Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/7/2016
-
Okla. AG Pruitt Appears Leading Contender
Dec 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), a key foe of the Obama administration's climate policies, appears to be the top candidate to become U.S. EPA administrator. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes Partial Ban on Common Degreaser
Dec 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA proposed today banning certain uses of the carcinogen trichloroethylene (TCE), a degreaser found at hundreds of toxic waste sites across the country. -
EPA to Weigh Wider Uses of Three Targeted Chemicals Beyond TSCA Rules
Dec 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA plans to weigh wider uses of three chemicals included on its list of the first 10 chemicals subject to new risk reviews mandated by the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) even though the agency is already pursuing rules to restrict their use, as the TSCA listing will allow EPA to more broadly assess the chemicals' risks. -
EPA's Proposed Novel TSCA TCE Ban Faces Uncertain Fate Under Trump
Dec 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) proposal to ban certain uses of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) marks the agency's first attempt to prohibit a substance since its failed bid to ban asbestos in the 1980s, though the rule faces an uncertain fate as industry is expected to lobby the incoming Trump administration against finalizing it. -
With TCE, EPA Proposes First Toxic Chemical Ban in 27 Years Under TSCA
Dec 7, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
Today, EPA issued a proposed rule to ban uses of trichloroethylene (TCE) as a spot cleaning agent in dry cleaning and as an aerosol spray degreaser in commercial and consumer settings. -
Exec: New Law Benefits Chemicals, Adhesives Industries
Dec 7, 2016 | Rubber & Plastics News
By Chris Sweeney
After a long, slow process, one of the most influential laws in the chemicals and adhesives industries is getting an overhaul. -
EPA Begins Evaluating 10 Common Chemicals for Toxicity
Dec 7, 2016 | Scientific American
By Annie Sneed
The EPA has started flexing its newfound powers to control chemicals in the U.S. Last week the agency announced the first 10 compounds it will evaluate for safety under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
EPA Targets Dry Cleaning Chemical Under New Safety Law
Dec 7, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the first chemical it wants to ban under a new chemical safety law. -
(ACC Mentioned) Study Finds Potentially Harmful Chemical Widespread in Baby Teethers
Dec 7, 2016 | CTV News
By Staff
A new study suggests that the many baby teethers in North America may contain potentially harmful chemicals, including BPA, which are already banned from baby bottles. -
(ACC Mentioned) Baby Teethers May Contain Low Levels of BPA, Study Finds
Dec 7, 2016 | Fox News Health
By Nicole Kwan
Next time you hand your baby a teething ring to soothe her aching gums, you may be unwittingly exposing her to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and potentially affecting her development, new research published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Science & Technology suggests. -
Science ‘Undisrupted’ with U.S. Regulation of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals
Dec 6, 2016 | Endocrine Science Matters
By Jay Vroom
The ongoing dialogue about how to establish if endocrine-disrupting chemicals may have an effect on human health and the environment is like much of the conversation we have about science in general today: hazard versus risk. -
Waste Groups Challenge EPA Landfill Methane Rule, Despite Initial Support
Dec 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Several waste groups are challenging EPA's rule limiting methane from existing landfills, faulting many aspects of the rule, including a stricter emissions capture threshold and the agency's use of the controversial social cost of methane (SCM) to calculate its benefits, despite industry's prior cautious acceptance of the proposed version of the regulation. -
The EPA Will Likely Conclude Fracking Doesn’t Affect Drinking Water
Dec 7, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Merrill Matthews
The Environmental Protection Agency may soon dispel one of the green movements favorite myths: That fracking contaminates drinking water. -
Ohio Ethane Cracker Site Prep Partially Completed; Another Purchase Option Signed
Dec 7, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
FirstEnergy Corp. wrapped-up its clearing and demolition work last week in Belmont County, OH, at the 150-acre site of a former coal-fired power plant, finishing another step to ready part of the land that could one day be home to PTT Global Chemical pcl's (PTTGC) proposed ethane cracker. -
Trump Seeks More Oil Drilling; in Calif., That's Not So Easy
Dec 7, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Anne C. Mulkern
President-elect Donald Trump pledged to increase oil and gas drilling and "unleash an energy revolution." If he wants to do it in California, he'll hit obstacles that could take years to surmount, experts said. -
FERC Grants One Variance to Impulsora’s NatGas Pipeline, Denies a Second
Dec 7, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
FERC granted one variance request by Impulsora Pipeline LLC, but denied a second one, as the pipeline that is to carry natural gas produced in the Eagle Ford Shale to markets in Mexico moves forward. -
Iowa Property Rights Case Another Front in Pipeline Battle
Dec 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
While the nation's attention and imagination have been riveted on a historic gathering of tribes and activists opposing the Dakota Access oil pipeline in North Dakota, landowners in Iowa have been slowly moving toward their own showdown. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Shipper, Trucker Petition Could Trigger Detention and Demurrage Relief
Dec 7, 2016 | JOC
By Staff
A broad range of US shippers, truckers, and transportation intermediaries are asking federal maritime regulators to consider creating a rule to prevent marine terminals and container lines from charging demurrage and detention fees when uncontrollable forces make it impossible to pick up or return containers and chassis on time. -
Google to Buy More Clean Energy Than Some Big Utilities
Dec 7, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick
The world's leading internet services company is again expanding its climate and clean energy commitments, announcing yesterday that by 2017 it will meet 100 percent of its corporate energy demand with carbon-free energy.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Okla. AG Pruitt Appears Leading Contender
Dec 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), a key foe of the Obama administration's climate policies, appears to be the top candidate to become U.S. EPA administrator.
Pruitt arrived at Trump Tower in New York City this morning for his second meeting with President-elect Donald Trump, as Trump has pledged to fill out most of his remaining Cabinet officials this week. Several sources familiar with the transition team see Pruitt as the current leading contender for the EPA job.
Trump has also met with former Texas environmental regulator Kathleen Hartnett White, another EPA prospect.
Trump has pledged to enact dramatic reforms at the agency and has said he'll roll back the Obama administration's landmark climate change regulations. Pruitt has been among the state officials leading the legal battle against EPA's Clean Power Plan, a rule aimed at slashing power plants' greenhouse gases. He's staunchly opposed by environmental groups, and his possible nomination would prompt an outcry from the left.
Pruitt isn't the only contender for a top energy post meeting with Trump this week.
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) is also meeting with the president-elect after conceding his hard-fought re-election bid earlier this week. He's seen as a possibility for Interior secretary, although picking him for that slot would buck the trend of selecting a Westerner.
A Trump transition team spokesman earlier today touted McCrory's energy credentials, telling reporters that he had worked to streamline regulatory reform in North Carolina and in 2012 had signed into law a bill that repealed a fracking moratorium in the state. The transition team hasn't commented on which slot he may be up for, but touting his natural gas policies could be an indication that he's under consideration for Interior.
On Friday, Trump is slated to meet with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a coal industry ally who is rumored to be a top pick to become Energy secretary.
Among Trump's other meetings this week was a sit-down this morning with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a former Illinois Democratic congressman who was White House chief of staff during President Obama's first term. Emanuel told reporters afterward that they had discussed immigration during their talk, according to pool reports.
China ambassador, Homeland Security
Trump's transition team told reporters that the president-elect has picked Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) to become the administration's ambassador to China, with a formal announcement coming later. Branstad reportedly has been a longtime friend of Chinese President Xi Jinping (see related story).
Trump is also planning to nominate retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly to become secretary of Homeland Security, according to several major news outlets.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/07/stories/1060046819
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes Partial Ban on Common Degreaser
Dec 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA proposed today banning certain uses of the carcinogen trichloroethylene (TCE), a degreaser found at hundreds of toxic waste sites across the country.
EPA's move would prohibit the manufacture, import, processing and distribution of TCE in degreasing and dry cleaning operations, which constitute two primary uses of the compound in the United States. Separately, the agency last week named TCE as one of its top 10 chemicals to tackle under the recently reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (E&E News PM, Nov. 29).
Agency officials expressed confidence that the new law gives EPA the authority to severely limit TCE use.
"For the first time in a generation, we are able to restrict chemicals already in commerce that pose risks to public health and the environment," Jim Jones, assistant EPA administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a statement.
"Once finalized, today's action will help protect consumers and workers from cancer and other serious health risks when they are exposed to aerosol degreasing, and when dry cleaners use spotting agents," he continued. "I am confident that the new authority Congress has given us is exactly what we need to finally address these important issues."
TCE is known to cause liver and kidney damage, developmental impairments, and neurological effects, in addition to cancer.
EPA noted that prioritizing TCE under TSCA will allow regulators to examine other uses of the chemical. TCE is also used to make chemical refrigerants, flame retardants, insecticides, polyvinyl chloride, and some pharmaceuticals and perfumes, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
In a blog post, Jennifer McPartland, a scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, praised EPA's move as "a significant milestone."
Calling the move "long overdue," she said the proposal "marks the first time in 27 years EPA is proposing to restrict the use of a chemical."
Finalization of the rule may hinge on the regulatory stance of the incoming Trump administration.
The American Chemistry Council did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication. Environmental nonprofits have accused the trade group of attempting to stymie TCE regulations.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/07/stories/1060046807
-
EPA to Weigh Wider Uses of Three Targeted Chemicals Beyond TSCA Rules
Dec 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA plans to weigh wider uses of three chemicals included on its list of the first 10 chemicals subject to new risk reviews mandated by the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) even though the agency is already pursuing rules to restrict their use, as the TSCA listing will allow EPA to more broadly assess the chemicals' risks.
Chemical industry officials are already hoping that President-elect Donald Trump's administration will scrap the pending TSCA section 6 rules targeting the three chemicals, one of which EPA proposed Dec. 7 (tce.doc) and the two others currently undergoing White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review.
It is unclear how the agency's decision to include the three substances on the list of 10 chemicals targeted for risk analysis under the update TSCA might impact industry's push.
EPA on Nov. 29 announced the list of 10 chemicals from the list of 90 chemicals from its 2014 update to its TSCA work plan. The work plan was an attempt by EPA to use authority under the prior 1976 TSCA to assess risks of existing chemicals, though lawmakers overhauled the law due to its limits on addressing existing chemicals.
Under the revised TSCA that was enacted on June 22, once EPA publishes its list in the Federal Register it will have six months to release a scoping document for each substance including hazard, exposure, conditions of use and susceptible sub-population information. The agency then has three years to complete the evaluations to determine whether the chemicals "present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment."
The list of 10 chemicals includes trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (MC) and N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP). EPA on July 27 sent for OMB review a TSCA section 6 rule on TCE used as a spotting agent in dry cleaning, and on Sept. 30 submitted for review a rule on TCE used in vapor degreasing. The agency on Oct. 24 also submitted for pre-publication review a separate TSCA section 6 rule on MC and NMP in paint and coatings.
The other chemicals on EPA's TSCA review list are 1,4 dioxane; 1-bromopropane; asbestos; carbon tetrachloride; cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster; pigment violet 29 and tetrachloroethylene.
EPA's decision to include TCE, MC and NMP on the list despite already pursuing TSCA section 6 rules for the substances indicates the agency's desire to more broadly assess the risks of the chemicals beyond those targeted in the pending regulations, with a more expansive risk review than those used for the rules.
Future Rules
EPA formally proposed a section 6 ban on TCE's uses as an aerosol degreaser and dry cleaning spot remover on Dec. 7, but rules on MC and NMP, and on other applications of TCE, are still in development.
"These rules cover only certain specific uses of these chemicals," an EPA spokeswoman says. "By including these chemicals in the list of the first ten chemicals (today's announcement) EPA will be evaluating the other remaining uses."
Section 26(p) in the revised toxics law grants EPA flexibility to proceed to section 6 risk management actions for chemicals for which it has completed a risk evaluation without having to revise the analysis to fit the parameters of the new law, which it has opted to do with the TCE, NMP and MC proposals.
Steve Owens, former EPA toxics chief, now with Squire Patton Boggs, said during a Nov. 29 interview with Inside EPAthat the risk assessments conducted under the TSCA Work Plan were "more narrowly focused" and examined "very targeted use," compared with the broad scoping documents EPA must now prepare that look at all conditions of use, including those that are "reasonably foreseeable."
"It's an important question EPA has to address going forward," Owens said, adding that the agency will likely consider its risk reviews of the chemicals in the future reviews, but is statutorily required to issue a much broader assessment in accordance with the Nov. 29 list.
One environmentalist says "Many of these chemicals have been subject to an enormous amount of review," meaning that EPA should not have to request a significant amount of additional data in order to complete the 10 TSCA risk reviews.
Industry is seeking to quash the section 6(a) rules, with an industry source recently saying they are "hopeful" that Trump's electoral win gives them a "more receptive audience" to industry calls to scrap the rulemaking. "But," the source adds, "I am not taking anything for granted."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-weigh-wider-uses-three-targeted-chemicals-beyond-tsca-rules
-
EPA's Proposed Novel TSCA TCE Ban Faces Uncertain Fate Under Trump
Dec 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) proposal to ban certain uses of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) marks the agency's first attempt to prohibit a substance since its failed bid to ban asbestos in the 1980s, though the rule faces an uncertain fate as industry is expected to lobby the incoming Trump administration against finalizing it.
The proposed rule to prohibit TCE use as an aerosol degreaser and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities is also the first proposed risk management action of an existing chemical since enactment of the updated TSCA law in June. The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) is still reviewing a second proposed TSCA rule to restrict TCE for use as a vapor degreaser, as well as a rule on two paint-stripping chemicals, methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).
“For the first time in a generation, we are able to restrict chemicals already in commerce that pose risks to public health and the environment,” said EPA toxics chief Jim Jones about the proposal released Dec. 7. “I am confident that the new authority Congress has given us is exactly what we need to finally address these important issues,” he said in reference to the revised TSCA that boosts EPA's authority to regulate existing chemicals.
“EPA identified significant health risks associated with TCE use” in degreasers and dry cleaning according to a copy of the rule released ahead of its publication in the Federal Register. “EPA has preliminarily determined that these risks are unreasonable risks” that justify the prohibition on using the substance, the rule says.
The proposed rule is the first Section 6 rule EPA has proposed to regulate an existing chemical -- one that was on the market when the original TSCA was enacted in 1976 -- since its failed attempt to ban asbestos. A federal appeals court vacated the asbestos rule, hampering attempts to limit other substances with the section 6 authority.
EPA's struggle to ban asbestos was highlighted as a major example of the limits in the 1976 TSCA on addressing risks from existing chemicals, something the revised TSCA's provisions tried to address.
Following enactment of the updated toxics law -- known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century -- EPA sent the two TCE proposals and the NMP proposal to the White House. The administration completed its review of the first TCE rule Dec. 5, clearing it for proposal.
TCE Risks
EPA in its press release on the proposal points to a risk assessment that the agency completed in 2014 indicating TCE “can cause a range of adverse health effects, including cancer, development and neurotoxicological effects, and toxicity to the liver,” according to a Dec. 7 statement. The same assessment found TCE also presents health risks from use as a vapor degreaser, this forming the basis for the agency's second TCE rule.
EPA also notes that last month it released a list of the first 10 existing chemicals on which it will perform risk evaluations as directed by the overhauled TSCA. Under that original TSCA, existing chemicals were largely grandfathered from regulation -- one of the flaws that led to TSCA's eventual overhaul.
The list included TCE and observers recently told Inside EPA that the inclusion on the list would help the agency to pursue further assessments of TCE's risks in other situations.
EPA in its announcement says the TSCA listing “will allow EPA [to] evaluate the other remaining uses of the chemical,” it states. “Today’s action only proposes to ban certain uses of the chemical.”
Environmental Defense Fund in a Dec. 7 blog post, celebrating the proposed rule's announcement, says the action “marks the first time in 27 years EPA is proposing to restrict the use of a chemical and represents a significant milestone under the Lautenberg Act. The proposed ban is long overdue for a chemical that is highly toxic and produced in very high volumes (255 million pounds annually).”
The group adds that “[p]rompt finalization of this and other proposed rules in the pipeline (a second TCE rule addressing other uses and a rule to restrict two chemicals’ used in paint strippers) are necessary to protect public health and would represent the first tangible risk reduction actions taken under the Lautenberg Act.”
Industry's Concerns
Representatives of the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) that use and make of TCE, did not return messages seeking comment by press time, but they are unlikely to welcome the proposal.
HSIA and the National Cleaners Association Inc. officials recently urged EPA and OMB not to phase out these uses of TCE. During an August meeting at OMB, they outlined concerns that the ban would have a significant impact on small businesses and raised concerns with the quality of EPA's underlying risk assessment.
A source who attended the meeting said in September that the speakers argued EPA should have first reviewed small business impacts by holding a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) review before sending the rule to OMB.
The TCE rule was the only one of EPA's three pending Section 6(a) rules that did not undergo SBREFA review before EPA submitted the rule for White House review. “EPA cannot certify a rule if it [would affect a] . . . substantial number of small entities,” the source said. “It seems like by definition it would.”
Representatives at the OMB meeting also questioned EPA's 2014 risk assessment, conducted as part of the TSCA Work Plan program, an effort initiated by the Obama EPA as a way to take stronger action on existing chemicals even before Congress completed TSCA reform. But the industry representatives at the August OMB meeting questioned why spot cleaning uses were included in the final assessment, noting that this part of the risk analysis did not undergo peer review and was not available for public comment, the source says.
A second source who attended the meeting raised concerns that EPA's TCE spot cleaning risk assessment is outdated. Since the study that EPA relied on was published in 2007, “overall use of [TCE] has declined . . . and the use patterns have changed,” said the source, who called the study flawed.
EPA in a response to peer reviewers included with the final assessment in June 2014 said it added the spot cleaning scenario to the risk assessment at the recommendation of at least one of the peer reviewers.
Proposal's Future
The proposed rule's publication in the Register will trigger a 60-day public comment period, the notice says, but the fate of the final rule is uncertain given President-elect Donald Trump's election victory, his campaign calls to pare back EPA's reach, and industry's overall opposition to the TCE restrictions.
After Trump's win, an industry source was "hopeful we will have a more receptive audience" to industry calls to quash the proposed rules. "But," the source added, "I am not taking anything for granted."
One reason for that caution is Trump's limited discussion of environmental policy. "They've given indications they don't believe in climate change, but I haven't seen any kind of comments around toxics," the source said.
EPA and its supporters could try to support the rulemaking from industry attacks by touting its finding that the rule's benefits outweigh its costs. EPA in its proposal discusses its cost-benefit analysis, indicating that it “evaluated the potential costs of multiple regulatory options, including the proposed approach” and an alternate approach considered of requiring workers exposed to TCE on the job to wear respirators of a certain standard.
“Total costs of the proposed approach to prohibit manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce for use of TCE in aerosol degreasing and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities; commercial use of TCE in aerosol degreasing and spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities; and require downstream notification and recordkeeping are estimated to be approximately $170,000 and $183,000 annualized over 15 years at 3% and 7% respectively. Total first-year costs to industry are estimated to be approximately $874,000,” the notice says.
“The monetized benefits for the proposed approach range from approximately $9.3 million to $25.0 million on an annualized basis over 15 years at 3% and $4.5 million to $12.8 million at 7%,” EPA says.
EPA says the costs of its alternate risk reduction approach, “implementing a respiratory protection program, including a supplied-air respirator and related equipment, training, fit testing, monitoring, medical surveillance, and related requirements, would far exceed the costs of switching to alternatives, on a per facility basis … The higher costs of this option render [it] a less cost effective option than the proposed approach at addressing the identified unreasonable risks so TCE no longer presents such risks.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-proposed-novel-tsca-tce-ban-faces-uncertain-fate-under-trump
-
With TCE, EPA Proposes First Toxic Chemical Ban in 27 Years Under TSCA
Dec 7, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
Today, EPA issued a proposed rule to ban uses of trichloroethylene (TCE) as a spot cleaning agent in dry cleaning and as an aerosol spray degreaser in commercial and consumer settings. This marks the first time in 27 years EPA is proposing to restrict the use of a chemical and represents a significant milestone under the Lautenberg Act.
The proposed ban is long overdue for a chemical that is highly toxic and produced in very high volumes (255 million pounds annually). TCE is classified as a known human carcinogen by numerous authoritative bodies, including the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Many studies of TCE also reveal additional health impacts including but not limited to immune toxicity, developmental toxicity (e.g., fetal cardiac defects), and neurotoxicity (e.g., Parkinson’s disease).
The proposed rule summarizes the serious concerns:
These adverse health effects include developmental toxicity (e.g., cardiac malformations, developmental immunotoxicity, developmental neurotoxicity, fetal death), toxicity to the kidney (kidney damage and kidney cancer), immunotoxicity (such as systemic autoimmune diseases, e.g., scleroderma, and severe hypersensitivity skin disorder), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, reproductive and endocrine effects (e.g., decreased libido and potency), neurotoxicity (e.g., trigeminal neuralgia), and toxicity to the liver (impaired functioning and liver cancer).
EPA’s proposed rule follows on its 2014 risk assessment of TCE that demonstrated that current levels of exposure to TCE from these uses pose unacceptably high risks to workers and occupational bystanders in the context of dry cleaning and aerosol spray degreasing; and additionally, to consumers when used as an aerosol spray degreaser in residential settings.
Prompt finalization of this and other proposed rules in the pipeline (a second TCE rule addressing other uses and a rule to restrict two chemicals’ used in paint strippers) are necessary to protect public health and would represent the first tangible risk reduction actions taken under the Lautenberg Act.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/12/07/with-tce-epa-proposes-first-toxic-chemical-ban-in-27-years-under-tsca/
-
Exec: New Law Benefits Chemicals, Adhesives Industries
Dec 7, 2016 | Rubber & Plastics News
By Chris Sweeney
After a long, slow process, one of the most influential laws in the chemicals and adhesives industries is getting an overhaul.
In June, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The law is the first major reform to the Toxic Substances Control Act, one that Mark Duvall, principal at Beveridge and Diamond who heads the firm's TSCA practice, said was badly needed.
Duvall addressed key highlights from the reform at the Adhesive and Sealant Council's 2016 Fall Expo, held recently in Indianapolis.
The biggest changes come in TSCA's Section 6, which was the key element that Duvall said didn't function properly under the old law. The hole in Section 6 was exposed in 1991, when the Environmental Protection Agency tried to ban asbestos under Section 6, and the court of appeals ruled that the agency hadn't come close to satisfying the requirements. Duvall said this decision led to EPA realizing it couldn't do much under Section 6, and for the last 25 years, the agency hasn't proposed any action under Section 6.
“TSCA was broken,” Duvall said. “It continued to function, but didn't function the way it was intended and did not function effectively in some aspects. In other aspects it was working just fine.”
Under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, EPA can prioritize chemicals, conduct a risk evaluation and then conclude whether or not to regulate the substance under Section 6. Duvall said EPA will draw 10 chemicals from the 2014 TSCA Work Plan list by December 2016.
Section 5 also saw significant changes. He said EPA now has to make affirmative findings on pre-manufacture notices and significant new notices within 90 days. EPA can choose to restrict the substance through a rule in that it “presents” unreasonable risk of injury or health to the environment; issue an order restricting the substance pending further information if it “may present” such risk; or allow manufacture/use to commence because the substance is “not likely to present” such risk.
Duvall said that once a determination to manufacture or use a substance has been made, the firm does not have to wait for the 90 day period to be complete. Prior to the enactment, if EPA were to drop chemicals from review before the 90 day period had ended, companies still had to wait for the period to expire before manufacturing could commence.
Other changes highlighted by Duvall include:
• Section 4—Testing provision. EPA used to have to go through a three-year process to get manufacturers to start testing. Now EPA can order a process to start testing, and testing can begin in a matter of weeks.
• Section 8—Recording and recordkeeping, inventory reset. The new law allows EPA to make an active chemicals list, drawn from the current inventory list of about 84,000 chemicals and due by June. Manufacturers are asked to provide a list of chemicals manufactured within a 10-year window prior to the enactment of the new regulation. Those chemicals will go on the active substances list, the rest on the inactive list. Those on the inactive list cannot be manufactured unless EPA is notified to make them an active substance.
“It's not a big effort to make them an active substance,” Duvall said. “But if you forget to do that, you'll be in violation. You not only now have to check the inventory, but you have to check whether or not it's an active substance.”
• Section 14—Change to confidentiality provisions, adding much stronger provisions on substantiation and a 10-year limit on confidentiality claim. Unlike claims prior to enactment, these claims expire in 10 years unless they are re-filed.
• Section 26—EPA also now is held to science standards, forcing the regulatory body to make its decision based on the scientific evidence.
ASC is taking a wait-and-see approach to the reform.
“We're really keeping an eye on what kind of chemicals are on that priority list that EPA is going to be focusing on and whether or not any of our chemistries are going to be negatively targeted for regulation,” ASC President William Allmond said. “Right now it's wait and see. We're off to a slow start, but it's a massive change to one of the largest environmental regulations here in the U.S. By the spring, we'll have a much better idea of what areas we'll actively engage EPA in their implementation of TSCA.”
http://www.rubbernews.com/article/20161207/NEWS/311289977/exec-new-law-benefits-chemicals-adhesives-industries
-
EPA Begins Evaluating 10 Common Chemicals for Toxicity
Dec 7, 2016 | Scientific American
By Annie Sneed
The EPA has started flexing its newfound powers to control chemicals in the U.S. Last week the agency announced the first 10 compounds it will evaluate for safety under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The legislation, amended last June, strengthens the agency’s authority to regulate new and existing chemicals. Its list, which includes substances such as asbestos, is just the beginning of its revamped efforts.
In the coming years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to review thousands of chemicals for their potential risk to human health and ecosystems. It could restrict or ban any of them—something the EPA has had little power to do before. “These 10 chemicals are not new, they’ve been in use for decades,” explains Richard Denison, a lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. “But under the old law, there was no mandate for EPA to review those chemicals—that’s part of why this reform was so important.”
TSCA is the U.S.’s main chemical regulatory law. It covers substances that industries and businesses use and well as chemicals found in consumer products. Congress passed the TSCA in 1976, giving the EPA authority to assess new chemicals and restrict or ban them if they“present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.”
The weakness, however, was that chemicals existing before the 1976 law—about 62,000 of them—were grandfathered in. “They were presumed to be safe,” Denison says. “Only if EPA could muster the information to make a very strong case for regulating those chemicals, could they be touched.” The EPA did not have much power in reviewing new chemicals either. If the agency needed critical information, it could only ask companies for data they already had—the EPA could not require additional testing unless it had strong evidence the compound presented a potential risk. That allowance created a catch-22, because risk was hard for the EPA to prove without the necessary data. “The burden was on the EPA,” Denison notes. “And the agency was forced to let chemicals on the market in the absence of information.”
Other parts of the law also made it hard for the EPA to exercise real oversight—for instance, the EPA had to consider the cost of regulating when evaluating a substance, rather than just considering health. In over 40 years under the original TSCA law the agency reviewed only a tiny portion of thousands of chemicals used in the U.S., and it restricted only five existing and four new ones.
The reformed law changes this dynamic. It requires the EPA to review all new and existing chemicals on the market. For new ones, the EPA must then make a finding on whether or not it is a risk to humans or the environment before it enters the market. If the EPA does not have enough information to definitively decide, it will hold up that chemical until it gets the data it needs. The agency has more power to require testing now as well. And under the reformed law, the EPA has a completely health-based safety standard for its evaluations, rather than one that takes into account costs of regulation.
Over the next three years, the agency will collect information on the uses of the first 10 chemicals, people’s exposure, hazard, persistence in the environment and other factors. “EPA needs to have a very comprehensive picture of these chemicals,” Denison says. It will then decide whether any among the 10 pose an “unreasonable risk” to the environment or human health. For those that do, the EPA has two years to create regulations that mitigate the risk. The list includes the following chemicals:
1,4-dioxane
1-bromopropane
asbestos
carbon tetrachloride
cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster
methylene chloride
N-methylpyrrolidone
pigment violet 29
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene)
The EPA list is not a huge surprise to experts in the industry—it falls in line with the intentions of the reform. Each substance ranks high for hazard and exposure, and some are persistent in the environment. “The EPA has taken a lot of care to select these chemicals that many people would agree are a no-brainer for action,” says Lynn Goldman, dean of The George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health.
Asbestos, probably the most infamous chemical on the list, is a known human carcinogen and is still used in the U.S. in some building construction materials and auto parts. (Despite common belief, most uses of asbestos are not already banned—although its use has declined.) A few compounds on the list, such as trichloroethylene, are designated as probable human carcinogens. (Trichloroethylene is used as a refrigerant, solvent and a dry cleaning fluid, and is present in drinking water, indoor environments, soil and other sources.) The other chemicals on the list are categorized either as possible human carcinogens, having reproductive toxicity or acute aquatic toxicity. A full description of exposure sources and hazards appears on the EPA list.
Goldman has worked in the field for decades—she was assistant administrator for toxic substances at the EPA during the Clinton administration and worked in environmental health for the California Department of Public Health—and she says that she’s been aware of many of the chemicals on the EPA list for years. “Over the years a lot of evidence accumulated in terms of them being probable or known carcinogens,” she says.
Of course, there are other chemicals noton this initial list that the public or advocacy groups would have liked to see included, but that’s not too surprising either. “If Congress had asked the EPA to review 20 or even 50 in the first group, they could have easily done that,” Goldman notes. Denison agrees: “Trying to select 10 is a challenge,” he says, “There are many more that warrant such scrutiny.”
Experts are hopeful that President-elect Donald Trump’s administration will not try to block or slow down the implementation of the reformed TSCA law—given his anti-EPA and antienvironmental rhetoric—because Congress passed the bill with near-unanimous bipartisan support as well as industry backing. There is “some room for optimism,” Denison says. Just a day after the EPA released its list, a bipartisan group of nine senators wrote a letter to Trump’s transition team, imploring the incoming administration to “vigorously implement the new law.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epa-begins-evaluating-10-common-chemicals-for-toxicity/
-
EPA Targets Dry Cleaning Chemical Under New Safety Law
Dec 7, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the first chemical it wants to ban under a new chemical safety law.
Regulators on Wednesday said they are proposing a ban on trichloroethylene (TCE), a dry cleaning chemical, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, a law Congress greatly expanded this year.
The EPA is seeking a ban on the manufacturing, importation, processing and distribution of TCE, which is used in aerosol degreasing and spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities.
The agency said it identified health risks to workers and consumers during a 2014 assessment of the chemical. Officials said banning it — the first time “in a generation” the agency has been able to restrict chemicals already in use — would be good for public health.
“Once finalized, today's action will help protect consumers and workers from cancer and other serious health risks when they are exposed to aerosol degreasing, and when dry cleaners use spotting agents,” Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a statement.
“I am confident that the new authority Congress has given us is exactly what we need to finally address these important issues."
TCE was one of 10 chemicals the EPA identified last month as candidates for restriction under this year’s Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The law requires the EPA take three years to study if the chemicals present risks to human health and the environment and then consider whether or not to ban them.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/309180-epa-targets-dry-cleaning-chemical-under-new-safety-law
-
(ACC Mentioned) Study Finds Potentially Harmful Chemical Widespread in Baby Teethers
Dec 7, 2016 | CTV News
By Staff
A new study suggests that the many baby teethers in North America may contain potentially harmful chemicals, including BPA, which are already banned from baby bottles.
Parents often turn to the colourful plastic toys to help ease an infant’s pain during teething.
In the study, published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal on Wednesday, researchers with the New York department of health made findings that suggest babies who chew on teethers may be ingesting small doses of endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs), a variety of chemicals that can potentially interfere with hormones and have harmful developmental, reproductive and neurological effects.
Researchers tested 59 teethers, bought from major retailers and online venders. Tests simulated what would happen when in contact with a baby’s saliva. All 59 toys released traces of BPA.
The discovery came as a surprise; many of the products were labelled “BPA free.” Some teethers released triclosan, an antimicrobial linked to liver cancer, and others contained parabens, a type of preservatives linked to thyroid problems.
The study is the first of its kind to document the potential problem, says Kurunthachalam Kannan, a professor with the New York State Department of Health. He says the findings are a cause of concern for consumers.
“The parents look at the ‘BPA free’ label and then they think that the product doesn’t have that chemical. But unfortunately, the chemicals are there – although in lower levels, they are there,” Kannan told CTV News.
Findings challenged
The report didn’t release the names or brands of the teethers that were tested.
Health Canada responded to the study saying that it has not reviewed the report and therefore cannot comment.
But the American Chemistry Council disputes the study's findings. In a statement, officials cast doubt on the amount of potentially harmful chemicals that leech from the teethers.
“This study provides very little useful information for the parents of young children, as it focuses on the mere presence of chemicals, which parents should be reassured does not equate with harm. It should be noted that all the chemicals studied here are shown to be at extremely low exposure levels and well-below government set safe levels,” officials wrote.
“As to the information provided about BPA, any reporting of this study should clearly point out that the exposures reported are two to three orders of magnitude lower than the stringent safe intake limit established by the European Food Safety Authority. Additionally, we are not aware of any use for BPA or materials made from BPA being used in teethers.”
But researchers said there is ongoing debate over what safe levels for children really means.
“When we put all of these toxic chemicals, although at lower levels, what effects [are they going] to have on babies? We don't know,” said Kannan.
Austria and Belgium have regulated chemicals like BPA in baby’s teethers. Some environmental groups say it’s time Canada completely eliminate the chemicals or create rules for children’s toys.
”We need to have a better system for products that go onto the market being tested so that we know those claims are accurate," said Maggie MacDonald, toxic program manager for Environmental Defence Canada.
Some parents are alarmed by the findings. Nicole Convery bought teethers for her baby Carter because they were labelled as BPA free.
“It’s a little upsetting. You’re being told one thing and another thing is happening,” Convery said. “If that’s being leeched to him, how am I supposed to know? How am I supposed to trust any other packaging?”
For those concerned about plastic teethers, several types of natural soothers are available on the market made of wood, natural rubber and metal.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/study-finds-potentially-harmful-chemical-widespread-in-baby-teethers-1.3192702?autoPlay=true
-
(ACC Mentioned) Baby Teethers May Contain Low Levels of BPA, Study Finds
Dec 7, 2016 | Fox News Health
By Nicole Kwan
Next time you hand your baby a teething ring to soothe her aching gums, you may be unwittingly exposing her to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and potentially affecting her development, new research published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Science & Technology suggests.
In a first-of-its-kind study, researchers at the American Chemical Society analyzed 59 baby teethers commonly sold in the United States, and found 100 percent of them contained Bisphenol A (BPA), Bisphenol S (BPS) or Bisephenol F (BPF), and most contained various parabens, as well as the antimicrobials triclosan and triclocarban.
BPA, a chemical found in plastic packaging, has been linked to obesity, cancer and childhood anxiety and hyperactivity and has been found to mimic estrogen. BPS, a chemical that replaced BPA because experts believed it wouldn’t leak into drinks as much as BPA did— which later was proven wrong— has been found to cause developmental issues in fish embryos. BPF is another replacement for BPA.
“These alternatives [to BPA] are equally toxic, or in some cases, more toxic,” study author Kurunthachalam Kannan, a research scientist at the New York State Department of Health, told FoxNews.com.
Parabens are commonly used as a preservative in teethers that are water- or gel-filled to prevent the likely growth of microorganisms. Triclosan and triclocarban are two of the most common ingredients found in antibacterial hand and body wash. In September, the FDA banned some of these antibacterial productsbecause they could cause long-term harm, such as bacterial resistance or hormonal effects.
Forty-eight of the studied teethers were labeled BPA-free or non-toxic.
The teethers, which were manufactured by 23 brands, also leached chemicals when exposed to water, which was used to mimic saliva. Study authors noted a German study previously measured paraben levels found in baby teethers, but the sample only included 10 products and did not analyze chemical leaching.
The plastics industry claims the amount of BPA used in baby and child care products does not present a health risk, but Kannan said recent studies have suggested that even at a nanogram or microgram level, the chemical can be harmful. Regulation is hazy, Kannan said, because the levels are still being debated and standards are not clearly described.
The team’s findings aren’t entirely surprising, said Dr. Josef George Thundiyil, a medical toxicologist and emergency medicine specialist at Orlando Health, who was not involved in the study.
“If you take urine samples, about 90 percent of Americans will have [BPA] in our bodies,” he told FoxNews.com.
In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that BPA could no longer be used in baby bottles and sippy cups. This change was not made for safety but because BPA was no longer deemed necessary as a food additive, according to the FDA.
There are many substances that could be toxic at the right dose— including water— but it’s unclear where that number lands for these chemicals, Thundiyil said.
“What the FDA has concluded is that at current doses, this doesn’t appear to be a danger. Where we get the most concerned is when we look at toxicity in those that are most vulnerable— young kids and unborn fetuses,” Thundiyil said. “The question is: Is there a safe dose for a developing child or fetus that might be exposed to this [chemical] that might affect development, hormonal changes, or ongoing developmental issues?”
One explanation for the lack of a recommended dosage for children may be that it is difficult to study this particular demographic, Thundiyil noted. Scientists have gained insight from animal studies— several show toxicity from BPA— but whether these data apply to humans has yet to be determined.
“There are studies that show the link between the chemical and different outcomes, but a link isn’t always clearly established as being the cause— that’s where the gray area lies,” he said.
Plus, since BPA was removed from baby bottles and cups, the FDA and other organizations have no longer been able to assess a child’s lifetime exposure because that part of the equation was removed, Thundiyil said, adding that the study’s finding of EDCs in teething rings may lead researchers to re-account for that exposure.
To simulate leaching of chemicals in saliva, the American Chemical Society team immersed each teether in 200 mL of water for an hour to mimic a child’s daily use and measured for 26 potential EDCs.
They found that parabens were the most commonly leached, with a range of one-tenth to one-hundreth of a nanogram. The max value measured was 2,000 nanograms.
Based on estimates of the body weight of a 12-month-old baby, the team’s calculations suggest that levels of BPA and other regulated EDCs in teethers were lower than those of what European regulators consider safe. However, these thresholds are set for individual compounds, and regulations don’t account for accumulation of multiple EDCs.
“If we’re looking at all different types of chemicals present— several hundreds of nanograms up to a microgram— many of these chemicals have been shown to be toxic, even at low levels of exposure,” Kannan said. “Putting this cocktail of chemicals, even in low amounts, during critical stages of development of many organs, can have an effect in many stages of life.”
He said research suggests multiple, environmentally mediated diseases, including neurodevelopmental issues, diabetes and obesity, that may result from EDC exposure.
“That’s why we’re concerned about it— the early-life exposure and epigenetic changes that results from the EDCs can contribute to some of the disease and development of some of these diseases later in life,” Kannan said, referring to the study of how genes can change their expression and may influence health outcomes.
“We should have policies limiting exposure,” he said.
Thundiyil also expressed skepticism.
“It’s always difficult proving what kind effect might occur in combination,” Thundiyil said. “[We’re] not being exposed to chemicals in a vacuum; we’re being exposed to chemicals along with other chemicals. It leaves a big unknown void about the potential interaction and interplay between that substance and another substance that child is being exposed to.”
But Thundiyil was most concerned by the fact that most of the products analyzed in the study were labeled as BPA-free or non-toxic.
“’Non-toxic’ can be a very broad designation to state something might have some toxin present, but not at a level that is toxic,” he said. “Applied to a single person, that’s OK. When you take the same device and apply it over a population, there will be those that use it infrequently, those that use it continuously, those that might use it in ways that are unanticipated, such as using heat to boil, which can enhance the release of [chemicals]. That’s what makes it a concern.”
“Usually when the FDA makes what we call risk assessments, they usually build those uncertainties in it … to account for different methods of use, ages, long-term exposure,” Thundiyil said.
Regardless of whether we realize it, we’re all exposed to a small amount of a variety of substances, Thundiyil said. “They’re a part of life, what makes things function, what makes a lot of modern conveniences work the way they do.”
Kannan said he did not think EDCs posed an immediate threat to babies, but he suggested parents use frozen waffles as an alternative to plastic teethers, or rinsing the teether with water to possibly help leach possible chemicals.
Thundiyil said parents may consider limiting their children’s use of teething rings or to use alternatives, but to be mindful of other concrete areas of risk.
“In some ways it’s probably more important to make sure to have your child wear a helmet for bicycling and buckle in their seatbelt,” he said. “At the end of the day, those risks are probably higher while others exist, but are still theoretical. It’s important not to neglect the things we know cause injury and harm.”
The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade association, said the study "provides very little useful information for the parents of young children, as it focuses on the mere presence of chemicals, which parents should be reassured does not equate with harm." In a statement emailed to FoxNews.com, a representative noted that the organization was not aware of any use for BPA or materials made from BPA being used in teethers.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/12/07/baby-teethers-may-contain-low-levels-bpa-study-finds.html
-
Science ‘Undisrupted’ with U.S. Regulation of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals
Dec 6, 2016 | Endocrine Science Matters
By Jay Vroom
The ongoing dialogue about how to establish if endocrine-disrupting chemicals may have an effect on human health and the environment is like much of the conversation we have about science in general today: hazard versus risk. The crop protection industry has a duty to objectively assess the impacts of its products on crucial areas of the environment to ensure “no unreasonable adverse effect” is associated with exposure to a product, which is the safety standard for pesticide regulation in the United States. This is based on thorough risk assessment, including potency and exposure, unlike the hazard-based approach currently proposed in the European Union.
Risk-Based Regulation
In the 1990s, some scientists proposed a link between certain chemicals and disruption of the endocrine system in humans. In laboratory settings, a number of chemicals had been associated with endocrine-disrupting effects, including developmental and reproductive problems. To evaluate such potential effects from pesticides intended for food crops, in 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act[1] and Safe Drinking Water Act[2] to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act[3] – the foundation of U.S. food law intended to ensure consumer safety. These amendments, in part, instructed the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to screen pesticide chemicals for their potential to produce negative effects on the human endocrine system. These two legislative acts provided the first official regulatory process for evaluation and regulation of endocrine disruptors on the planet. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),[4] the crop protection industry is required to conduct hundreds of scientific assessments of products to study environmental and human health effects and characterize risks.
The consideration of risk in U.S. regulation is an established principle of the regulation of chemicals and foods – a requirement to consider any pesticide hazard and any associated exposure under its labeled use. Such a scientific basis for regulation is essential to reasonable and relevant safety evaluations of crop protection products. In the United States, as we see technology and science moving at a very rapid pace, we also see U.S. legislation and regulatory response to such innovation and knowledge. The EPA manages a risk-based approach to safety assessment of pesticides and other chemicals, including tests for any potential endocrine disruption.
The EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program[5] (EDSP) outlines a two-tiered approach to scientific risk assessment of pesticide chemicals by screening for their potential to produce endocrine responses in the human body, while reducing animal testing and providing timely outcomes for risk assessment. The first tier of the EDSP is part of the pesticide registration review. The EDSP applies to both new chemical registrations and periodic EPA reviews of existing chemical registrations. Testing of a chemical’s active ingredient(s) occurs prior to the initiation of the registration process; this testing is integral to the FIFRA assessment for pesticides. Specific tests are identified and to the extent that high throughput screening can be used, such methods allow a large number of chemicals to be evaluated for specific bioactivity at the molecular or cellular level.
Depending on the outcome of Tier 1 testing, a compound will be found to not present an unreasonable risk of harm and not require further assessment or it will require further, more refined Tier 2 testing. This two-tiered approach, complete with relevant and timely screenings, represents the hallmark of the U.S. regulatory system. Consideration of exposure of compounds is integral to a relevant assessment of food or chemical safety.
Model for Change?
We continue to watch global developments in chemical regulation, including the recent criteria for endocrine disruptors published for comment by the European Commission. We have commented on these criteria and historically have followed the dialogue occurring in the EU. At CropLife America, we strongly believe that the risk-based approach taken in the U.S. to assess consumer and environmental safety creates greater certainty to regulators, industry and consumers. We hope that the EU will look at the U.S. system as a model with its own chemical regulation. Moving from a hazard-based approach to one that’s risk-based will not only protect human and environmental health but also technology and innovation.
http://endocrinesciencematters.org/science-undisrupted-u-s-regulation-endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-jay-vroom/
-
Waste Groups Challenge EPA Landfill Methane Rule, Despite Initial Support
Dec 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Several waste groups are challenging EPA's rule limiting methane from existing landfills, faulting many aspects of the rule, including a stricter emissions capture threshold and the agency's use of the controversial social cost of methane (SCM) to calculate its benefits, despite industry's prior cautious acceptance of the proposed version of the regulation.
The waste groups -- National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA), Solid Waste Association of North America, Waste Management, Inc., Waste Management Disposal Services of Pennsylvania, Inc., and Republic Services -- on Dec. 1 filed a statement of issues that they plan to raise in ongoing litigation over the methane rule, issued under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
That regulation was finalized July 15, along with separate standards for new and modified municipal solid waste landfills issued under section 111(b) of the air act. Both rules update and strengthen standards for new and existing landfills issued by the Clinton administration in 1996.
The waste industry's legal challenge comes as somewhat of a surprise, given the industry's cautious embrace of the proposed standards, even though EPA chose a more stringent threshold above which facilities would have to begin capturing emissions landfill gas, which includes the potent greenhouse gas methane.
The industry supported a provision in the proposal to allow site owners to use monitoring results, rather than modeling data, to determine if they have met the threshold. In addition, industry had backed the agency's proposal to relax some operating standards for gas collection systems that would make it easier for facilities to install best management practices the agency is encouraging.
“On the whole, even though the threshold has dropped, EPA has done some things to make implementation a lot simpler for both the regulated community and regulators. I think the sector is going to be viewing this relatively positively,” an industry source told Inside EPA after the proposal's release.
Industry's Criticisms
Nonetheless, the industry groups cite a wide range of concerns with the existing landfill rule in their recent court filing in the litigation, NWRA, et al v. EPA, et al, pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
For example, the groups express concern over the more stringent emissions threshold in the final rules -- which mirror the proposed thresholds. They question whether the limit is “in excess of statutory authority, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, without observance of procedure required by law, contrary to constitutional right, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
EPA in the final rules set an emission capture threshold of 34 metric tons of non-methane organic compounds per year, significantly lower than the prior limit of 50 tons. Landfills that meet that limit must install and operate a gas collection system within 30 months.
The industry groups in their statement of issues also criticize EPA's use of the SCM metric in its assessment of the rule's benefits, adding to growing calls from Republicans and other EPA critics for the agency to stop using the metric in cost-benefit analysis for GHG rules.
The SCM is a companion metric to the Obama administration's social cost of carbon (SCC). Both metrics seek to quantify the future cost to society from climate change-related damages tied to incremental increases in atmospheric emissions, though the SCM seeks to account for methane's higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide.
EPA says its final existing landfill rule would have $444 million in climate-related benefits in 2025, compared with $54 million in costs. For both the existing and new landfill rules, more than 95 percent of the quantified benefits are tied to the SCM.
Technical Concerns
The industry groups in their filing raise a number of other technical issues with the rule, including concerns about provisions in the rule “governing agency approval of landfill gas collection and control system design plans, treatment system monitoring plans, and higher operating values”; over EPA's “failure to allow for removal of a gas collection and control system for non-producing areas”; and over its failure to create a “closed landfill” subcategory.
In addition, the industry groups suggest the rule is illegal under the Clean Air Act because EPA did not adequately address how sources currently covered under the new source standards would transition to complying with the updated existing source standards.
However, the groups do not elaborate on their specific concern beyond questioning “whether EPA's failure to address the applicability of and transition from the new source performance standards . . . to the Final Rule was in contravention of Sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act.”
A group of power companies has also challenged EPA's existing landfill rule, though its suit is focused on the charge that the agency cannot update or strengthen section 111(d) rules -- in an attempt to block the agency from ultimately strengthening its power plant GHG standards promulgated under the same section of the air act.
The issue would have been crucial if Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, as environmentalists were planning to urge her to strengthen the power plant rule's targets. However, given President-elect Trump's promise to revoke the agency's power plant rule -- and much of the Obama administration's climate agenda -- the issue may now hold less importance.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/waste-groups-challenge-epa-landfill-methane-rule-despite-initial-support
-
The EPA Will Likely Conclude Fracking Doesn’t Affect Drinking Water
Dec 7, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Merrill Matthews
The Environmental Protection Agency may soon dispel one of the green movements favorite myths: That fracking contaminates drinking water.
In the coming days, the EPA will finalize a 2015 report that found no link between fracking and “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water.” If the agency’s final position hasn’t been co-opted by the environmental movement, as many other recent federal agency findings have, it should lay to rest the concern over fracking and groundwater.
The finding is hardly revolutionary. Years of scientific studies have confirmed the safety of fracking.
The 2015 EPA analysis was an extensive, five-year compilation of nearly 1,000 different data sources—including science and engineering journals, government studies and peer-reviewed EPA reports. Thomas A. Burke, an EPA science adviser, was quoted as calling it the “most complete compilation of scientific data to date.”
A new “study of the study” by Catalyst Environmental Solutions fully confirms the EPA’s findings. After analyzing a wide range of case studies and scientific reports, researchers concluded, “If there was a significant correlation between impaired drinking water resources and hydraulic fracturing, that connection would be manifested in the areas that EPA evaluated.”
In other words, if there were any truth to the claim that fracking contaminates water, the EPA’s study would have found it. Unfortunately, not everyone is happy with that conclusion.
Earlier this year, scientists at the University of Cincinnati completed a three-year study concluding that fracking had no harmful effects on groundwater in the Utica Shale area. Alarmingly, however, the head researcher was initially planning to withhold the results from the public, conceding that the primary funders “feel that fracking is scary” and “were hoping this data could be a reason to ban it.”
Also this year, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality completed a 30-month study of water supplies in Pavillion Gas Field. The agency found no evidence that “hydraulic fracturing fluids have risen to shallow depths intersected by water-supply wells.”
Meanwhile, a 2015 study conducted by the California Council on Science and Technology and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found no “documented instances of hydraulic fracturing or acid simulations directly causing groundwater contamination in California.”
While there may have been occasional isolated instances of water contamination, those are generally a result of human error and seldom related to the fracking process. The EPA study cites as an example, “a truck carrying wastewater could spill ….” But the agency concludes, “the number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.”
The reason fracking is safe lies in the process. Fracked wells generally drill down 5,000 to 6,000 feet, which means about a mile of rock separates the shale deposit and any human water source.
Moreover, wells are specifically constructed to avoid water contamination. Gas wells have multiple layers of cemented steel piping and employ backflow preventers to ensure liquids can flow in only one direction. Well sites also include special liners, storage tanks with back-up protection measures, and special barriers to contain oil and gas. And every drilling project is heavily regulated by federal agencies.
The EPA’s report couldn’t come at a better time. Fracking critics have convinced two states, New York and Vermont, to ban fracking, and Maryland has imposed a moratorium on the process. In addition, dozens of cities have banned fracking. One of the critics’ most potent argument is that fracking will pollute drinking water. But that’s not what the EPA concluded.
The EPA is confirming what scientists have known for years: Fracking poses no harm to water supplies. The public and elected officials need this information in order to respond effectively to the highly publicized and well-financed efforts to end fracking.
Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/309194-the-epa-will-likely-conclude-fracking-doesnt-affect
-
Ohio Ethane Cracker Site Prep Partially Completed; Another Purchase Option Signed
Dec 7, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
FirstEnergy Corp. wrapped-up its clearing and demolition work last week in Belmont County, OH, at the 150-acre site of a former coal-fired power plant, finishing another step to ready part of the land that could one day be home to PTT Global Chemical pcl's (PTTGC) proposed ethane cracker.
In another development, FirstEnergy spokeswoman Jennifer Young confirmed that PTTGC now has an option to purchase that property if it decides to go forward with constructing the cracker. Under the agreement, which was signed over the summer, Young said the company retains exclusive property acquisition rights while it's completing engineering studies associated with the project. FirstEnergy would continue to own the property unless PTTGC elects to have it transferred.
FirstEnergy worked most of the year to demolish the Burger Power Plant on the Ohio River, which it retired in 2011. The company planned to clean up the site for a future project, but PTTGC's purchase option lends some clarity on what it could potentially be used for. PTTGC, the petrochemical and refining subsidiary of Thailand's state-owned oil and gas company, PTT pcl, said in September 2015 that it would invest $100 million for the facility's preliminary design work.
It also has signed a purchase option agreement for a roughly 300-acre site to the south of the former Burger plant. The cracker, which would utilize Marcellus and Utica shale ethane for conversion into ethylene and polyethylene for plastics, is expected to use about 500 acres. It's unclear how much more site preparation would be needed to ready all that land for construction if the company goes forward with the project. PTTGC spokesman Dan Williamson said in an email that the FirstEnergy plot is only part of the project site, but didn’t provide other details.
JobsOhio, the state's private economic development organization that has worked closely with PTTGC on the facility, on Tuesday awarded a $14 million grant for FirstEnergy to help offset the cost of its remediation work. The organization also provided $3 million last year to the owners of the Ohio-West Virginia Excavating Co. land to the south of the FirstEnergy site for cleanup work.
PTTGC has said it expects to make a final investment decision (FID) on the facility next year. In June, Royal Dutch Shell plc said it would build an ethane cracker on a 400-acre site in Western Pennsylvania. Odebrecht SA affiliate Braskem SA has put its plans for a similar facility in West Virginia on hold.
Belmont County Commissioner Matt Coffland said all indications are positive as PTTGC continues to work toward an FID, which he said is expected early next year. JobsOhio recently told local news media that it is close to making announcements about the facility, but stopped short of providing details.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108650-ohio-ethane-cracker-site-prep-partially-completed-another-purchase-option-signed
-
Trump Seeks More Oil Drilling; in Calif., That's Not So Easy
Dec 7, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Anne C. Mulkern
President-elect Donald Trump pledged to increase oil and gas drilling and "unleash an energy revolution." If he wants to do it in California, he'll hit obstacles that could take years to surmount, experts said.
Drilling both offshore and on federal land requires crafting a detailed plan and surviving environmental reviews. And in the Golden State, there's a major political hurdle. California has fought fiercely against attempts to increase offshore drilling, with Democrats and Republican lawmakers uniting on the issue.
"California is a daunting place," said Mark Delaplaine, the California Coastal Commission's manager of the energy ocean coastal resources unit. "We've had more than one administration salivate over the idea of drilling off all of California, and it hasn't happened. You have to look at history and say, 'This is going to be difficult.'"
Efforts to open up new drilling on federal lands in the Golden State in recent years also have failed. Courts twice have stopped Obama administration attempts to open public lands to fracking, said Kassie Siegel, Climate Law Institute director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
"The Trump administration will have the same legal problems that the Obama administration did," Siegel added.
Just yesterday, a federal judge halted litigation tied to plans for new oil and gas development in Los Padres National Forest, east of Santa Barbara. The Forest Service last month announced it would indefinitely stop new leasing at the site. The Center for Biological Diversity, Los Padres ForestWatch and Defenders of Wildlife sued in 2007 and had threatened to sue again to block new leases (see related story).
The Trump transition team did not respond to requests for comment on his plans and whether he would include California in the push for expanded oil drilling. On his transition website, Trump says that he will "open onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands, eliminate moratorium on coal leasing, and open shale energy deposits."
It's not clear how much oil companies would want to pursue drilling in California and push the Trump administration to allow new leasing. Oil companies typically want the security of knowing they will be able to proceed without numerous obstacles. In California, that's not the case, several said. Additionally, the low price of oil has depressed interest, said Athan Manuel, director of the lands protection program at the Sierra Club.
"This industry is in flux," Manuel said. "Just because the Trump administration wants to do it, economically we're not sure companies are champing at the bit to have new areas leased to them."
Rock Zierman, CEO of the California Independent Petroleum Association, or CIPA, said in an email that "we have major production currently on [Bureau of Land Management] onshore land and that can certainly increase." He said companies would be interested if leases became available.
In the case of offshore drilling, Trump would need to deal with a recent Obama administration legacy. Obama's Interior Department just issued its final five-year plan for leasing from 2017 through 2022. After a 60-day congressional review period, the agency's director likely will formally adopt it. That would make it law a few days before Trump is inaugurated.
Trump could decide he's going to throw it out and pursue more drilling in the Atlantic Ocean, off California and off Alaska. But he would need to launch and go through a formal review, and that process takes several years. His administration would need to complete environmental studies to support going in a different direction from the Obama plan, said a person familiar with federal drilling, who asked not to be identified to speak freely.
Obama's draft leasing plan did contemplate additional drilling off Alaska and in the Atlantic Ocean. That means there would be relatively less work involved in expanding drilling in those locations. But the Obama plan didn't do that for California, so extensive studies and new findings would be required to include the Golden State in a new five-year leasing program, he said.
"California, though, would be a big hill to climb," he said. "It has not been a part of leasing programs for many years."
Coastal Commission likely to oppose
Any new Trump administration offshore leasing plan would be subject to review by the California Coastal Commission, which oversees activities affecting 1,100 miles of coast. The Trump administration would need to tell the commission its federal leasing plan was consistent with the California Coastal Act, a tough protection law. The commission could say yes or no, or negotiate changes, and ultimately could go to court to stop the plan from proceeding, said Delaplaine with the commission.
"We have not had a difficult time justifying that leasing offshore California has been for the most part inconsistent with our coastal protection laws," Delaplaine said. "It's not a difficult case to make. That's a hurdle that they would have to face."
Some drilling is allowed offshore in the Santa Barbara Channel. There are 23 platforms in federal waters in that region. But the agency likely would disagree with a new plan seeking additional offshore drilling, he said.
"The risks to coastal resources are just limitless, the risk of oil spills, the risk of air quality impacts," Delaplaine said. "There's a whole litany of effects on California that drilling in a new area brings into play."
Even when the political makeup of the commission has changed over the years, its position in the issue has stayed consistent, he added. "They've been generally united about concerns about offshore oil drilling," Delaplaine said. "These are almost always unanimous votes."
Trump is unlikely to get help from Congress, either. For decades, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers from the state have opposed offshore drilling, supporting residents who don't want oil derricks obstructing coastal views. Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) in the 1980s led a fight against it during the George H.W. Bush administration. Several said that bipartisan approach is unlikely to change now, even with a Republican-controlled White House and Congress.
"It's been known as kind of a third rail of politics," allowing new oil drilling off California, said Ann Notthoff, California advocacy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The coastal economy of California is critical. It's very valuable. The costs of threatening that with oil drilling has long been thought to not be worth it."
Zierman with CIPA said that in terms of offshore drilling, "new platforms are very unlikely." But oil companies can drill directionally from one of the existing platforms to an adjacent lease. That's a way of getting a new lease and tapping new resources without installing a new platform, he said.
Federal lands in Calif. also have challenges
On federal lands in California, allowing more drilling theoretically would be easier than offshore, but that hasn't worked out as desired for the Obama administration.
After Trump's inauguration, his Interior Department could launch the effort to hold new lease sales. But that process probably would take two years, said Manuel with the Sierra Club.
Manuel said he was skeptical the Trump administration would seek additional drilling in California, instead of Wyoming or Colorado. Seeking drilling in California, Oregon or Washington, "you would open up a hornet's nest of opposition," Manuel said.
Environmental groups have stopped recent efforts to increase drilling on federal land, Siegel with the Center for Biological Diversity said. Those challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, said there had been insufficient environmental review, she said.
CBD and the Sierra Club in 2013 won a challenge against a lease sale by Obama's Bureau of Land Management along the state's central coast. This year, CBD and Los Padres ForestWatch prevailed in a case against BLM's resource management plan for the Bakersfield region. Both times, the court found that BLM had failed to sufficiently analyze the risks of fracking.
"There has been no leasing since 2013 because of these legal victories," Siegel said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/07/stories/1060046782
-
FERC Grants One Variance to Impulsora’s NatGas Pipeline, Denies a Second
Dec 7, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
FERC granted one variance request by Impulsora Pipeline LLC, but denied a second one, as the pipeline that is to carry natural gas produced in the Eagle Ford Shale to markets in Mexico moves forward.
In a letter order Tuesday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted the pipeline permission to conduct certain maintenance activities along a 0.51-mile stretch of access road leading to the company's horizontal directional drilling (HDD) site in Webb County, TX [CP14-513 and CP16-70].
But Amanda Mardiney, an environmental project manager for FERC, said she could not approve Impulsora's request to keep vegetation within a 30-by-900 foot corridor cut to a height of six inches or less. The corridor functions as a workspace between a 1.6-acre temporary work site on the U.S. side of the international border and the Rio Grande River. Impulsora said the cut to vegetation would help facilitate installing, operating and monitoring a survey system designed to ensure that underground pipe remains in the authorized area.
"I cannot approve Impulsora's request...until adequate justification is provided," Mardiney wrote.
According to Mardiney, when Impulsora requested the variances last Thursday it had clarified to FERC that HDD drilling would begin on the U.S. side of the border, and that pigging and metering equipment would not be placed on the U.S. side. She acknowledged that the company had also notified FERC of a minor change to the location of the HDD site on the Mexican side of the border. Construction of the cross-border facilities began in October, four months after FERC approved several amendments to the project.
The 36-inch diameter Impulsora Pipeline would originate in Texas at the Howard Energy Partners (HEP) Webb County Hub to transport gas to the border crossing in Webb County and in Mexico near Colombia in the State of Nuevo Leon.
A separate pipeline, Midstream de Mexico, is planned to originate at the border crossing and extend to measurement stations near Monterrey, Nuevo Leon. Nueva Era, a joint venture of HEP and Grupo Clisa, would provide service to shippers for transport on both pipelines. Impulsora received its presidential permit in May 2015 for the facilities.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108651-ferc-grants-one-variance-to-impulsoras-natgas-pipeline-denies-a-second
-
Iowa Property Rights Case Another Front in Pipeline Battle
Dec 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
While the nation's attention and imagination have been riveted on a historic gathering of tribes and activists opposing the Dakota Access oil pipeline in North Dakota, landowners in Iowa have been slowly moving toward their own showdown.
More than a dozen landowners in central Iowa are hoping to convince a district court next week to reverse a state decision that allowed the infamous oil pipeline to be buried on their farmland despite their objections.
If the Iowa District Court for Polk County agrees, the decision could force the energy firm to dig up and remove a section of the 1,172-mile-long oil pipeline slated to stretch from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to refineries in Illinois.
"If we win the lawsuit, Dakota Access will have to take out their pipeline," said Cara Seidl, a spokeswoman for the Des Moines-based Davis Brown Law Firm representing the landowners.
Oral arguments are scheduled for Dec. 15. Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer Partners LLC, the pipeline's Dallas-based builder, said the company doesn't comment on current or pending litigation.
Central to the debate is the landowners' argument that the Iowa Utilities Board misinterpreted a 2006 state law designed to protect Iowa farmland. The landowners are located in Boone, Webster, Wapello, Cherokee, Calhoun, Mahaska and Story counties.
Seidl said the bulk of landowners who launched the lawsuit did not want to sell their farmland and believe their private property rights were violated. They also feel the state failed to protect them, she said.
In documents before the court, the landowners argue that Energy Transfer Partners didn't satisfy a "public use" clause under state law because it doesn't provide any benefit to Iowans and shouldn't have been able to use eminent domain to forcibly take their property and build a private energy project.
Seidl said whatever happens Dec. 15, either the landowners or Energy Transfer Partners is bound to appeal the decision. If the landowners do succeed, Seidl said pipeline developers could simply dig up the pipeline and ask for easements from neighbors.
The law firm filed a motion with the court to temporarily prevent construction this summer. The court denied that request, and the Dakota Access pipeline was built.
The Dakota Access pipeline has become a rallying point that has united a historic number of tribes as well as climate activists in North Dakota. This week, the Obama administration denied developers a critical easement for the pipeline to cross a dammed section of the Missouri River, further delaying construction (Energywire, Dec. 4).
Much of the attention is focused on the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's opposition to the project, Seidl said, while the fight in Iowa has flown under the radar.
"It's not as compelling as the people story coming out of North Dakota, it's about eminent domain," she said. "And we haven't sought attention. People know about it in Iowa. Outside? Not so much."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/07/stories/1060046799
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Shipper, Trucker Petition Could Trigger Detention and Demurrage Relief
Dec 7, 2016 | JOC
By Staff
A broad range of US shippers, truckers, and transportation intermediaries are asking federal maritime regulators to consider creating a rule to prevent marine terminals and container lines from charging demurrage and detention fees when uncontrollable forces make it impossible to pick up or return containers and chassis on time.
The petition for rulemaking was filed by the National Retail Federation, the National Industrial Transportation League, and others. It is a long-awaited move aimed at spurring the Federal Maritime Commission to make a policy statement and clarify its stance on detention and demurrage.
Demurrage fees are charged for late pickup of cargo from terminals after permitted free storage time has expired. Per-diem detention is charged for late return of equipment.
The 25-member Coalition for Fair Port Practices wants the FMC to require container lines and terminals to extend free days when there is disruption outside the control of shippers, truckers, and transport intermediaries — whether it’s a liner collapse like in the case of Hanjin Shipping, or labor disputes as seen in 2014 and 2015 on the US West Coast.
“Shippers, consignees and drayage providers do not create and cannot avoid these events,” the coalition said. “They cannot control the weather. They do not choose the terminals that carriers use. They are not parties to port labor collective bargaining agreements.”
The FMC, the National Association of Waterfront Employers, and the World Shipping Council, whose members control 90 percent of global container capacity, weren’t immediately available for comment.
"We believe the FMC has very clear authority under the Shipping Act to provide this policy guidance to all parties engaged in the ocean-borne transportation of our imports and exports,” said NITL Executive Director Jennifer Hedrick. “The Shipping Act clearly requires demurrage and detention practices to be just and reasonable. And that is all we are seeking in this petition."
Shippers have grumbled for years that demurrage and detention fees are being used to generate revenue, rather than to clear out containers to improve terminal fluidity or to incentivize prompt return of equipment. Although a lack of financing from coalition members for the legal push has prevented shippers from filing a formal regulatory request — until now.
In its rulemaking petition, the coalition said millions of unfair detention and demurrage fees have been levied in recent years. The coalition cited $1.2 million billed to a motor carrier after long truck lines at the Port of New York and New Jersey prevented the on-time return of containers. A retailer had to shell out $80,000 because forces out of its control prevented it from picking up containers within the four-day window of free time; it took nine days, the petition said.
Members of the coalition filing the petition are the American Apparel & Footwear Association; the American Chemistry Council; the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers; the Association of Food Industries; the Auto Care Association; the Foreign Trade Association; the Green Coffee Association;, the Harbor Association of Industry & Commerce; the Harbor Trucking Association; the Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference; the International Association of Movers; the Juice Products Association; the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association; the Meat Import Council of America; the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association; the National Pork Producers Council; the New York/New Jersey Foreign Freight Forwarders and Brokers Association; the North American Meat Institute; the Retail Industry Leaders Association; Tea Association of the USA; the Transportation Intermediaries Association; and the US Hide, Skin, and Leather Association.
http://www.joc.com/regulation-policy/transportation-regulations/us-transportation-regulations/us-shipper-and-trucker-petition-could-trigger-detention-and-demurrage-relief_20161207.html
-
Google to Buy More Clean Energy Than Some Big Utilities
Dec 7, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick
The world's leading internet services company is again expanding its climate and clean energy commitments, announcing yesterday that by 2017 it will meet 100 percent of its corporate energy demand with carbon-free energy.
Alphabet Inc.'s Google, whose physical headquarters is in Mountain View, Calif., but whose digital footprint extends across the globe, said it now has commitments to purchase 2.6 gigawatts of electricity under long-term contracts with renewable energy providers. That's up from 2 GW a year ago.
"That's bigger than many large utilities and more than twice as much as the 1.21 gigawatts it took to send Marty McFly back in time," Google Senior Vice President of Technical Infrastructure Urs Hölzle said in a statement, referencing the 1985 blockbuster movie "Back to the Future."
But where the film's DeLorean time machine was powered by a lightning strike to its flux capacitor, Google says it will harness most of its power from wind turbines and solar panels. Such resources have become cost-competitive with fossil fuels in many regions, including states like Iowa, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Oregon, where Google is building the backbone of its U.S. data network.
"Our engineers have spent years perfecting Google's data centers, making them 50 percent more energy efficient than the industry average," Hölzle said. "But we still need a lot of energy to process trillions of Google searches every year, play more than 400 hours of YouTube videos uploaded every minute, and power the products and services that our users depend on.
"That's why we began purchasing renewable energy — to reduce our carbon footprint and address climate change. But it also makes business sense," he added. "Electricity costs are one of the largest components of our operating expenses at our data centers, and having a long-term stable cost of renewable power provides protection against price swings in energy."
It also places Google ahead of its IT rivals — Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft — in terms of total megawatts of renewable energy procured, according to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Google's renewable energy announcement was made alongside the release of a larger environmental report, which for the first time distills the firm's sustainability goals and achievements — from energy efficiency and solid waste reduction to water conservation and the benefits of cloud computing — into one document.
Kate Brandt, Google's lead for sustainability, described the report as detailing "the major pillars of our work ... so that other people can learn from what we've done."
Renewables 'readily available'
In addition to its renewable energy procurement program, Google has deployed a variety of technologies to help its consumers bring clean energy benefits closer to home, Brandt said. For example, the company's Project Sunroof program used Google Earth 3-D imagery to help individual homeowners and even communities determine the potential for deploying rooftop solar panels.
The company has also invested heavily in what is known as "machine learning" to help boost the computing power of its data centers while using significantly less energy. According to Brandt, a Google data center today can extract 3.5 times more computing power from a single unit of energy compared with five years ago. That converts to millions of additional Google searches, Gmail deliveries and YouTube streamings with no additional environmental impact, officials said.
Reaction to Google's report, and especially to its pending clean energy milestone, was largely positive.
Gregory Wetstone, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said in a statement that Google's more than six-year commitment to renewable energy is "paying off." He added that the 100 percent renewables achievement "is a definitive demonstration that renewable energy is cost-effective and readily available at scale today."
Greenpeace, which has closely tracked IT companies for the environmental impacts of their operations, including through the use of its annual "Click Green Scorecard," described Google as "a catalyst in the dramatic growth in renewable energy procurement among corporations."
Among other things, Greenpeace noted that Google was "redefining the art of the possible by bringing significant renewable energy projects onto the same grid its data centers are powered from." That stands in contrast to some other IT firms that purchase renewable energy credits to meet clean energy goals but continue to power their data centers and offices with grid-delivered fossil energy.
Gary Cook, senior IT analyst for Greenpeace, said the timing of Google's announcement is also significant. Corporate action on renewables has been an important driver for the clean energy sector over the past five years, and Google is among the firms that got the ball rolling.
"Many companies have stood with the Obama administration's efforts to push for more renewable energy and action on climate change, and Google in particular has been putting their money where their mouth is," Cook said. "Such continued leadership is likely to play an even more important role in the months to come, and companies who care about climate change and access to renewable energy need to stand up and be counted to accelerate the transition to a renewably powered economy."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/07/stories/1060046761
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested