term trend of plastics recycling has been strong. And we think it will continue to be strong,” Christman said.
The report, available from the ACC, is based is based on a survey of plastic reclaimers conducted by Moore Recycling Associates Inc.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20161102/NEWS/161109959/plastic-bottle-recycling-dips-slightly
-
(ACC Mentioned) BNA Insights: Increased Scientific Rigor for Chemical Management
Nov 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael P. Walls
Michael P. Walls is the Vice President for Regulatory and Technical Affairs at the American Chemistry Council.
Nov. 2 — Section 26 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 15 U.S.C. §2624) has played an important, if overlooked, role in supporting the federal chemical management system. With the amendments to the section made by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Public Law No. 114-182, hereafter “the Lautenberg Act” or “the Act”), however, section 26 now has a prominent role in ensuring that the Act achieves the fundamental objectives of improving public confidence in the federal regulatory system, promoting transparency and protecting innovation and competitiveness.
Section 26 Prior to Amendment by the Act
Prior to amendment by the Lautenberg Act, the most important provisions of section 26 allowed EPA to assess fees for the submission of information under sections 4 and 5 and to extend any of its TSCA authorities applicable to chemical substances or mixtures to entire categories of substances or mixtures.
In 1986, when EPA first considered establishing fees pursuant to its section 26 authority, the Agency opted not to assess fees for the submission of information under section 4 and elected only to require fees for the submission of section 5 notices. The statute limited section 5 fees to $2,500, or $100 in the case of small business submitters. Prior to amendment by the Act, section 5 fees raised approximately $1.1 million a year, the vast majority of which was paid by larger entities.
EPA has exercised its authority over categories of substances and mixtures many times since TSCA was first enacted. For example, EPA has often used a category approach in reviewing new chemical substances under section 5. A category approach creates important efficiencies in EPA's decision-making, particularly because section 26(c) allows EPA to create categories based on similar molecular structures; physical, chemical or biological properties; or exposure pathways into the human body. Because the Lautenberg Act made no changes in section 26(c), EPA retains the ability to group chemical substances and mixtures into appropriate categories for the purposes of TSCA reporting, prioritization, evaluation and regulation.
Importantly, when it was first enacted, TSCA contained no provisions related to the quality and reliability of the scientific information EPA was to rely on.
As detailed in earlier BNA Insight articles, the Act makes substantial amendments to the primary operative provisions of sections 4, 5, 6, 8 and 14 of TSCA. To support those changes, section 26 requires rigorous standards for the science supporting EPA's decisions, expands EPA's fee authority and creates a dedicated TSCA fund for fee revenue. These modifications make section 26 critical to the successful implementation of the Act.
Modifications to Section 26 Promote High Quality Science, Provide EPA Additional Resources
The amendments to section 26 made by the Lautenberg Act include some of the most significant changes to TSCA since its enactment in 1976. EPA now has a mandate to apply high quality, reliable scientific information and will have access to a significant source of additional funding to support the Act's testing, new chemicals, prioritization and evaluation provisions.
A. Section 26 Science Requirements. TSCA as first enacted contained no provisions directly related to the quality and reliability of scientific information on which EPA would base its decisions. Some scientific standard was implied, of course, in TSCA's requirement that EPA assess whether risks were “unreasonable” under section 6 and in the section 19 requirement that certain EPA decisions must be based on substantial evidence.
Best Available Science
Section 26(h) of the Act requires EPA to use scientific information, technical procedures and models in a manner consistent with the best available science. Similar provisions have appeared before in other federal environmental laws, such as section 1412(b)(3) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Under these provisions, federal agencies are responsible for ensuring that the highest-quality, most relevant scientific data are used to inform regulatory decisions and promote objective and reliable rulemaking. The Act helps provide context for the term, which must be interpreted in conjunction with the Act's requirement that EPA apply a “weight-of-the-scientific-evidence” approach in decision-making.
Under the Act, EPA is to apply the best available science in carrying out sections 4, 5, and 6. It must ensure that scientific information is reasonable for, and consistent with, the intended use of the information. It also requires that the information is relevant to decisions being made and that it comports with requirements for clarity and completeness, characterizes variability and uncertainty and has had independent verification or peer review. All told, this represents a significant advance in the effort to define and apply the best available science in the context of TSCA decisions.
Weight-of-the-Scientific-Evidence
Section 26(i) of the Act requires EPA to make decisions based on the weight-of-the-scientific-evidence approach. A statement of additional views reflected in the record of the Senate debate on the Act, on June 7, 2016, noted that the “term ‘weight of the evidence’ refers to a systematic review method that uses a pre-established protocol to comprehensively, objectively, transparently and consistently, identify and evaluate each stream of evidence, including strengths, limitations and relevance of each study and to integrate evidence as necessary and appropriate based upon strengths, limitations and relevance.” This is more than a simple “strength-of-the-evidence” test; it requires EPA to fully describe the scientific evidence and how it assessed the weight of that information in reaching a decision. EPA is not unfamiliar with the weight-of-the-scientific evidence, but to date the approach has only been detailed in guidance (e.g., EPA's Guidance for Risk Assessments).
All told, the Act reflects the first time in federal law that a best available science and weight-of-the-scientific-evidence requirement appear in a statutory requirement applicable to agency decision-making. Subsequent implementation and interpretation of these provisions in chemical-specific decisions will no doubt be the subject of considerable future debate. Importantly, these provisions require EPA to be more robust in identifying high quality, reliable and relevant information in its TSCA decisions. Over time, that process should help move the focus from the scientific information to the policy implications of that information.
Adhering to Science Provisions
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) believes it is critical for EPA to apply the Act's science provisions in new rulemakings for the prioritization and risk evaluation processes.
Under the Act, EPA must promulgate rules for a risk-based prioritization screening process and the risk evaluation process under section 6(b). Both rules should incorporate the best available science and weight-of-the-scientific-evidence requirements of section 26. The section 26 provisions are, in fact, legal requirements that EPA must meet in implementing both the Act and the rules. Notably, Congress elected to include the science provisions as stand-alone requirements in section 26; they are not included in broad requirements that EPA establish policies, procedures and guidance (section 26(l)). This is not to say that appropriate guidance on what constitutes high quality, reliable and relevant information should not be provided when appropriate, however. ACC's position is that the statutory mandate is clear and should be reflected in the process rules.
As science is the core of the risk evaluation process and will influence risk management decisions, the section 26 mandate is substantive and must be described in adequate detail in the regulation. EPA's risk evaluation process rule will contain provisions relating to how the Agency will define the conditions of use for a substance under review and how it will identify potentially exposed subpopulations. This information is critical to enable public understanding of how EPA will apply these terms to ensure consistency and uniformity in the risk evaluation process. EPA should also ensure consistency and uniformity by making clear how it will judge the quality, reliability and relevance of scientific information.
Applying Scientific Standards
Several examples may illustrate the point. In the prioritization and risk evaluation rules, EPA should state a preference for actual, rather than modeled, data, if it is available. Modeled information should conform to realistic exposure scenarios. EPA should provide clear rationales for the use of any default assumptions in the evaluation process. EPA also must define the uncertainties apparent in the scientific information and evaluate the impact of those uncertainties in decisions. The agency should explain it will judge the adequacy of peer-reviewed information. Importantly, to the extent that the Act's new Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) itself conducts a peer review of risk evaluations, EPA's risk evaluation process rule should detail how the SACC reviews will be integrated. Each of these examples is relevant to how EPA will identify the best available science and decide the weight of the evidence.
One of the key objectives of the Act was to promote a process where more information about chemical hazards and exposures is brought forward to inform prioritization and risk evaluation decisions. As more data and information become available (including data generated from emerging high-throughput assessment tools), evaluations will become more difficult, particularly the complex considerations of dose and human relevance that EPA will have to make. These evaluations will directly affect the likely choice of appropriate risk management actions, and thus it is critical that the scientific information relied on by the Agency—and the process of identifying its quality, relevance and reproducibility—be transparent. Section 26(j) furthers this objective by requiring EPA to provide a list of all studies considered and their results, as well as a nontechnical summary to help inform the public.
Periodic Updates
Notably, the Act does not assume that science will remain static. Section 26(l)(2) requires EPA to reflect new scientific developments and understandings in its policies, procedures and guidance at least every five years after the date of enactment. The update process should allow EPA to rapidly incorporate developing tools and test methods, such as high throughput screening approaches into both the prioritization and risk evaluation process. This requirement is an important contrast to TSCA before it was amended by the Act and should help ensure that EPA continues to apply the best available science in its processes.
B. New Resources for EPA. Section 26(b) of the Lautenberg Act provides the Agency important new authority to develop a fee system that generates sufficient revenue for the program, while meeting the objective of a simple, transparent system. The provision also establishes a new, dedicated TSCA Service Fee Fund.
Under the Act, EPA can assess fees for the submission of information under sections 4 and 5 and for the substances subject to risk evaluations under section 6(b). Fee revenue must be not more than reasonably necessary to defray up to $25 million, or 25 percent of EPA's administrative costs, whichever is lower. Although fees can attach to relevant section 4, 5 and 6 actions, EPA can use the fee revenue to defray the costs of administering sections 4, 5, 6 and reviews of section 14 claims to protect confidential business information (CBI). Notably, EPA cannot assess a fee directly for CBI claims. By its terms, the Act prevents EPA from assessing fees for activity under any other section of TSCA, including section 8. As under prior law, EPA must consider small business interests in establishing fee levels.
In a policy decision aimed at increasing the overall throughput in the process, the Act permits manufacturers to request that EPA conduct a risk evaluation, subject to an agreement that manufacturers pay 100 percent of the costs associated with the evaluation (or in the case of certain chemicals on EPA's Work Plan, 50 percent of the costs). The Act further limits the number of manufacturer-requested evaluations to between 25 percent and 50 percent of the total number of evaluations underway. Payment for manufacturer-requested risk evaluations is not counted toward the $25 million/25 percent cap.
TSCA Service Fund
The TSCA Service Fee Fund is a self-executing provision of the Act and requires no regulatory implementation. Therefore, as of June 22, 2016, all existing TSCA fees should be deposited in the Fund. Because the Act requires Congress to appropriate all such revenues for use in defraying costs, and Congress has not yet acted as of the date this article was written, current deposits into the Fund cannot be used by EPA. Ongoing negotiations toward a concurrent budget resolution may address this issue.
Tracking Actions and Costs
It should be clear that EPA's current and anticipated costs in administering sections 4, 5, 6 and 14 are relevant to decisions about the new fee system. Clearly EPA's costs to administer TSCA will increase compared to current costs. Unfortunately, current TSCA costs are not subject to a comprehensive tracking mechanism, and it is difficult to understand the relationship of current appropriations to the TSCA program. The President's budget recognizes approximately $56 million in appropriations to the TSCA program. However, this amount does not appear to cover fully-loaded overhead costs or the increased costs associated with implementation of the Act three years after enactment, when the Agency must have at least 20 chemicals under review.
The Act will remedy this situation through requirements for biennial reports to Congress on the fee program and EPA's costs. Specifically, the Act requires EPA to report on the fees collected and amounts disbursed from the Fund, the reasonableness of the fees compared to EPA's projected costs and the results of an annual audit of the Fund. These provisions will ensure that appropriations and fee revenue to EPA for the purposes of implementing the Act are more clearly understood by the public and the regulated community that will pay the fees. The reports to Congress and the annual audits will provide important data to inform the fee adjustment process, whereby EPA will review fees every three years and adjust them to reflect inflation and the costs of administration.
Fee Program Precedents
The Act's fee program has some precedent in the fee systems established under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA), the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) and the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFMA). Those programs provide important lessons for the broader TSCA fee program but are far more complicated than the fee program expected under TSCA. The regulatory objective under these precedents is to register or license products to individual manufacturers—a far different regulatory outcome than TSCA. Like PRIA, PDUFA and MDUFMA, however, the Act requires Congress to reauthorize the TSCA fee system on a periodic basis (in this case, in 10 years after enactment).
Key Issues in Establishing Fees
The Act creates discretionary authority for EPA to assess the fees through a specific rulemaking. EPA has indicated that it intends to propose a fee rule by mid-December 2016, with the goal of making the rule final within one year of enactment. EPA held a broad public consultation on the fee system on August 13, 2016. The Act also requires EPA to consult industry representatives on the fee system.
Key questions will arise around the level of fees established for section 4 and 5 submissions and those for risk evaluations under section 6(b). Under prior law, section 5 fees were capped at $2,500 ($100 for small businesses). One possibility is that EPA could simply adjust the old statutory fee limits for inflation.
For section 6(b) risk evaluations, however, the only benchmark that exists is EPA's risk evaluation process under the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals Program. In a statement made at the March 18, 2015, hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Tom Udall indicated that, on the basis of information provided by EPA, the cost of “evaluating and regulating from the start to the finish is at least $2.5 million” per chemical. EPA Assistant Administrator Jim Jones confirmed that estimate in response to a question posed at the April 14, 2015, hearing of the House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, in which he attributed 60 percent of those costs to the regulatory phase, for which fees cannot be assessed under LCSA. On that basis, it appears fair to estimate an average risk evaluation cost of approximately $1 million (40 percent of $2.5 million). However, it is not clear that the $1 million estimate includes overhead costs.
ACC supports EPA's expanded fee authority. ACC and its members recognize that LCSA imposes on EPA an obligation to screen all chemicals in commerce, evaluate risks of high priority substances and regulate certain conditions of use, when necessary. The Act also requires EPA to review all claims to protect chemical identity from public disclosure and a significant representative portion of all other confidentiality claims. While these activities have typically been funded through general revenues, Congress provided EPA expanded fee authority to offset some of the Agency's increased costs associated with implementing the Act. The fees will hopefully provide additional resources to ensure that EPA can make efficient and effective decisions.
In ACC's view, EPA's proposed fee rule should establish a fee system that is as simple as possible, that is fair and equitable with respect to defraying the cost of EPA's administrative actions and that is based on the level of effort required for the Agency's action.
Conclusion
The science and science policy provisions of section 26 play a crucial role in assuring that EPA's TSCA decisions are grounded in high-quality, reliable and relevant scientific information. The fee provisions of section 26 also have an important role in assuring that EPA has appropriate resources to support work under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act and an appropriate level of accountability in how fee revenue is applied. Taken together, the amendments elevate the relative importance of section 26 in a more robust federal chemical regulatory program.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99981678&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99981678&jd=99981678
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pollution, Suicide, History Up For Discussion In N.J. Senate
Nov 3, 2016 | North Jersey
By Nicholas Pugliese
A carcinogenic metal found in drinking water throughout New Jersey and new rules that would allow more septic systems in the protected Highlands Region are two of the roughly four dozen issues and bills set to be discussed during Senate committee meetings Thursday.
Also up for discussion – but not a vote – is a bill to legalize assisted suicide bill by allowing some terminally ill patients to seek a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs that they could then administer to themselves. Another bill on the agenda would give greater autonomy to the Historic New Bridge Landing Commission, which oversees the Revolutionary War site in Bergen County.
A report published in September found cancer-causing hexavalent chromium in drinking water throughout New Jersey, including all systems that serve Bergen and Passaic counties. On Thursday, the Senate Environment and Energy Committee is scheduled to hear testimony from groups such as the New Jersey Utilities Association and American Chemistry Council to determine what action the state should take the address the issue.
Long-term exposure to hexavalent chromium has been shown to cause lung cancer if inhaled and stomach tumors if consumed, although it is unclear how much of the metal needs to be consumed to increase someone’s cancer risk.
The Environmental Working Group, the advocacy group behind the report, said both the science and political will is lagging on determining just how toxic the metal is.
Sen. Kevin O’Toole, R-Cedar Grove, and Sen. Raymond Lesniak, D-Union, called on the state to reexamine its health standards for hexavalent chromium in the wake of the report, but no bill regulating the metal has yet been introduced in the Legislature.
Environmental experts are also planning to weigh in Thursday on new rules proposed by the state Department of Environmental Protection that would allow the installation of more than 1,100 additional septic systems in the Highlands.
State officials say that the new rule, which is still under department review, would increase development in the most highly regulated parts of the Highlands by an estimated 12 percent but would not negatively affect the water supply.
Opponents say the scientific data are flawed. They argue the changes would drastically increase development in the preserved forest of the Highlands, an area of 415,000 acres in seven northern counties, including parts of Bergen, Passaic and Morris.
The area is protected under state law because it is a major source of drinking water for more than 6 million people, or about 70 percent of the state’s population.
Also on Thursday, the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee is slated to discuss an assisted suicide bill known as the Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act, according to the chief of staff for the chairman of the committee. The measure is not scheduled for a vote.
That bill drew emotional opposition last month from advocates and lawmakers before passing the Assembly by a one-vote margin. It would apply to New Jersey residents who are 18 or older and have received diagnoses from at least two physicians who give them less than six months to live.
To request lethal medicine, a patient must be deemed “capable” to make medical decisions and request the lethal medication twice verbally and once in writing with witnesses present.
On the agenda for the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee is a bill that would give the Historic New Bridge Landing Commission some independence from the state Department of Environmental Protection, which helps oversee the historic park located in parts of River Edge, Teaneck and New Milford.
The site is where Gen. George Washington and his troops retreated from the British Army in November 1776.
There has been friction in the past between commission members and state officials over management of the park, where ownership of the site is divided. The state owns part of the land and the Steuben House, and the historical society owns part of the land. Bergen County owns the bridge, and the Blauvelt-Demarest Foundation owns the Demarest House Museum.
Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, has said she hopes the bill will enable better promotion of the park.
The bill has already cleared one Senate committee this year.
Other measures to be considered by Senate committees on Thursday include:
* A constitutional amendment that would guarantee money received by the state from pollution settlements to be dedicated only for environmental purposes. The amendment was first introduced in 2015 as part of an effort to block Governor Christie from taking the bulk of a controversial $225 million settlement with Exxon Mobil to balance the budget, a move he has made in past years with millions the state received from Passaic River polluters.
* A bill that would create the Office of the Ombudsman for Individuals with Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities to help such individuals navigate state and federal agencies to obtain services and resolve disputes. The Assembly passed a similar version of the bill in June.
* A bill that would offer temporary protections against foreclosure to some residents affected by Superstorm Sandy. It would also extend the deadline for completing projects funded with Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, Elevation and Mitigation or Low-to-Moderate Income program grants if the project was delayed through a fault of a builder or the Department of Community Affairs. The Assembly also passed a similar version of this bill in June.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/pollution-suicide-history-up-for-discussion-in-n-j-senate-1.1687165
-
Solvent Degreaser ‘Known’ Human Carcinogen: Federal Report
Nov 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Trichloroethylene, formerly a widely used solvent, will be listed as a “known human carcinogen” in a federal Report on Carcinogens to be published Nov. 3.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which issues the report, upgraded trichloroethylene (TCE) from a “reasonably anticipated to be” to a “known human carcinogen,” HHS's National Toxicology Program said in a Federal Register notice to be published Nov. 3.
The HHS classification is consistent with the conclusion the Environmental Protection Agency reached in 2011, when it deemed the solvent to be “carcinogenic to humans” by all routes of exposure.
The Dow Chemical Co., PPG Industries Inc. and GreenChem Industries LLC are among the U.S. companies that made or imported 225 million pounds of TCE in 2011, the most recent year for which data is available.
Trichloroethylene also is made in or imported into the European Economic Area.
European registrants include Arkema France, Banner Chemicals Ltd. and Dow subsidiary Blue Cube Spinco Inc., which say their combined production ranges between 10,000 and 100,000 metric tons (11,023-110,231 U.S. tons) annually.
Legacy Concerns, Current Uses
Trichloroethylene has been found on at least 1,045 of the 1,699 current or former Superfund sites, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
The solvent has two major uses, that agency says. First it is used to make other chemicals, especially the refrigerant, HFC-134a and, as a solvent, it removes grease from metal parts. Minor uses include as a spotting agency in dry cleaners, the toxic substances agency said.
Two proposed rules developed by the Environmental Protection Agency that would restrict certain uses of trichloroethylene are under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
EPA's first rule would restrict, ban or otherwise address health risks the agency identified with commercial vapor degreasing operations that use the solvent.
The second rule would address health risks EPA identified when trichloroethylene is used as a spotting agent in dry cleaning and in commercial and consumer aerosol spray degreasers.
The health concerns the EPA seeks to mitigate include the solvent's potential to cause cancer and its and a wide range of other harms including immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity and developmental toxicity such as potential fetal cardiac defects.
Cobalt, Viruses
The 14th Report on Carcinogens, which the Natonal Toxicology Program will release, will list six new substances.
These six include five viruses found to cause cancer in people: Epstein Bar virus, Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus, human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1, human immunodeficiency virus-type 1, and Merkel cell polyomavirus.
The report will list cobalt and cobalt compounds that release electrically charged atoms, or “ions,” in the body as reasonably anticipated to cause human cancer.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99981691&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99981691&jd=99981691
-
EPA Greenlights 2,4-D And Glyphosate Mixture
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
EPA has cleared the way for the herbicide Enlist Duo—a combination of 2,4-D and glyphosate—to be used on genetically engineered corn and soybeans in more than a dozen U.S. states. The agency is also proposing to allow the controversial mixture to be used on cotton and to expand from 15 to 34 the number of states where it can be used.
U.S. regulators first approved Enlist Duo for use on corn and soybeans in 2014, but subsequently asked a federal court to overturn the approval. The agency claimed that the herbicide’s maker, Dow AgroSciences, withheld data suggesting synergistic effects between the two ingredients.
EPA reviewed additional data submitted by Dow and announced on Nov. 1 that regulators found no synergistic effects. “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,” the agency says.
Dow reported synergistic effects in a patent application for Enlist Duo, but now says that the claim was based on limited data. Dow has since collected additional data that confirm the two ingredients do not amplify each other’s toxicity, the company says.
Environmental groups, which filed a lawsuit in 2015 challenging EPA’s approval of Enlist Duo, are outraged by the agency’s decision.
“EPA’s sudden about-face on this product is just astounding,” says Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs in the suit. “Just last year the EPA asked a court to cancel registration of this product due to the unknown risks it posed, and now it suddenly wants to more than double the number of states where the pesticide can be used?” he asks. “This proposal ignores the available data and will potentially harm our environment.”
EPA is accepting comments on its proposal to expand the number of states where Enlist Duo can be used until Dec. 1. The agency expects to make a final decision in early 2017.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/11/EPA-greenlights-24-D-glyphosate.html
-
WHO Cancer Agency Criticised For Outdated Chemical Risk Methods
Nov 2, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Criticism of carcinogenicity assessments that place processed meat in the same category as mustard gas
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) agency that evaluates the cancer risk chemicals pose to the public uses outmoded hazard-based assessments, according to 10 well-known academic, government and industry scientists. In a commentary, the authors suggest that such frameworks can lead to unfounded public concerns and knee-jerk government responses.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monograph process is based on a concept developed in the 1970s that chemicals could be divided into two classes: carcinogens and non-carcinogens, according to the authors, who make the same criticism of the UN’s Global Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling. ‘Categorisation in this way places into the same category chemicals and agents with widely differing potencies and modes of action,’ the authors assert. ‘This is how eating processed meat can fall into the same category as sulfur mustard gas.’
In contrast, the authors argue that approaches based on hazard and risk characterisation offer an ‘integrated and balanced picture of hazard, dose response and exposure’, and allow for informed risk management decisions.
The criticisms come just weeks after a US House of Representatives oversight and government reform committee announced its intention to convene a briefing on the IARC. Concerns had been raised that the body was receiving US funding despite questions over its conclusions about the safety of certain chemicals, such as the pesticide glyphosate.
To address their concerns, the authors argue that an initiative to agree upon a standardised, internationally accepted methodology for carcinogen assessment is needed now. The approach should incorporate principles and concepts of existing international consensus-based frameworks such as the WHO International Programme on Chemical Safety.
‘Advances in the science of risk assessment and chemical risk management are not reflected in the outmoded IARC hazard-only evaluation approach,’ said Rita Schoeney, a former science advisor to the US Environmental Protection Agency and an author of the commentary.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/who-cancer-agency-criticised-for-outdated-chemical-risk-methods/1017633.article
-
Sheriffs Slam Obama Over Protests, Decry N.D. 'Powder Keg'
Nov 2, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The National Sheriffs' Association faulted President Obama today for saying his administration would allow protests surrounding the Dakota Access pipeline to "play out."
"Law enforcement is in the middle of a powder keg in Morton County, N.D.," said Jonathan Thompson, the group's executive director and CEO. "And last night, President Obama said: 'We're going to let it play out for several more weeks.'"
In an interview with NowThis yesterday, Obama said the Army Corps of Engineers is examining whether there are ways to reroute the pipeline to steer clear of Native Americans' sacred lands.
"We're going to let it play out for several more weeks," Obama said.
Thompson said protesters had allegedly fired a weapon and thrown Molotov cocktails. He also pointed to the ambush killing of two officers today in Iowa that was not related to the pipeline protests.
"Mr. President, this is not a game," Thompson wrote. "As we saw in Iowa this morning, where two police officers were ambushed and murdered, law enforcement is real life and, all too often, real death."
The National Sheriffs' Association is one of the largest nonprofit groups of law enforcement professionals, representing more than 3,000 elected sheriffs. It has more than 20,000 members.
Morton County Commission Chairman Cody Schulz also issued a statement criticizing Obama's comment, saying it would "quite literally [put] lives in danger."
"When President Obama says he wants to let the situation 'play out for several more weeks,' it affords the opportunity to the out-of-state militant faction of this protest to keep escalating their violent activities," Schulz said. "Rather than creating further uncertainty, the president should be sending us the support and resources necessary to enforce the law and protect people's right to peacefully protest."
Police in North Dakota have been facing off with hundreds of protesters opposed to ongoing construction of the $3.8 billion oil pipeline. Thompson said there have been 415 arrests in connection with the "riots" in Morton County; only 8 percent of those arrested are from North Dakota, he said, while 92 percent are from 43 other states.
"This includes militant agitators with long histories of violence, including domestic assault, child abuse and burglary," Thompson said, adding that the state's lawmakers, police officers and governor have all called for federal assistance.
"Letting it play out, as the President has recommended, puts precious lives — protesters, workers, tribal members, ranchers, farmers and law enforcement — in danger," he said in the statement. "Unless the President can provide us with assistance and support, the President should be held partially responsible for the fear, terror, and damage caused by violent, militant out-of-state agitators."
The Morton County Sheriff's Department this afternoon reported that officers were engaged in a standoff with protesters on the banks of the Cantapeta Creek. According to police, protesters had built a handmade wooden bridge and were trying to gain access onto private property known as the Cannonball Ranch.
After the corps gave county police orders to remove the makeshift bridge and threatened arrests, protesters began to swim and use boats to get across the river, according to the department.
Environmentalists have been calling for Obama to intervene in the increasingly violent protests. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) this week sent the president a letter asking for the Department of Justice to send observers to North Dakota, warning that "scores of law enforcement officers dressed in riot gear and supported by military style vehicles" had "forcibly removed" peaceful protesters.
Demonstrations have not been limited to North Dakota. CNN reported today that dozens of demonstrators opposing the 1,172-mile-long pipeline disrupted the morning commutes after filing into Grand Central Terminal in New York City. Protesters then marched to the offices of some major banks, the network said.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/11/02/stories/1060045193
-
Obama's Dakota Access Comments Won't Ease Pressure On Clinton
Nov 2, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
President Barack Obama’s surprising intervention into the Dakota Access pipeline standoff is unlikely to make the project any less of a nagging political headache for Hillary Clinton if she defeats Donald Trump on Tuesday.
That's because Obama's statement that the Army Corps of Engineers is exploring “ways to reroute” the 1,172-mile oil pipeline away from the Standing Rock Sioux’s North Dakota reservation effectively muddled the path to victory for both sides in the confrontation in North Dakota. Obama also said his administration would take “several more weeks” to look at a solution, a timeline that would raise the pressure on Clinton to get more involved if she becomes president-elect.
While environmentalists have largely followed the lead of the Sioux and other tribal groups protesting Dakota Access, rerouting the $3.7 billion, four-state conduit for crude oil from the Bakken region would fall far short of their goals. Climate activists who oppose building any new oil and gas infrastructure want to see the pipeline killed outright — though they would certainly cheer a lengthy delay to reroute the project if it resulted in a full-scale environmental review.
For those groups, that means keeping up the pressure on Clinton, whose campaign so far has spurned activists’ pleas to take a clear stance on Dakota Access even as she called for “a path forward that serves the broadest public interest."
One green group official who requested anonymity said the Dakota Access issue is poised to return during Senate confirmation hearings for any Clinton nominees who might play a role in tribal consultation on federal infrastructure permitting.
"I hope this will be raised to the broader level of making sure whoever is at the head of agencies take tribal rights seriously and hopefully have ideas about how to improve that process,” the official said.
Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, co-chair of Clinton’s transition team and often mentioned as a potential Energy secretary in a new Clinton administration, won accolades from environmentalists Wednesday by declaring herself a Dakota Access opponent.
“We ought to be doing everything we possibly can to keep fossil fuel energy in the ground and developing the renewable side,” she said at a speaking appearance in New York.
Green groups have already flexed their muscles against Democratic Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, declaring him unfit as a potential Interior secretary due to his vocal support for fracking. The more that Dakota Access becomes a proxy for fossil fuel opponents who support a “keep-it-in-the-ground” stance, as Keystone XL was before it, the greater the chance it will force Clinton’s nominees to give their views on the project.
"If [the Obama administration] learned anything from Keystone XL, they'd get this over with and reject the pipeline ASAP,” Jamie Henn, strategy director of the green group 350.org told POLITICO as he traveled to North Dakota’s anti-pipeline protest camp with 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben.
Henn’s group has issued a call for nationwide grassroots protests on Nov. 15, asking that Obama “and the incoming administration” reject Dakota Access. But other climate activist groups took more direct shots at the president Wednesday for discussing a reroute of Dakota Access to accommodate Native American concerns rather than an outright rejection of the project.
“Obama misses the key element of resistance to Dakota Access: All new fossil fuel infrastructure must be halted immediately, because our planet is on the brink of climate crisis and there is no excuse for building another 40 years of fossil fuel infrastructure,” Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch, said in a statement.
Josh Nelson, deputy political director of the liberal group CREDO, also blasted Obama’s “politically convenient wait-and-see approach.”
Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the House Natural Resources Committee’s top Democrat and a stalwart environmentalist, sought to calm the green criticism of Obama’s comments.
“I still question the need for the Dakota Access pipeline,” Grijalva said in a statement Wednesday. “However, if it can be rerouted in a way that respects and protects tribal sovereignty, as President Obama has suggested, I would support that.”
For the oil industry, Obama’s suggestion of a reroute could escalate already-high tension with the current administration — a roiled relationship that some companies hope to bring down to a simmer if Clinton wins on Tuesday.
The American Petroleum Institute began knocking Obama’s team over Dakota Access soon after a Sept. 9 announcement that the Army Corps of Engineers would withhold approval for an easement for the pipeline to cross the Missouri River near the Sioux’s land. API CEO Jack Gerard declined to press Clinton specifically on the pipeline’s future, but he called for swift action from the incoming president to let the project go forward.
“Stepping back and restoring the rule of law should be done immediately by whomever is the next president,” he said in an interview.
Craig Stevens, vice president of the communications firm DCI Group, said the pro-pipeline groups he represents as a spokesman for the pro-pipeline Midwest Alliance of Infrastructure Now Coalition are “extremely concerned” by Obama’s late Tuesday comments to NowThis News that his administration would “let it play out for several more weeks.”
“I'm not going to attempt to parse what the president said,” Stevens said in a statement, “but it does sound like what was supposed to be a bureaucratic exercise of a technical review of the easement to construct under Lake Oahe has now morphed into something quite different.”
Trump has yet to speak directly on Dakota Access but is viewed by both sides in the battle as a supporter of the project given his previous stake of up to $50,000 in stock in Energy Transfer, the company that is the biggest owner of the consortium building the pipeline.
An Army Corps spokeswoman did not return an emailed request for comment on whether the “several more weeks” referenced by Obama would result in a decision on the pipeline’s disputed easement or on a potential re-route. If Dakota Access is allowed to go forward, even with a new route that bypasses the land disputed by the Sioux, it is all but guaranteed to face further legal challenges as well as a potential new environmental impact statement.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/11/dakota-access-drifting-closer-to-clintons-desk-135828
-
Clinton Ally Blasts Dakota Access Pipeline
Nov 2, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) said she opposes the controversial Dakota Access pipeline because the nation should move away from fossil fuels.
Granholm, a close ally to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and co-chairwoman of Clinton’s presidential transition team, did not say she was speaking for Clinton, who has avoided talking about the oil pipeline.
Granholm was asked Tuesday evening at Canisius College in New York whether she stands “with the Standing Rock Sioux in opposition to the Dakota Access pipeline,” to which she responded, “Yes, I do,” according to a video clip of the event published by environmental activist group 350 Action.
She went on to say, “We should be erring on the side of generating more renewable energy, rather than generating more fossil fuel energy. And pipelines facilitate the generation of fossil fuels, fossil fuel energy.
“We ought to be doing everything we possibly can to keep fossil fuel energy in the ground and developing the renewable side."
Emails published last month by WikiLeaks show that Granholm unsuccessfully pushed to be President Obama’s first secretary of Energy four days after he was elected in November 2008. The Clinton campaign has not verified the emails, which WikiLeaks published, saying they were hacked from campaign chairman John Podesta’s email account.
Clinton has been under intense pressure from environmentalists and Native Americans to come out against Dakota Access, but she has remained silent.
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe says part of the planned project in North Dakota would destroy historic artifacts and burial grounds that the tribe finds sacred, though the state and the project’s supporters dispute that.
While opposing the pipeline could shore up environmental support for Clinton, numerous labor unions strongly support the project and would see her opposition as opposition to the workers constructing Dakota Access and other fossil fuel pipelines.
The Obama administration decided in September to hold off on giving the developer, Energy Transfer Partners, the easement it needed to build under the federally owned Lake Oahe, while officials reconsider whether they properly consult with Standing Rock and other tribes.
President Obama said Tuesday that the Army Corps of Engineers is exploring ways to reroute the pipeline to avoid the areas at issue.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/303947-clinton-ally-blasts-dakota-access-pipeline
-
Big Oil CEOs Said to Start New Fund for Low-Carbon Research
Nov 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rakteem Katakey
Some of the world's biggest oil companies are setting up a fund to invest in the research and development of technologies to cut emissions of greenhouse gases and promote clean energy, a person with knowledge of the matter said.
The investment will be unveiled by the chief executive officers of Saudi Arabian Oil Co., Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Total SA, BP Plc, Eni SpA, Statoil ASA and Repsol SA, on Nov. 4 in London, the person said, who asked not to be identified because the information isn't yet public and did not disclose the size of the fund.
The companies are part of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, which last year declared their support for a global deal to prevent climate change. The plans were first reported by Reuters.
The group, which together accounts for about a fifth of the world's oil and gas output, last year backed policies consistent with limiting the increase in average global temperatures to within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
Fighting Against Coal Use
Environmental activists have laid part of the blame for emissions on these companies and questioned their willingness to make meaningful contributions to the struggle to combat climate change. For their part, the CEOs are fighting against the use of coal for power generation and saying their companies are focusing more on natural gas, which is half as polluting as coal.
The group, which was formed in 2014, also includes China's National Petroleum Corp., Petroleos Mexicanos and India's Reliance Industries Ltd. They have reduced greenhouse gas emissions from their own operations by 20 percent since 2005, according to the initiative's website. No U.S.-based companies are part of the group.
On Nov. 4, the CEOs are likely to discuss the progress they have made since their meeting in Paris a year earlier and lay out plans to reduce methane emissions, improve energy efficiency and promote carbon capture and storage, the person said.
The “overwhelming majority” of Middle East oil reserves and 60 percent of its gas reserves must remain unburnt to prevent an increase in global average temperatures of more than 2 degrees Celsius, researchers at University College London said in report last year. The companies have rejected the idea that their assets will turn out to be of little value if the world was to achieve this target.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99981672&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99981672&jd=99981672
-
Blast Shows East Coast Bound to Precarious Gasoline Lifeline
Nov 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Nussbaum and Laura Blewitt
A 40-inch-wide pipeline that snakes its way from the oil-soaked Gulf Coast to the tank farms of northern New Jersey carries a quarter of the gasoline used by East Coast motorists.
On Oct. 31, that thin lifeline snapped after an explosion and fire in Alabama. The fallout: For the second time in two months, the price of fuel for truckers, commuters and soccer moms threatened to jump, even as global crude prices decline.
Why is such a huge, economically dynamic region so dependent on one pipeline network for so much of its gas, jet fuel and other petroleum products? Think economics, and the environment.
“The economic case isn't giving you a reason to build and the environmental opposition is the reason you don't,” said Kevin Book, managing director at Washington-based consultants Clearview Energy Partners LLC. “At this particular point in history, no products pipeline is going to be an easy build.”
A spill in September shut the gasoline line for 12 days, cutting supplies to 50 million Americans in the U.S. Southeast. The explosion Oct. 31 is expected to close the line until Nov. 5, according to Colonial Pipeline Co., which operates the system. It's pushed up futures prices and sent gasoline traders scrambling for other ways to supply East Coast states with fuel.
Tighter Supplies
Even if the pipeline restarts on Nov. 5, major southeastern cities like Nashville, Tenn.; Atlanta; and Charlotte, N.C., will face shortages, according to Andy Milton, senior vice president of supply and distribution at Mansfield Oil Co., a Gainesville, Ga.-based fuel supplier.
“It's not going to be Armageddon, where people would have to walk to work,” Milton said by phone. “We're doing everything we can to supplement the pipeline being down right now. But logistically, there are only so many trucks and drivers. You're kind of plugging holes.”
December gasoline futures jumped as much as 21.56 cents, or 15 percent, to $1.6351 a gallon on Nov. 1 as the pipeline's shutdown threatened supplies. The contract, which is for fuel delivered into New York Harbor, was down 1.7 percent at $1.4593 on the New York Mercantile Exchange as of 9:22 a.m. London time on Nov. 2.
For consumers, prices at the pump will probably drift higher in some parts of the southeast, said Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst at GasBuddy.com, a company that tracks retail prices and availability. At the peak, price increases could average 15 cents, he said. And if the restart is delayed, “you'd see more of a price impact.”
Colonial opened for business in 1964, connecting Houston's refineries with Linden, N.J. Eight oil companies spent $370 million on the system—at the time the biggest single, privately financed construction project in U.S. history, according to the company's website.
Colonial's system carries 2.6 million barrels a day, just under half the 5.38 million barrels a day of refined products used across the East Coast in August, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. A further 700,000 barrels a day run through a system operated by the Plantation Pipe Line Co.
The accident is set against a backdrop of rising protests against oil-infrastructure proposals, from the Keystone XL project to the $3.8 billion Dakota Access oil line. In Georgia, Kinder Morgan Inc. canceled the Palmetto refined-products pipeline, meant to serve the southeast, after state lawmakers imposed a moratorium on new permits.
“When we make a decision against individual pipeline projects, over time that adds up,” said John Stoody, a spokesman for the Washington-based Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
“If you're a company thinking about a new pipeline to service the northeast and you wondered whether it would be received favorably or even fairly or objectively, you would only have to look around at some of the other projects,” he said in a telephone interview.
Environmental opposition aside, a new products pipeline to the East Coast may not make economic sense for companies, said Clearview's Book. Colonial and Plantation serve most of the market, and there's little sign that demand will grow enough to justify another competitor, he said. And as shown in the latest outages, traders can quickly divert supplies from other countries when needed, he said.
“It's hard to compete with the economics of scale and incumbency” of the existing lines, Book said by telephone. “What's the business case if you've already got a multimillion-barrel conduit serving the region?”
The U.S. also created the 1 million-barrel Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve after Hurricane Sandy plowed into the Northeast four years ago and disrupted deliveries, though that wouldn't be enough to cover a long-term shortage, he said.
The rally in gasoline futures boosted profits collected from importing European gasoline to a four-month high, PVM data compiled by Bloomberg show. Freight costs for cargoes across the Atlantic surged 78 percent to $16,308 a day, the highest returns possible on that route since January, Baltic Exchange data show.
When there is a disruption on Colonial's product lines, there are several alternatives to moving product, Ezra Uzi Yemin, chief executive officer of Delek US Holdings Inc., which operates refineries in Texas and Arkansas, said Nov. 1.
“Either barrels come from Canada or, if it's a long-term disruption, people will start barging up the East Coast to the Northeast,” said Yemen, speaking on the company's third-quarter earnings conference call. “But I do not believe this is a long-term situation.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99981677&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99981677&jd=99981677
-
Dems Call For Probe Of Company After Alabama Pipeline Blast
Nov 2, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of House Democrats on Wednesday urged federal officials to investigate the company that owns an Alabama pipeline that exploded this week.
The Democrats — Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (NJ), Transportation Committee ranking member Peter DeFazio (Ore.) and three subcommittee ranking members — said the Department of Transportation should probe the Colonial Pipeline Company after a pipeline it owns caught fire and exploded in Shelby County, Alabama.
The Monday incident killed one person and sent five others to the hospital. The explosion — coupled with a spill and a supply disruption two months ago — warrants an investigation, the members wrote in a letter to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.
“This is an unacceptable situation, and we are concerned that the number, frequency and severity of significant incidents on Colonial's system over the past five years could be symptomatic of severe underlying problems with the system and the company's management of that system,” the members wrote.
Colonial’s Shelby County pipeline caught fire and exploded shortly before 3:00 p.m. on Monday. The company said on Wednesday that the fire has “reduced significantly” over the last day and is no longer a hazard to the public.
Nine contracted workers were at the pipeline site during the blast. One died, five went to the hospital and four remain hospitalized, the company reported in a Wednesday afternoon update.
Colonial said there is “no observable impacts” from the blast on waterways or drainage paths. The company said it hopes to begin work toward bringing the pipeline back online as soon as the fire is extinguished.
Colonial did not immediately respond to a request from The Hill on the Democrats’ letter, but it told the Associated Press, “We have robust system integrity, inspection and maintenance programs that meet or exceed all federal regulatory requirements.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/304075-dems-call-for-probe-of-company-after-alabama-pipeline-blast
-
Petrochemical Growth Needs More From Trucks, Trains
Nov 2, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Andrea Rumbaugh
Some manufacturers are concerned that regional infrastructure won't be prepared for the impending influx of petrochemical-related cargo through the Port of Houston, a topic discussed Wednesday during the Harris County International Trade and Transportation Conference.
Roads and bridges around the port are already congested, said Scott Campbell, associate director at LyondellBasell Industries, and improvements are unlikely to occur before petrochemical plant projects come online.
"The infrastructure that we need is not there," he said. "The challenge is how fast can we get that stuff in place?"
About 350 people attended the eighth annual Harris County International Trade and Transportation Conference at NRG Center. While the event's theme championed collaboration, there were clashing ideas on the best way to move freight - either by increased reliance on trains or by allowing trucks to carry heavier loads.
Push for railroads
Lance Fritz, chairman, president and CEO of Union Pacific, championed railroads.
He said Union Pacific operates 100 trains a day in Harris County, meaning there are roughly 15,000 fewer trucks clogging the roads.
He acknowledged that a combination of trucks and trains is needed in settings like the port, but he said he opposes allowing heavier trucks on the roads. These trucks could cause more damage to roadways without paying their fair share to repair them.
"Pay your own way. We pay our own way," he said, emphasizing that Union Pacific maintains its own railroads.
Perry Padden, the Americas logistics and distribution manager for Exxon Mobil Chemical, advocated for trucks carrying heavier containers to and from the port, to be loaded onto or off ships.
He said it's more expensive to ship containers around the world when they aren't completely full.
Padden said the port is at a disadvantage because it does not have a dedicated corridor for trucks carrying heavier loads.
Working together
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett encouraged attendees not to think in terms of trucks versus rail. These different types of transportation will continue working together to move freight, he said.
"If we can't move freight and if we can't move people, then our economy is going to come to a grinding halt," he said.
When asked if Harris County infrastructure will be able to handle the impending petrochemical boom, Emmett said a lot of that cargo will be moved by rail. Because of private investments, rail has extra capacity to move more freight.
He agreed that Harris County is playing catch-up on the trucking side. He said there was inadequate funding for road projects until recently when voters approved a dedicated funding source for the Texas Department of Transportation.
Infrastructure needs
He said events like Wednesday's conference ultimately will help address the county's infrastructure needs for moving freight.
"Because of groups like these, we're better off than a lot of places," he said.
Roger Guenther, executive director of the Port of Houston Authority, also addressed the need for collaboration. The port can't prepare its roads and other infrastructure for growth in a vacuum, he said.
Instead, Guenther recommended looking for opportunities or grants where the community could come together to improve infrastructure. For instance, the Port Authority recently helped the county receive funding for a $13 million project to improve a congested road adjacent to the port.
"If we don't have unity in being together and pushing these projects, we're not going to be as successful," he said.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Petrochemical-growth-needs-more-from-trucks-10521731.php
-
EPA Unveils 2015 Ozone Standard Draft Implementation Regs
Nov 2, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA today rolled out a blueprint for implementing the 70 parts per billion ozone air quality standard adopted last year. The new document is meant to create the framework for bringing problem areas into compliance.
The proposal, signed this morning by Administrator Gina McCarthy and posted online this afternoon, largely follows the model EPA already has in place for implementation of the previous 75 ppb standard set in 2008, an agency fact sheet said.
The proposal would apply to areas designated in nonattainment for the latest threshold and for the Ozone Transport Region, a congressionally created territory that encompasses all or part of 12 states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and the District of Columbia.
States were supposed to submit their nonattainment recommendations for the 2015 standard by the beginning of October. EPA officials have said they plan to make the final attainment designations around this time next year.
The proposed rule also lays out two options for revocation of the 2008 standard. One would revoke the previous standard in all areas one year after the effective date of the designations for the 2015 benchmark with anti-backsliding requirements put in place for all areas that still don't meet the 2008 standard by that point.
The other would leave the 2008 standard in place in all areas designated as being in nonattainment for that threshold until they are reclassified as in attainment.
EPA only issued the implementation regulations for the 2008 standard early last year. Because tens of millions of people live in areas still out of attainment with the 2008 threshold, members of Congress have objected that some states will have to juggle compliance with two separate standards.
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog, is formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight.
McCarthy lowered the standard in October 2015, citing the need to protect public health in light of current available research on ozone's health effects.
The proposed rule will have a 60-day public comment period when published in the Federal Register. The agency will hold a hearing upon request.
Among the provisions for which EPA is specifically seeking feedback, the fact sheet lists attainment deadlines for the 2015 standard and requirements for emission inventories.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/11/02/stories/1060045194
-
Local Ozone Controls Required Despite International Pollution
Nov 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio and Andrew Childers
Areas that struggle to meet the 2015 ozone standards because of emissions transported from Mexico, Asia and Canada would still have to impose local pollution controls, according to a new Environmental Protection Agency proposal.
The agency floated a variety of implementation requirements for the 2015 ozone standards of 70 parts per billion in a proposed rule posted online Nov. 2. Included in the proposal were requirements for areas interested in using Section 179B of the Clean Air Act to address pollution transported from elsewhere.
“It will be an area of interest because there's been so much focus of international air pollution being a factor in background ozone,” Clint Woods, executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA.
That section of the law allows the EPA to approve an area's attainment plan even if the plan won't bring the area into compliance with the standards, so long as the plan meets all other applicable requirements and state regulators can demonstrate their area would meet the standards were it not for emissions from outside the U.S. The EPA said it has used Section 179(b) in the past to approve plans from El Paso, Texas, and other areas along the Mexican border.
States seeking plan approval under Section 179B will still be required “reasonably available control measures” in order to qualify for approval, even for marginal areas that typically are not required to adopt those pollution controls. That requirement could lead to further regulatory action to reduce emissions from passenger cars and diesel trucks, as well as new control requirements on power plants and other industrial facilities.
“The EPA believes that adopting an interpretation of [Clean Air Act] Section 179B that would allow people to continue to be subjected to levels of ozone above the [national ambient air quality standards] that a state could reasonably reduce—in this case not to attainment level, but to a level below the current level—would be antithetical to the objectives of the” Clean Air Act, the agency said in its proposal (RIN:2060-AS82).
The EPA's proposal also includes deadlines states will need to meet to comply with the revised ozone standards, criteria for states to show they are making reasonable progress toward improving air quality and deadlines to implement reasonably available control technology to reduce emissions of pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, which contribute to ozone formation.
Options for Revoking Standards
The EPA said much of the implementation rule will be drawn from when the ozone standards were last updated in 2008. However, the EPA has proposed two options for revoking the outdated 2008 standards.
The first would revoke the 2008 standards for all areas one year after nonattainment designations for the updated 2015 standards take effect. Regions that have not yet met the 2008 standards, which are 75 ppb, would have to implement anti-backsliding measures to ensure air quality doesn't further degrade. The EPA used this approach in 2008 when it revoked the prior 1997 ozone standards.
The second approach would only revoke the 2008 standards for those areas that have already attained the 75 ppb standards. The remaining areas would have the 2008 requirements revoked once they are deemed in attainment with those standards. The EPA used a similar approach when it implemented its most recent air quality standards for fine particulate matter.
State regulators said they were still evaluating the two options.
States Lament Delay
Though states welcomed the EPA's proposal, they also lamented the agency's delay in providing them with the guidance to implement the updated standards.
The EPA's proposed guidance comes a year after the agency set the more stringent ozone requirements, which states must implement. States have already submitted to the EPA their recommendations for which areas will not meet the 2015 ozone standards, and the EPA's proposed nonattainment designations are expected in early 2017.
“Just being able to have the guidance sooner is necessary,” Nancy Kruger, deputy director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA. “We're always behind the curve when we don't have guidance to work with.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99981685&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99981685&jd=99981685
-
EPA Implementation Proposal For 2015 Ozone NAAQS Echoes 2008 Policy
Nov 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has quietly issued a proposed rule for how states should implement its 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 70 parts per billion (ppb) that, as agency officials had suggested, largely echoes the approach EPA took in its contested rule for implementing the prior ozone limit of 75 ppb issued in 2008.
The proposed rule, released Nov. 2 ahead of its publication in the Federal Register, “largely retains and updates the implementing regulations that apply for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, for purposes of the 2015 ozone standards, which creates stability in the planning process,” according to an EPA fact sheet.
States need EPA implementation rules to guide them on how to write state implementation plans in which they outline the emissions controls they will impose on sources of ozone-forming pollutants in order to reduce air pollution and come into attainment with the NAAQS. Various provisions of the implementing rule for the 2008 ozone standard are currently being contested in a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suit.
Despite the criticisms of the 2008 rule, Anna Marie Wood of EPA's Office of Air & Radiation told a May meeting of the agency's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee in Arlington, VA, that it would be a model for how the agency developed the proposed rule for implementing the 70 ppb NAAQS issued Oct. 1, 2015.
EPA in the proposal invites comment on numerous policy issues, including thresholds to determine the severity of areas' nonattainment status, and deadlines to implement the 2015 NAAQS; requirements for demonstrating “reasonable further progress;” and planning and implementation deadlines for reasonably available control technology (RACT), a level of emissions control required in areas classified “nonattainment.”
The rule also addresses a possible reconsideration of provisions that allow trading of ozone precursor pollutants to “allow either volatile organic compounds (VOC) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions reductions to satisfy nonattainment New Source Review [NSR] permitting emissions offset requirements for VOC or NOx emissions increases,” according to the fact sheet. Under the NSR program, businesses seeking to build new facilities or expand existing ones in nonattainment areas must purchase “offsets” to compensate for their emissions.
Ozone Reductions
EPA also asks for how it should weigh pollution reductions within a state but outside a nonattainment area that needs to make pollution reductions. EPA in its rule for the 2008 NAAQS changed its longstanding position on out-of-area emissions to satisfy reasonable further progress requirements, to disallow credit for such reductions.
This issue and others, such as EPA allowing emissions trading to qualify as RACT, are under litigation in the D.C. Circuit case South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA.
The California South Coast air district is opposing the decision in the 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation rule to disallow out-of-area credit, but supporting emissions trading as RACT, while environmentalists in the case oppose trading and say that rule's “anti-backsliding” provisions are inadequate to avoid deterioration of air quality. Environmentalists also in the suit oppose EPA's revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, expressed as 84 ppb.
EPA in the new proposed rule for the 2015 ozone standard outlines two options for revoking the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The first option would follow the same approach used to revoke the 1997 NAAQS, revoking the 2008 NAAQS in all areas effective one year after the effective date of designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which is also currently being litigated in the D.C. Circuit.
“This option would establish a set of protective anti-backsliding requirements for all nonattainment areas that have not yet attained the 2008 NAAQS at the time of its revocation,” EPA says.
Under the second option, the 2008 ozone NAAQS would continue to apply in any area designated nonattainment for the 2008 standard until that area is redesignated to attainment, following the approach established most recently for revocation of fine particulate standards.
Also, EPA in the proposal outlines its thinking on other controversial issues, including: management of wildfires and prescribed fires; “conformity” of transportation projects and federal government activity with NAAQS; “contingency measures” that states must apply if they fail to attain NAAQS by target dates; and “background” ozone from natural and international sources.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-implementation-proposal-2015-ozone-naaqs-echoes-2008-policy
-
GOP Platform Signals Data Act Challenges To Climate Studies
Nov 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Republican Party's 2016 platform signals that a Donald Trump administration would use the Data Quality Act (DQA) to “get rid” of studies that contradict its environmental agenda, especially on climate change findings used to justify EPA greenhouse gas (GHG) rules, a conservative speaker told a Nov. 1 Environmental Law Institute (ELI) panel.
Patrick J. Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the free-market advocacy group Cato Institute, pointed to a plank in the GOP platform as a “clear” sign that if Trump wins the Nov. 8 presidential election his administration would invoke the DQA to reject studies that show sharp rises in global temperature due to GHGs.
“That was a standard ploy in the [George W.] Bush administration,” Michaels told the panel. Speaking to Inside EPAafter the discussion, he said the Bush EPA invoked the DQA to discount findings of the first national climate assessment, which was issued in 2000.
If a Trump EPA were to make a similar determination regarding climate studies the Obama administration used to justify its climate rules -- including the GHG standards for existing power plants known as the Clean Power Plan -- it would help the agency make a case for withdrawing those rules.
While Trump has already pledged to undo the Clean Power Plan, environmentalists could sue over that action, and building a scientific record to support it would help such a move survive court challenges.
The plank in question reads, “Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike.”
Michaels said during the panel discussion that the passage “means, 'We will use the Federal Data Quality Act to get rid of every data file we don’t like.'”
The DQA sets standards for the data that agencies can use to justify their actions, and Michaels told Inside EPA after the panel that court precedent on its application gives the government broad leeway to choose which studies to include in the record underlying a rulemaking.
Climate data is particularly vulnerable to selective use of the DQA, he said, because studies must heavily interpret raw data to reach any conclusion. “The data gets smushed around so far beyond the original that anybody can make a lawyerly argument and say 'we can't trust this.' It gets down to dueling lawyers, basically,” Michaels said.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/gop-platform-signals-data-act-challenges-climate-studies
-
140 Countries Will Phase Out HFCs. What Are These And Why Do They Matter?
Nov 3, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Alexander Ovodenko
On Oct. 14, 140 countries meeting in Kigali, Rwanda, agreed to reduce emissions of hydrofluorocarbon (HFCs), a potent greenhouse gas used as a coolant in refrigerators and air conditioners. Scientists estimate that the new Kigali Amendment could help to avoid 0.5 degrees Celsius in additional global warming before the end of the century.
Instead of negotiating a stand-alone treaty, countries decided to amend the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which aims to prevent depletion of the ozone layer to protect humans from ultraviolet radiation. The United States, Canada, Mexico and the Maldives first raised the alarm about HFCs in 2009, during a meeting of the Montreal Protocol. The HFC agreement came after eight years of discussions and formal negotiations.
HFCs don’t actually harm the ozone layer, so why use an ozone treaty — rather than the 1997 Kyoto Protocol? Here are five things to know about the new Kigali Amendment and what it means for the future of climate protection.
1) What’s so bad about HFCs?
HFCs are “super global warmers” because they have a global-warming potential hundreds or thousands of times higher than carbon dioxide per ton, yet they have no impact on the ozone layer. In fact, until the past two years, China, India and Brazil opposed amending the Montreal Protocol to control HFCs, claiming that the Kyoto Protocol would be the more appropriate treaty.
[The world is about to get tough on aviation emissions. Here’s what you need to know.]
Even though HFCs represent a tiny fraction of global warming gases in the atmosphere, they potentially could contribute up to a quarter of the increase in global temperatures projected by the end of the century. A recent study shows that if countries don’t manage to control HFCs, by 2100, global temperatures will be 0.3-0.5 degrees Celsius higher.
2) So why amend the Montreal Protocol to control HFCs?
HFCs became the most widely used coolant in air conditioning and refrigeration worldwide because the Montreal Protocol successfully phased out older chemicals that harmed the ozone layer as well as the climate. Proponents of an amendment to the Montreal Protocol argued that the protocol is responsible for the widespread use of HFCs, even though they are in the Kyoto Protocol’s “basket” of greenhouse gases. Legal negotiators from the United States successfully used a provision of the Montreal Protocol’s parent treaty, the 1985 Vienna Convention, to justify the legal basis for an HFC amendment.
The Montreal Protocol provides technical and financial assistance to developing countries to help achieve their phaseout and phase-down targets. Developing countries have 10 additional years to meet the emissions targets. The ozone regime also has a long history of participation from the chemical industry and downstream industries dating back to the 1980s, unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which has been contested by the fossil fuels industries. The Montreal Protocol’s proven track record of reducing chemicals that harm the atmosphere made it a sensible and efficient vehicle for phasing down the consumption and production of HFCs.
3) How does the Kigali Amendment relate to other climate change agreements?
The Kigali Amendment comes at a time when countries have completed a trifecta of agreements to combat climate change. In December 2015, more than 190 countries adopted the Paris Climate Agreement and formalized a target of keeping global warming to within 1.5-2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
A new aviation emissions agreement also came into place to offset carbon dioxide emissions from commercial airlines. In 2011, countries adopted an amendment under the International Maritime Organization to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from commercial shipping.
These agreements suggest that tackling climate change on a sector by sector basis is an effective approach. And many researchers consider the Montreal Protocol the most effective climate protection treaty ever because the ozone-depleting chemicals it helped to phase out had considerable global warming potential.
[Here’s what political science can tell us about the Paris climate deal]
Under the Kigali Amendment, the Montreal Protocol will help reduce HFCs without modifying their status in the U.N. climate change regime. This proved to be a contentious issue because China, India and Brazil initially preferred to keep discussions of HFCs within the U.N. climate regime, which explicitly acknowledges that developed and developing countries have different responsibilities in mitigating climate change.
4) What role did industry play in the Kigali Amendment?
Besides the institutions of the ozone regime, stakeholders and governments expect that multinational chemical companies (e.g., DuPont, Honeywell, Daikin Industries) will continue to play an essential role in helping countries to switch to alternate chemicals in their domestic refrigeration and air conditioning industries to meet the new requirements. Honeywell was one of the first companies to push for an HFC amendment and has developed a new refrigerant with no ozone-depleting or climate-warming potential, while Daikin developed a new HFC that has a low impact on the climate. Perhaps the biggest driving force behind the success of the Montreal Protocol has been the support of U.S., European and Japanese companies for new regulations on ozone-depleting substances, which has now translated into support for the HFC amendment.
5) What’s next in the climate negotiations?
Given the track record of the Montreal Protocol, there is good reason to be optimistic about the Kigali Amendment. The agreement further solidifies a sectoral approach that countries have been pursuing to mitigate climate change. There’s more work to be done, clearly, as fossil fuels continue to be the major energy source in developing and developed countries. But the sectoral approach to climate protection, coupled with the Paris Climate Agreement, seem to provide a framework for achieving real mitigation goals in the coming decades.
Alexander Ovodenko is an energy industry analyst at the U.S. Department of Energy. He is the author of a forthcoming book, “Regulating the Polluters: Markets and Strategies for Protecting the Global Environment” (Oxford University Press). This post was drafted in his personal capacity and does not reflect the views or opinions of anyone else or of any agency or department of the U.S. government.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/03/140-countries-will-now-phase-out-hfcs-what-are-these-and-why-do-they-matter/
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested