Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 2/14/17
-
GOP's Favorite Bills Could Bolster Trump's 2-For-1 Order
Feb 14, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
President Trump's executive order on regulatory reform could gain sharp teeth if Congress manages to pass a number of reform measures GOP lawmakers have been pushing for years. -
States Pursue Toxics Lawmaking Despite Federal Law Constraints
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Legislation that would require the disclosure of or restriction of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids, cosmetics and other products had been introduced in 16 states as of Feb. 10. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Manufacturers Cite CRA Bid In Call For EPA To Delay RMP Rule
Feb 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Chemical manufacturers are urging EPA to further delay implementation of the Obama administration's final rule revising the agency's industrial facility safety program, saying additional time is vital to give Congress time to consider a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution that could potentially undo the entire rule. -
(ACC Mentioned) Flame Retardant Chemicals Found in More People
Feb 13, 2017 | ConsumerReports.org
By Julia Calderone
A new study has found that flame retardants—used in everything from furniture to baby toys—are increasingly showing up in people’s bodies, raising potential health concerns. -
DuPont, Chemours to Pay $671M to Settle Ohio, W.Va. Teflon Claims
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey and John Bowker
DuPont Co. and former unit Chemours Co. agreed to pay a combined $670.7 million to settle personal-injury lawsuits related to a Teflon chemical that polluted water supplies in West Virginia and Ohio. -
DuPont And Chemours Settle PFOA Suits
Feb 13, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
DuPont and Chemours have agreed to pay $670 million to settle 3,550 lawsuits in Ohio and West Virginia by residents who say they were sickened by drinking water contaminated by perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) released from a former DuPont plant in Parkersburg, W. Va. -
Cuomo: N.Y. Will Act on Contaminant If EPA Doesn't
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
New York will move to set its own limits for a chemical contaminant found in Long Island drinking water if the EPA fails to establish a U.S. standard for it, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) said. -
NGOs Urge EU Member States To Consider D4 And D5 Ban
Feb 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A group of 31 NGOs has written to the REACH Committee urging it to consider proposing octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) for inclusion on REACH Annex XIV – the authorisation list. -
A Critical Review Of Flawed Claims Made In AIM Declaration On EDCs
Feb 14, 2017 | Science 2.0
By Gregory Bond
On February 9, the International Association of Mutual Benefit Societies (AIM) released a declaration on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) in which the association implores the EU Commission to take a very conservative approach to identifying and regulating chemicals. -
Canada Issues Maximum Levels for Plasticizer, Other Toxics
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Menyasz
Canada proposed national environmental quality guidelines for controversial plastic component bisphenol A, industrial chemical hexavalent chromium, textile coating perfluorooctane sulfonate and cosmetic component triclosan. -
Canada Releases Guidelines On BPA, Chromium VI, PFOS, Triclosan
Feb 14, 2017 | Chemcial Watch
Canada has released Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines (FEQGs) for bisphenol-A, hexavalent chromium, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and triclosan. -
Trump, Trudeau Talk Energy Collaboration, Keystone XL
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today pledged the United States and Canada will collaborate "on energy infrastructure projects that will create jobs while respecting the environment." -
Fuel Choice Aim of New Energy Policy, Committee Chair Says
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Environmental laws and regulations will be reviewed with an eye to giving consumers and electric utilities more choice on the fuels they use, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee told utility regulators and executives. -
Group Says House Republicans Have Several Obama-Era Energy Rules in the Crosshairs
Feb 13, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
A group of Republican House lawmakers from Western states said they plan to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) this week to roll back one -- and possibly more -- rules enacted during the Obama administration, and that a total of 13 regulations should be targeted. -
Veresen Revives Jordan Cove LNG Export Project at FERC
Feb 13, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Left in the ditch last year by FERC, Calgary, Alberta-based Veresen Inc. on Friday revived its efforts to build the first U.S. West Coast liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project along the south-central coast of Oregon. Despite past setbacks, the sponsors remain confident of getting a final go-ahead on the project. -
Many US Cracker Projects Moving Along As Expected, Earnings Calls Show
Feb 14, 2017 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
Total aims to decide this year whether to move forward with a second steam cracker at its refining and petrochemical complex in Port Arthur, Texas, executives said last week. The French oil major launched front-end engineering and design (FEED) for the 1 million mt/year ethane side cracker in September 2015, with plans to make the final investment decision (FID) by the end of 2016. -
Sierra Club Cites Dire EPA Warning in Fracking Suit
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
The Sierra Club has another tool in its lawsuit against Chesapeake Operating LLC and other companies over fracking-induced earthquakes that have rocked Oklahoma since 2009. -
Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Avoids Another Delay in Court Ruling
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Harris
Energy Transfer Partners LP's Dakota Access pipeline avoided yet another delay after a judge rejected a Native American tribe's request for a temporary halt over claims the project desecrates hallowed religious grounds. -
California Dam Crisis Leaves Power Market Short of Hydroelectric
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ryan Collins
A crippled spillway is threatening to submerge a region of Northern California after a deluge forced almost 200,000 people to evacuate their homes. And the state's power market may not emerge unscathed. -
Congress: A Noisy Hall With A Nightly Brawl
Feb 13, 2017 | RailwayAge
By Frank N. Wilner
With early indications that the Trump Administration is a political version of the Jerry Springer show, expect an atypical legislative session, with the Republican majority sometimes in open conflict with a Republican President who is unpredictable, impetuous, lacking previous government experience and quick to take vengeance on those critical of him. -
Environmentalists Defend EPA's Utility Mact Cost Finding
Feb 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are defending EPA's revised finding that its power plant maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule air toxics rule was “appropriate and necessary” even after considering costs of the rule, as they seek to defend the regulation amid uncertainty about whether the Trump administration will drop its defense of the MACT. -
Texas Sues EPA Over Sulfur Dioxide Designations
Feb 14, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is challenging U.S. EPA's sulfur dioxide attainment designations for the state. -
State Utility Regulators Eye Next Steps To Cut Carbon Emissions
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA's role in regulating carbon emissions will be on the agenda when state utility regulators meet this week in Washington, although it won't be as prominent an issue as in recent years.
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
-
GOP's Favorite Bills Could Bolster Trump's 2-For-1 Order
Feb 14, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
President Trump's executive order on regulatory reform could gain sharp teeth if Congress manages to pass a number of reform measures GOP lawmakers have been pushing for years.
The order directs agencies to toss two rules for every new one to offset costs, and it establishes a regulatory budget through which the president can cap how much is spent on rulemaking each year. But even then, its full and practical effect is not altogether clear.
"Nothing in [the order] is intended to supplant the law or tell agencies they have to go against anything within existing law," said Jerry Ellig, senior research fellow at the free-market Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
"If the law changed, however, then the executive order might apply to some regulations it doesn't currently apply to."
Trump ran on an explicitly anti-regulation platform, with Cabinet picks who reflect his vision, which is why his Jan. 30 order left some analysts confused.
"This executive order is going to largely apply to new regulations that agencies have complete discretion about developing," Cary Coglianese, director of the University of Pennsylvania Law School's Penn Program on Regulation, said in a recent interview.
"I wouldn't have thought this administration would be planning to issue many discretionary rules."
Trump's executive order has all kinds of caveats that narrow its impact.
Guidance from the Office of Management and Budget clarifies the order only applies to "significant" rules and excludes independent agencies; it cannot stop agencies from issuing statutorily mandated regulations; and it cannot force agencies to take cost into consideration for rules whose underlying laws prohibit it.
For example, under the Clean Air Act, U.S. EPA may not consider costs when establishing national ambient air quality standards for ozone, soot and other air pollutants. EPA is required to update those standards every five years. This means the executive order would have little to zero impact on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Likewise, the Mine Safety and Health Administration may not reduce miner safety protections when issuing new ones, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not required to weigh cost when issuing new vehicle safety standards.
"If the Trump administration wants to alter these laws, it cannot do it by executive order," the Center for Progressive Reform wrote in its comments submitted to OMB on the order and guidance.
"Congress will need to pass new legislation in the bright light of public scrutiny."
While amending the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act is sure to elicit public input, legislation to reform the rulemaking process often garners less attention, analysts say.
"The trick with those sorts of bills is they seem pretty innocent, just tweaking the process, but what they're intended to do is slow or stop the process altogether," Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, said in a recent interview.
Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, said the executive order "is not going to do much" when it comes to air quality standards.
"But if they do pass the 'Regulatory Accountability Act,' that would effectively amend the law," he said.
The "Regulatory Accountability Act" (H.R. 5), which passed the House last month and bundles six rules the House has passed a number of times, would require EPA and other agencies to consider the impact of proposed regulations on jobs, economic competitiveness and low-income populations and choose the cheapest option.
Among other ramifications, that could affect EPA's ability to set air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, experts say.
The measure essentially "overturns" the Supreme Court's 2001 ruling in the case of Whitman v. American Trucking Associations Inc., which affirmed that the act bars EPA from considering compliance costs in setting standards for ozone and other pollutants, said John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (E&E Daily, Jan. 9).
Batkins said the "RAA" and the "Searching for and Cutting Regulations That Are Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB) Act of 2017" appear to be Congress' top regulatory priorities.
"They would give far more force to the executive order going forward," he said.
While the "RAA" would require agencies to choose the least costly rule, the "SCRUB Act" would establish a nine-member body and authorize an appropriation of up to $30 million to independently assess which regulations are outdated or unnecessarily burdensome. Agencies would be required to toss rules the board identified as "unnecessary" before issuing new ones.
"In a sense, it would sort of codify the executive order," Batkins said.
The "RAA" would effectively amend a number of underlying statutes to require consideration of financial costs, but it's unclear whether the measure could clear the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 52-48 voting majority.
"I do think the executive order would probably have more teeth if the 'Regulatory Accountability Act' passes. Maybe that's why it's regulatory reform priority No. 1," Batkins said.
"What changes they make to try to get eight Democrats on board, I don't know."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/14/stories/1060049996
-
States Pursue Toxics Lawmaking Despite Federal Law Constraints
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Legislation that would require the disclosure of or restriction of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids, cosmetics and other products had been introduced in 16 states as of Feb. 10.
Another five states are expected to have chemical legislation introduced later this year, Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 8. Safer States is a network of environmental health and other state-based organizations.
States are working in an uncertain space. The 2016 overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act allows some state chemical controls. It also preempts state controls that would replicate or conflict with regulations and other decisions it requires the federal Environmental Protection Agency to make. The line between what a state can and can't do is unclear.
Upholstered furniture, food packaging, shipping pallets, wheel weights and brakes are among the types of products divergent bills would cover, according to the legislation, which is available through Safer States’ bill tracker.
Companies making such products, retailers selling them, state agencies and water utilities are among the types companies or institutions that could be covered by the proposed laws or subsequent implementing regulations.
Flame retardants, bisphenol A, cadmium, formaldehyde, lead and perfluorinated chemicals are among the chemicals that would be targeted.
Example Bills
Example bills include:
• California's SB 258, which would require manufacturers as of Jan. 1, 2018, to disclose ingredients used in cleaning products, including fragrances, on the product label and online;
• Maine's LD 182, which would prohibit the sale and distribution as of Jan. 1, 2018 of new upholstered furniture containing 0.1 percent or more of flame retardants such as halogenated, phosphorus-based, nitrogen-based, nanoscale chemicals;
• Maryland's HB 66, which would prohibit tire manufacturers, motor-vehicle repair shops, retailers and certain other businesses from using, allowing use of or selling lead or mercury wheel weights after dates that would be established by the law;
• Minnesota's HF 727 and SF 716, which would require companies to disclose trade secret and other information about chemicals in children's products to the state's Pollution Control Agency. The agency would establish a list of chemicals of high concern by July 1, 2010, and collect a fee of $1,000 for each priority chemical initially reported.\;
• New York state's S 1928 and A 1732, both of which would require disclosure of chemicals used in oil and gas well drilling and hydraulic fracturing;
• Washington state's HB 1744, which would ban as of July 1, 2018, food packaging containing any amount of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals, defined as chemicals that contain “multiple carbon-fluorine bonds, but are not exclusively composed of carbon and fluorine including, but not limited to, poly- or perfluorinated compounds.”
Legislation likely to pass, because it has been discussed and refined during previous legislative sessions, includes California's cleaning ingredient disclosure bill; fragrance disclosure legislation in Rhode Island; and a variety of New York bills that would either require ingredient disclosure or restrict chemicals of concern, Doll said.Bills targeting flame retardants in products also are likely to have traction, she said.
Years Before Action
State legislative and regulatory action on chemicals was a key driver spurring industry to support TSCA reform.
States are developing their own chemical policies despite last year's overhaul of the chemicals law, because it could take the Environmental Protection Agency hundreds of years to assess just those chemicals produced in quantities over a million pounds per year, Doll said.
The EPA has 10 chemical risk evaluations underway as required by amended TSCA. The agency must complete each risk evaluation within three to 3.5 years.
By December 2019, the number of high-priority chemicals being evaluated must reach 20. Thereafter, whenever the agency finishes one risk evaluation, it must launch another one.
If the agency concludes a chemical or specific use would pose an unreasonable risk, the law requires the agency to take final risk management action sufficient to ensure the chemical's use would not pose an unreasonable risk. The risk management measures must be issued as final within two to four years.
Ample Room for States
States can regulate chemicals notwithstanding the amended federal chemicals statute, Adrienne Timmel, an attorney with Keller and Heckman LLP, said Feb. 8. She spoke during a webinar the law firm held discussing chemical prioritization under amended TSCA.
If the EPA has not taken any action about a chemical, states concerned about it can step in.
After the EPA identifies a chemical as a high priority—meaning the agency will evaluate its risks—states have about one year to regulate that chemical before the risk evaluation is launched, said Timmel, who works in the law firm's Washington, D.C. office.
Before the EPA formally launches its risk evaluation, it is required to prepare a scope defining what concerns, chemical uses, exposures and populations its risk evaluation will consider.
States may regulate chemical uses outside the scope of the EPA's risk evaluation, Timmel said.
Once the risk evaluation starts, a “pause preemption” kicks in. States generally cannot regulate the same chemical the EPA is evaluating if the state regulation would address health concerns, chemical uses and other issues the EPA is reviewing.
Some States Wait and See
States have room to regulate chemicals under amended TSCA, but many don't have the capacity or desire to do so, Peter Hsiao, a partner with Morrison & Foerster LLP in Los Angeles, told Bloomberg BNA.
California, Massachusetts and other states with histories of addressing chemicals will remain active regarding chemicals, he said. Other states’ activity began to drop back at least a year ago, as TSCA modernization seemed possible, Hsiao said.
Bills also can be easily introduced, but Hsiao predicted legislatures will be more willing to wait and see. There's a reluctance to develop in-state capacity if the EPA will be actively evaluating and managing chemicals, he said.
The lead-in-public-drinking-water crisis in Flint, Mich., where many residents still rely on bottled water, also has pulled states towards addressing health concerns that clearly are under their jurisdiction, Hsiao said.
The scope of chemical rules the amended law preempts is likely to be litigated, he said.
Information disclosure is one such area where ambiguity exists, Hsiao said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105619756&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105619756&jd=105619756
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Manufacturers Cite CRA Bid In Call For EPA To Delay RMP Rule
Feb 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Chemical manufacturers are urging EPA to further delay implementation of the Obama administration's final rule revising the agency's industrial facility safety program, saying additional time is vital to give Congress time to consider a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution that could potentially undo the entire rule.
In a Feb. 6 letter to Acting EPA Administrator Catherine McCabe, the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) Michael Walls calls on EPA to delay by at least 60 days the effective date of the overhaul of EPA's Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulation for Trump Administration review, including of issues raised by a pending CRA. The rule sets requirements for how facilities should take steps to reduce accidents and harm to humans and the environment.
Walls notes that on Feb. 1, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) introduced H.J. Res. 59, a CRA bill to undo the RMP revisions “that, if passed and signed by the President, could rescind the rule.”
“A further delay of the effective date of the RMP rule is warranted in order to address the concerns raised by stakeholders and the introduction of a resolution of disapproval,” the letter says.
As of press time, Mullin's CRA bill had 27 co-sponsors, but its prospects remain unclear because it was not included on House Republicans' shortlist of priority CRA resolutions for floor consideration.
EPA Jan. 13 issued the RMP rule as part of the Obama administration's effort to improve industrial facility safety under a 2013 Executive Order. The final rule requires certain facilities to conduct new hazard analysis and independent audits, and release certain facility data to first responders and the public.
The rule was scheduled to take effect 60 days after its Jan. 13 publication in the Federal Register. But the rule is one of 30 rules for which EPA has delayed implementation until at least March 21 to allow review by the new administration. ACC seeks an additional delay of at least 60 days beyond March 21.
The new ACC letter reiterates industry groups' criticisms that the RMP rule encroaches on Occupational Safety and Health Administration jurisdiction, and that new requirements for disclosure of facility data could help terrorists target facilities.
ACC also argues EPA has failed to issue implementation guidance for the final rule, which includes ambiguous terms and uncertain compliance deadlines, and imposes unnecessary new requirements without clear benefits.
'Regulatory Burdens'
“The RMP rule imposes significant new regulatory burdens and costs on the chemical industry while adding little benefit in terms of advancing chemical safety,” says ACC's letter to McCabe. “EPA received thousands of comments on its proposed rule, including from Congress, Attorneys General, Conference of Mayors, and others voicing concerns with EPA's proposed changes to the RMP regulations.”
The CRA, enacted during the Clinton administration, allows Congress to pass disapproval resolutions on simple majority votes in the House and Senate to reverse discretionary rules promulgated within 60 legislative days of their actions. For the rules to be repealed, the disapproval resolutions must be signed by the president.
ACC and the National Association of Chemical Distributors in recent statements welcomed the disapproval resolution's introduction, arguing that the agency's existing RMP rule is adequate and new requirements are costly and unnecessary.
But the RMP rule CRA resolution did not make House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) short list announced in late January of Obama-era regulations targeted for CRA repeal, raising uncertainty about the prospects of a successful CRA repeal of RMP given competing priorities.
In Feb. 9 statements on the Senate floor, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the upper chamber's environment panel, criticized the RMP rule. He argued that the requirements for facilities to assess safer technologies is a first step toward government control of chemical manufacturing and that disclosure requirements make facilities less safe.
Inhofe said the rule “stops short” of mandating EPA's approval of companies' safer technology analyses and does not mandate the implementation of inherently safer technologies to reduce adverse impacts from accidents. But he added “it is only a matter of time before environmental groups begin to litigate this issue and ask activist courts to force EPA to mandate these measures. This is the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/chemical-manufacturers-cite-cra-bid-call-epa-delay-rmp-rule
-
(ACC Mentioned) Flame Retardant Chemicals Found in More People
Feb 13, 2017 | ConsumerReports.org
By Julia Calderone
A new study has found that flame retardants—used in everything from furniture to baby toys—are increasingly showing up in people’s bodies, raising potential health concerns.
Research led by Duke University shows that two flame-retardant chemicals, which belong to a class of flame retardants called organophosphates, not only were found in the urine of most of the 857 adults and children tested but also rose steadily in samples collected between 2002 and 2015.
This is not the first time organophosphates have been found in people. But this is the first study to find that the levels in Americans increased over a long period.
“We know from animal testing that there are a variety of toxic outcomes associated with exposure to these chemicals at high concentrations,” says Heather M. Stapleton, Ph.D., an associate professor of environmental ethics and sustainable environmental management at Duke University and one of the study authors. Pros and Cons of Flame RetardantsFlame retardants are used in products to stop or slow the spread of fire. They’re found in a number of different products including car seats, upholstered furniture, TVs, computers, clothing, baby toys, nursing pillows, and plastics used to make food containers. For some of these products, manufacturers use flame retardants to help them meet required federal or state flammability standards—though some evidence suggests not all products with flame retardants need them to meet such standards.
Though reducing combustibility of household goods is important, some flame retardants leech out of the products and into the environment, and can be absorbed into the body through the skin, through inhalation, or by swallowing. Not all flame retardants are harmful, but some, including organophosphates, are known to cause adverse health effects, with human and animal studies linking them to cancer, hormonal changes, and fertility problems.
In 2004, such concerns led to one of the most commonly used flame-retardant mixtures, called pentaBDE, being voluntarily phased out after it was linked to health problems and was detected in alarming levels in people’s bodies. Many manufacturers began to use organophosphates in their place.More than 90 percent of the 857 adults and children in the Duke-led study had two commonly used organophosphates, TDCIPP and TPHP, in their urine. On average, the levels of one of the chemicals, TDCIPP, were 17 times higher in adults in 2015 than they were in 2002.
The results of the Duke-led study indicate that organophosphates are following the same pattern as pentaBDE. “Scientists knew that exposure to pentaBDE was going up, so we phased them out,” Stapleton says. “Now, organophosphates are going up as well. We need to understand more about their health risks and at what level these chemicals become harmful.” Are Flame Retardants Necessary?
The two organophosphates found in increasing levels in the study are of particular concern. Manufacturers phased TDCIPP out of use in children’s pajamas in 1977 when scientists linked the chemical to cancer in animal studies. Animal studies have also suggested that TDCIPP might alter the regulation of the body’s hormones, specifically thyroid hormone, and both TDCIPP and TPHP might cause fertility problems.
“We’ve known that TDCIPP is a bad actor for a long time, yet it continues to be used,” says Robin Dodson, Sc.D., a research scientist studying indoor air pollution at the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, Mass., who was not involved in the study.
Some scientists and consumer groups think that consumers may be exposed to these chemicals unnecessarily. For example, there has been debate in recent years over whether flame retardants used in furniture are effective enough to outweigh the risks associated with exposure in the first place.“It’s a very controversial topic,” Stapleton says. “We’re using large volumes of these chemicals in furniture, yet the data suggesting they're effective in preventing fires is minimal to none.”
When reached for comment, the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade association for U.S. chemical companies, said that they had not had a chance to review the study, but they referred us to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which says that detectable levels of a chemical in urine or blood does not necessarily correlate with harm.
The CDC has not responded to a request for comment. How to Protect YourselfOrganophosphates and other flame retardants are almost impossible to avoid because so many products contain them and they often are not labeled. Still, there are some things you can do to limit your exposure:
Check the tag on new furniture. A California law, which went into effect in 2015, requires that all new upholstered furniture sold in the state include a visible label to let you know whether flame retardant chemicals (but not which chemicals) were added.Consumers outside of California may also be able to find this label on furniture. If you can’t find a tag, ask a salesperson or the manufacturer itself for more information. Curious whether flame retardants are in the furniture you already own? You can send a sample of polyurethane foam to Duke University and researchers will test it free.
Keep dust at bay. In a 2016 study, Dodson and her team, led by researchers from George Washington University, analyzed household dust and found that it contains 45 potentially harmful chemicals, including flame retardants. The compounds can get into your system if you inhale them, touch them, or ingest them.Children are especially vulnerable because they’re more likely than adults to come into contact with and ingest dust. Wash your hands frequently to prevent getting dust in your mouth when eating or touching your face. Dodson also suggests vacuuming regularly to keep dust levels low. A good air purifier might help, too. (Check our buying guide and ratings of vacuums and air purifiers.)
http://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/flame-retardant-chemicals-found-in-more-people/
-
DuPont, Chemours to Pay $671M to Settle Ohio, W.Va. Teflon Claims
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey and John Bowker
DuPont Co. and former unit Chemours Co. agreed to pay a combined $670.7 million to settle personal-injury lawsuits related to a Teflon chemical that polluted water supplies in West Virginia and Ohio.
The payment will be split evenly between the companies and relates to about 3,550 claims, Wilmington, Del.-based DuPont said in a statement Feb. 13. Both companies deny wrongdoing. DuPont made C-8, also known as PFOA, in Parkersburg, W.Va., to produce products such as Teflon nonstick coatings and stain-resistant carpets. Chemours shares rose to a record high.
The settlement follows DuPont's third consecutive jury trial loss in which the company in December was found liable for a Columbus, Ohio, man's testicular cancer and ordered to pay $12.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages (In re Du Pont de Nemours and Co. C-8 Personal Injury Litigation, 13-md-2433, U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio, 2/13/17).
Thirty-eight more cancer trials were scheduled to begin starting in May. Chemours Co., spun off from DuPont last year, was supposed to bear the full cost.
“DuPont is paying a much larger share of liability than our base case,” Duffy Fischer, an analyst at Barclays PLC, said in a note Feb. 13. “Today's settlement, which only requires a $335 million cash outlay from Chemours, is much lower than we, and most of the street, believed.”
Payment Estimates
Barclays had estimated the cases would be settled for $1.3 billion. Tom Claps, an analyst at Susquehanna Financial Group, had estimated a base case settlement of $550 million with a potential high end of $734 million.
“The settlement is a net positive for Chemours, as it lifts Chemours’ PFOA overhang from these 3,550 cases,” Claps said in a note Feb. 13.
Chemours rose 15 percent to $32.35 at 9:59 a.m. in New York and reached as high as $32.55. DuPont was little changed at $77.44.
The settlement covers all pending claims, including those for which jury verdicts have been rendered, DuPont said in the statement. It discontinued PFOA operations at the West Virginia plant more than a decade ago.
The pact calls for potential payments of $25 million a year from each company during the next five years to pay for future potential PFOA-related costs.
The settlement also reduces uncertainty for the owners of Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont as they try to close their merger. Finding a home for lingering liabilities could have complicated plans for DowDuPont to split into three separate companies, Jason Minder and Christopher Perrella, analysts at Bloomberg Intelligence, said in a note Feb. 13.
A maximum potential payout of $460 million is much lower than earlier speculation that DuPont's liabilities could be $1.2 billion to $5 billion, the Bloomberg Intelligence analysts said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105619758&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105619758&jd=105619758
-
DuPont And Chemours Settle PFOA Suits
Feb 13, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Deal will provide $670 million to Ohio Valley residents who claim they were sickened by exposure to contaminated drinking waterDuPont and Chemours have agreed to pay $670 million to settle 3,550 lawsuits in Ohio and West Virginia by residents who say they were sickened by drinking water contaminated by perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) released from a former DuPont plant in Parkersburg, W. Va.
DuPont and Chemours, a DuPont spin-off that now owns the plant, will each pay $335 million of the settlement. In addition, Chemours will pay up to $25 million over each of the next five years for any future liabilities from PFOA, a processing aid used until 2015 to make fluoropolymers such as Teflon. DuPont will cover future liabilities up to an additional $25 million per year.[+]Enlarge
The settlement comes at a pivotal moment for DuPont, which is about to merge with Dow Chemical and subsequently split into three distinct companies. Fears that liabilities for the Ohio Valley PFOA cases could reach as much as $5 billion and disrupt merger plans appear to have been put aside with the $670 million settlement.
To date, seven of the 3,550 PFOA cases have gone to trial. Three of them yielded nearly $20 million in total jury awards to plaintiffs. Three cases were settled for an undisclosed amount and one was dropped. The last trial, completed in January, awarded Kenneth Vigneron, who had testicular cancer, $12.5 million. DuPont has appealed that award and the two others.
A spokesman for Keep Your Promises DuPont, a group formed by Ohio Valley residents to advocate for people exposed to PFOA, welcomed the settlement but cautioned that “no checks have been written and no compensation has been paid.” Plaintiffs must still approve the settlement.
“The agreement provides a sound resolution for area residents, Chemours, and the public,” says David C. Shelton, Chemours’ general counsel.
As a condition of its spin-off from DuPont in 2015, Chemours was responsible for all costs related to PFOA, but DuPont waived that condition to share in the cost of settlement. Analysts had worried that Chemours wouldn’t be able to shoulder the financial burden and could file for bankruptcy reorganization.
As part of the settlement, Chemours agreed not to contest its liability for PFOA costs.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/02/DuPont-Chemours-settle-PFOA-suits.html
-
Cuomo: N.Y. Will Act on Contaminant If EPA Doesn't
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
New York will move to set its own limits for a chemical contaminant found in Long Island drinking water if the EPA fails to establish a U.S. standard for it, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) said.
Cuomo called for the Environmental Protection Agency to set a “clear, enforceable” maximum contaminant limit (MCL) in public water systems for 1,4-dioxane, an industrial solvent stabilizer and byproduct in personal-care products such as shampoos and detergents that's considered a likely carcinogen.
“Make no mistake, this is a national issue that demands a consistent, national standard, but New York State is prepared to act in the absence of federal leadership,” Cuomo said in a Feb. 11 letter to the EPA issued after a Long Island drinking water quality meeting.
An EPA Region 2 spokesman told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 13 that the agency is reviewing the matter internally “and will respond to the governor's letter.” The EPA said last month that it was starting to assess the solvent as one of 10 chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act by soliciting public comment on health risks and other issues.
The chemical has been detected in more than 40 percent of the public supply wells of the Suffolk County Water Authority on the eastern end of Long Island. It's also the target of a state cleanup of a large groundwater plume under a Northrop Grumman Corp. aircraft factory site in Bethpage, N.Y.
Long Island depends on a sole-source aquifer that provides drinking water for more than 1 million people.
Cuomo, joined by state and Suffolk County officials, told the EPA that, as new findings of contamination continue to emerge, “states should no longer be left to fend for themselves.” He called for the federal government to “provide actionable guidance on best practices for removing 1,4-dioxane from drinking water, invest in cutting-edge treatment technologies and set an MCL to protect public health.”
Gather Advisory Panel?
If the EPA doesn't act “in a timely manner,” he said, the state will convene an advisory panel to set its own maximum contaminant limit.
Cuomo also called for the agency to close a loophole that exempts public water systems serving fewer than 10,000 people from testing for 1,4-dioxane and other contaminants not regulated by the EPA.
He cited steps the state has taken in recent months, including a pilot project to test a treatment technology to remove 1,4-dioxane from drinking water; a $5 million grant to the New York State Center for Clean Water Technology at Stony Brook University to advance treatment technologies; and a Department of Environmental Conservation requirement for certain Suffolk County laundromats to sample for 1,4-dioxane as a permit condition.
The state also will begin requiring all its Superfund sites to test for 1,4-dioxane and act on the results, Cuomo said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105619744&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105619744&jd=105619744
-
NGOs Urge EU Member States To Consider D4 And D5 Ban
Feb 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Limited restriction proposal covers only 'minor use', they say
A group of 31 NGOs has written to the REACH Committee urging it to consider proposing octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) for inclusion on REACH Annex XIV – the authorisation list.
The committee of member states is due to meet on 16 February to discuss a UK restriction proposal for the use of D4 and D5 in personal care products. Items affected would be those intended to be washed off the hair or body with water – if they contain more than or equal to 0.1% by weight of those substances.
While the NGOs say they support this restriction, they consider it too limited in scope and not "sufficient to alleviate the specific environmental concerns" related to the persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT)/very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties of these substances.
Environmental emissions of all other uses are not addressed in the proposal, they say, and it does not consider application in:household cleaning products; andpersonal care products with leave-on application, such as hair gels and skin creams.
Therefore, the NGOs say, in addition to the current restriction proposal, these substances should enter the REACH authorisation process, as the regulation's Article 58(3) requires that substances with PBT or vPvB properties should be prioritised for inclusion in Annex XIV.
The NGOs, including CHEM Trust, European Environmental Bureau, Center for International Environmental Law and ClientEarth, are also concerned about long-range transport in the atmosphere to remote areas, which is confirmed by monitoring data.
"The atmosphere is assumed to act as a 'safe long-term sink' for D4 and D5, from which the substances slowly disappear via atmospheric degradation and subsequent wet deposition. This needs further consideration in the future given the many uncertainties in the underlying assumptions."
Cosmetics Europe says the UK authorities performed an in-depth review considering all the existing relevant and scientific data on the environmental fate and behaviour of D4 and D5.
And. it says, the proposed risk management option "adequately addresses" cosmetic products that have the potential to release D4 and D5 into the aquatic environment. "The cosmetics industry is committed to make this restriction a success."Nanomaterials 'failure'
After a delay of five years, the European Commission will present its proposed legal act to amend theREACH annexes for substances with nanoforms at the REACH Committee meeting.
Previous discussions took place at the REACH competent authority sub-group on nanomaterials – CASG-nano – in May 2014 and March 2016. But the Commission says it will now bypass CASG-nano, NGOs say, and present its updated proposal directly to the REACH Committee without responding to the sub-group experts' comments, questions or suggestions.
The NGOs say they are "dismayed by the apparent disrespect" shown by the Commission to the members of the CASG-nano group and its mandate. And as a result of the long and "unjustified" delay, they say the proposed Annex revision will not be in place in time for the last REACH registration deadline in 2018.
"The Commission is effectively failing to solve the main problem this initiative aimed at addressing: to ensure that nanomaterials are properly addressed and safety demonstrated in REACH registration dossiers."
The NGOs also say that members of the committee should vote in favour of the Commission’s proposal to identify four phthalates (DEHP, DBP, BBP and DIBP) as SVHCs due to their endocrine disrupting properties.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53535/ngos-urge-eu-member-states-to-consider-d4-and-d5-ban
-
A Critical Review Of Flawed Claims Made In AIM Declaration On EDCs
Feb 14, 2017 | Science 2.0
By Gregory Bond
On February 9, the International Association of Mutual Benefit Societies (AIM) released a declaration on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) in which the association implores the EU Commission to take a very conservative approach to identifying and regulating chemicals. If adopted, this approach would increase costs and reduce consumer choice while providing no commensurate benefits to public health. To support its case for taking action based on the "precautionary principle", AIM makes a number of claims of health effects attributable to EDCs that are highly speculative – i.e., the evidence is hardly as convincing as AIM would have its readers believe. The Declaration goes on to market AIM’s agenda by either exaggerating or misrepresenting the state of the science on EDCs.
This document further explores those claims and presents the actual facts, citing independent, third parties as sources.
Before discussing the specific claims it is important to point out three general problems with the approach AIM has taken:
• The authors of the Declaration frequently confuse correlation with causation. This is a common misunderstanding – that if X follows or coincides with Y, that X must somehow be causing Y. Rarely is this proven to be true.
• The authors make several claims without citing scientific evidence to support them. When they do cite evidence, it is often taken from animal studies in which very high doses of a chemical were administered, or from epidemiology studies of subgroups of humans who have had unusually high exposures -- much higher than the general population.. Yet, AIM ignores the differences in exposure levels and assumes low-level, background exposures pose the same magnitude of risks. Most of the scientists who have studied this issue consider this unlikely.
• The authors lump all chemicals they suspect of being EDCs into a single category and imply that they act via a common mechanism and with equal potency to cause the same diseases and disorders. This is a faulty worldview which assumes that, if one member of the category is linked to a specific health effect, no matter how weakly, then all chemicals in that category can be expected to cause that same effect. According to the science vast differences can exist in both the types of effects and the potency with which chemicals act to produce adverse effects.Fact-checking AIM
Claim #1: "Endocrine disruptors are thought to cause two diseases responsible for 70% of infertility cases."
The Facts: “Thought to cause”…? The authors neither provide a scientific reference to substantiate this claim, nor do they make it clear which two diseases they reference, or which chemicals they allege are EDCs and are acting as causal factors. Responding to this claim requires one to make certain assumptions about what AIM actually means by it.
Infertility affects approximately 10 percent of heterosexual couples who wish to conceive, and the causes are complex. Several recent literature reviews of the evidence linking exposure to EDCs and male and female reproductive disorders have been published. None has concluded that there is sufficient evidence of a causal link, and they have instead highlighted significant research data gaps.
The majority of scientists today consider blocked fallopian tubes as likely responsible for about 25 percent of infertility cases. The most common underlying causes for the blockage are:
-Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, often caused by Sexually Transmitted Diseases
-Endometriosis
-Uterine fibroids
-Ectopic pregnancy
Poor egg health is also a major cause of infertility in women and risk factors include:
-Poor lifestyle choices; smoking, drinking alcohol, poor diet, stress, environmental pollution and sedentary lifestyle (poor circulation).
-Hormonal balance
-Genetic predisposition
-Damage to the reproductive organs
-Illness, for example cancer treated with chemotherapy
-Auto-immune disorder
-Advancing age
We presume that at least a portion of AIM's allegation – that there is a role for EDCs in infertility– is based on speculation about their possible role in causing endometriosis and fibroids in women.
A recent review by Smarr and colleagues of the evidence linking EDC and endometriosis made the following conclusions:
"Although evidence supports a possible relation between many classes of EDCs and an endometriosis diagnosis, we are unaware of any evidence supporting a risk for bisphenol A or PBDEs. This observation may reflect the lack of attention to these compounds relative to other classes of chemicals. The remaining classes of EDCs addressed in this article have some evidence linking exposure to endometriosis, although often the findings are equivocal across studies. We believe this point underscores the need for future research responsive to important methodologic considerations if we are to answer this important question."
Hardly a strong endorsement for a causal link!
Katz et al recently reviewed the human epidemiology and animal toxicology evidence linking EDCs to fibroids. The authors reported evidence from the former to be inconsistent and inconclusive. They regarded the animal toxicology evidence to be more compelling, but did not address how the high doses used in toxicology studies relate to the much lower environmental exposure levels humans typically receive.
We also presume that a portion of AIM's claim that EDCs are causing human infertility is due to their alleged effects on male reproductive health.
Infertility in men is most often caused by:
• A problem called varicocele. This happens when the veins on a man's testicle(s) are too large. This heats the testicles. The heat can affect the number or shape of the sperm.
• Other factors that cause a man to make too few sperm or none at all.
• Movement of the sperm. This may be caused by the shape of the sperm. Sometimes injuries or other damage to the reproductive system block the sperm.
• Sometimes a man is born with the problems that affect his sperm. Other times problems start later in life due to illness or injury. For example, cystic fibrosis often causes infertility in men.A recent, state-of-the-art, systematic review of the published epidemiology literature on EDCs and male reproductive diseases and disorders -- including cryptorchidism, hypospadias, lowered sperm count and testicular cancer -- "...found no strong support for a global effect as a whole or on any specific outcome."
Thus, once again, AIM has misrepresented the available scientific evidence.
Claim #2: Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are everywhere nowadays. They are probably linked to many diseases whose incidence is rising. That trend can no longer be ignored – it involves reduced fertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes, obesity and type 2 diabetes, and childhood leukemia.
The Facts: No definition is provided for EDCs in this context. A precise definition is importantbecause the majority of the substances that may interact with the endocrine system result in activity that is benign, or in some cases, even essential to our well-being. Terms becoming popular in media reports mislabel many chemicals as “endocrine disrupting chemicals” or “EDCs,” when, in fact, scientific study is still underway or does not support such labels. From a regulatory policy and scientific perspective, it is important to distinguish and focus on those substances that have a real potential to cause harm to people or the environment, versus those that merely interact with the endocrine system in a benign or beneficial way. “Everywhere nowadays” is hardly a factual statement.
AIM says EDCs are "probably linked to many diseases whose incidence is rising". Such a casual statement is highly speculative and is not supported by a robust review of the available scientific evidence. So, how might AIM have arrived at this claim?
Firstly, AIM concludes that because the increase in disease trends has occurred primarily over the last few decades, these trends cannot be entirely attributable to genetic causes. It is implied that if these trends are not the result of genetic heritability, then the only other explanation is environmental exposure to chemicals. However, environmental factors go well beyond chemicals, and cover a multitude of characteristics in human populations including: diet, exercise, lifestyle factors, infectious agents, and even drug use - factors which can be completely unrelated to environmental chemical exposures.
There are many factors that can influence the appearance of an increasing trend (either temporally or geographically) in disease incidence or prevalence. For human health considerations, these include changes in diagnostic criteria, screening, medical interventions, and treatment. Life style trends are also very important for example, delayed childbearing can greatly impact fertility and the incidence of birth defects.
No reference is provided to support the alleged link between EDCs and childhood leukemia. Such an allegation not is unsupported by the weight of scientific evidence and was given only the briefest of mention by the authors of the controversial UNEP/WHO 2012 report on EDCs which was criticized for not using state of the art review methods. The authors of the UNEP/WHO report concluded the few epidemiological studies available "...lacked any detailed exposure information, only studied small numbers, and are limited by a recall bias of the parents."
Claim#3: "Worse still, global rates of endocrine-related cancers have dramatically increased over the past decades."
The Facts: Let’s first tackle the allegation that trends for endocrine cancers are increasing, and focus on cancers of the breast, testes, prostate and ovary, which are the types of cancer most often described as "endocrine-related." First of all, reliable cancer trend data for Europe as a whole is difficult to find as there are significant variations in incidence and mortality rates across the individual countries. These reflect differences in the national health system policies (e.g. organized screening); the completeness of recording cancer incidence and death; the varying prevalence of risk factors between countries and regions; and disparities in human development and the effective delivery of cancer control measures.
With the exception of lung cancer among women and pancreatic cancer among both sexes, overall cancer mortality has been steadily declining in Europe since its peak in 1988, translating to an overall 26% fall in men and 21% in women, and the avoidance of over 325 000 deaths in 2015 compared with the peak rate. Since 2009, breast cancer rates in women fell 10.2% and prostate cancer rates among men fell 12.2%.
In the U.S., during the last decade, breast cancer incidence has been level, prostate cancer has been falling on average 5.1% each year, and ovarian cancer has been declining 1.9% each year. Although testicular cancer incidence has been rising 0.8% per year, this appears completely attributable to earlier detection as mortality rates have been stable and five year survival rates have been increasing.
Thus, contrary to the assertion in the AIM declaration, rates for endocrine related cancers are not increasing. Nor is there scientific consensus that EDCs play a causal role in the etiology of cancers of the breast, testis, prostate and ovary.
Claim #4: "Of the over 1300 chemicals known or suspected to be capable of interfering with endocrine systems, only a small fraction has been properly investigated and the great majority of the chemicals which are currently commercially used have not been tested at all for endocrine disruption effects."
The Facts: the figure of 1300 chemicals alleged by AIM as known or suspected to be capable of interfering with endocrine systems derives from work done by the NGO TEDX, whose main purpose is to advocate for changes in the way chemicals are regulated.
The TEDX list of alleged EDCs has been roundly criticized for having the following weaknesses:
• It does not employ the widely accepted WHO/IPCS definition of an EDC, but instead conflates mere endocrine activity with endocrine disruption (see earlier discussion).
• There is no consideration of the quality of the underlying research evidence.
• It does not use state of the art systematic review and/or weight of the evidence evaluation of a body of literature on a chemical.
• The reviewers tasked with evaluating the literature lack sufficient scientific qualifications to undertake a robust evaluation of the evidence.
• It employs a very low threshold for listing a chemical resulting in too many chemicals that truly are not EDCs being listed as potential EDCs (a single, un-replicated study is deemed sufficient to identify a substance as an EDC).
• Once a chemical is listed, no amount of new contradictory evidence is sufficient to de-list it, even if that new evidence is of superior quality and reliability to the original evidence.
• It lacks a multi-stakeholder process for nominating chemicals or appealing listed chemicals, i.e., there is no peer review of the TEDX classification of chemicals.
• It does not take into account endocrine potency or real world exposures, and thus ignores the real potential for health risks.Given the importance of open and transparent scientific debate, I would welcome the authors of the AIM declaration on EDCs to respond to the concerns I have shared here, or acknowledging the errors I have cited, significantly revise their declaration to reflect the actual state of the science on EDCs.
http://www.science20.com/gregory_bond/a_critical_review_of_flawed_claims_made_in_aim_declaration_on_edcs-224914
-
Canada Issues Maximum Levels for Plasticizer, Other Toxics
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Menyasz
Canada proposed national environmental quality guidelines for controversial plastic component bisphenol A, industrial chemical hexavalent chromium, textile coating perfluorooctane sulfonate and cosmetic component triclosan.
The proposed guidelines, announced Feb. 11, establish targets for acceptable concentrations of the chemicals in the environment identified as toxic under the Chemicals Management Plan, providing a basis to evaluate monitoring results to determine whether regulatory controls are effective.
Based on the nationwide standards developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the guidelines will be used to support federal actions to regulate dangerous compounds while the federal-provincial agency is developing or updating standards, the government said Feb. 11. Fewer than a dozen other substances are managed under such guidelines in Canada.
BPA
The draft guideline for bisphenol A (BPA) proposes maximum limits of 1.4 milligrams per liter in water, 9.9 micrograms per kilogram in sediment, 4.2 micrograms per kilogram in typical mammalian diets in the wild and 1,100 micrograms per kilogram in a typical bird diet in the wild.
BPA, considered a significant risk to human fertility by the European Chemicals Bureau, is used in Canada in resins, curing agents, hardeners, paperboard packaging and metal cans, as well as industrial coatings, plasticizers, adhesives, chain oil, brake fluid, heat transfer fluid and lubricants. It also is used to manufacture compact discs, food and beverage containers, water pipes, medical devices, and film, electrical, electronics and automotive products.
Government controls on BPA use include a pollution prevention planning notice for industrial and commercial users and an environmental performance agreement with paper recycling mills, each of which set a target of 1.75 micrograms per liter of BPA in effluents.
Hexavalent Chromium, PFOS
The draft guideline for hexavalent chromium proposes a maximum limit of 5 milligrams per liter in freshwater. The carcinogenic substance is used to produce stainless steels, alloy cast irons and nonferrous alloys, as an anti-corrosive agent in cooling towers, oil drilling and power plants and in pigments in the chemical sector.
The draft guideline for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) proposes maximum limits of 6.8 micrograms per liter in surface water, 8.3 micrograms per kilogram in fish tissues, 4.6 micrograms per kilogram in mammalian wildlife diets, 8.2 micrograms per kilogram in bird wildlife diets and 1.9 micrograms per gram in bird eggs.
The PFOS guideline also proposes a range of acceptable concentrations in agricultural, residential, parkland, commercial and industrial soils, as well as in groundwater.
PFOS, which is covered by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and was identified by Canada in 2009 for virtual elimination from the environment, has been used as a surface treatment for clothing and home furnishings, paper protection and performance chemicals.
Canadian regulations adopted in 2008 prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or use of PFOS or products containing it, with limited exceptions for aviation hydraulic fluids and photographic chemicals.
Triclosan
The triclosan guideline proposes a maximum concentration of 0.38 micrograms per liter in fresh water.
Triclosan, identified as posing a risk to aquatic environments, is used in cosmetics such as skin cleansers, moisturizers, face and eye makeup, deodorants, fragrances, tanning products, shaving preparations, bath products, exfoliants, styling products and shampoos, as well as drugs and natural health products.
The draft guidelines are open to public comment through April 12.
Canada has previously issued national environmental quality guidelines only for a select group of substances including: alcohol ethoxylates, chlorinated alkanes, cobalt, hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), hydrazine, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and vanadium.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105619743&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105619743&jd=105619743
-
Canada Releases Guidelines On BPA, Chromium VI, PFOS, Triclosan
Feb 14, 2017 | Chemcial Watch
Canada has released Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines (FEQGs) for bisphenol-A, hexavalent chromium, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and triclosan. The guidelines, which are based on the toxicity or hazards of the substances covered, are intended to provide pollution prevention targets by outlining levels of chemicals that will protect environmental quality.
FEQGs are based on the toxicity or hazards of the substances covered. They can serve three functions:
· to aid in pollution prevention by providing targets for acceptable environmental quality;
· to assist in evaluating the significance of concentrations of chemical substances found in the environment, as identified in biomonitoring; and
· to serve as performance measures to determine the success of risk management activities.
The guidelines were developed as part of Canada's risk assessment and management of priority chemicals strategy identified in its Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) and other federal initiatives. They are voluntary unless incorporated into other regulations.
Comments will be accepted for the 60 days following the notice's 11 February publication.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53526/canada-releases-guidelines-on-bpa-chromium-vi-pfos-triclosan
-
Trump, Trudeau Talk Energy Collaboration, Keystone XL
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today pledged the United States and Canada will collaborate "on energy infrastructure projects that will create jobs while respecting the environment."
After his first face-to-face Oval Office meeting with President Trump, Trudeau hailed the close partnership between the two nations as an engine for job creation and affirmed Canada's commitment to building the Keystone XL pipeline.
"And as we know, investing in infrastructure is a great way to create the kind of economic growth that our countries so desperately need," Trudeau said during a joint news conference with Trump at the White House.
The fact that climate change was left out of the public dialogue enraged activists who plan to rally outside the Canadian Embassy later this afternoon to resist Trudeau's partnership with Trump.
Trudeau previously joined with the Obama administration in efforts to tackle climate change. Along with Mexico, the three nations announced a plan to draw 50 percent of North America's power from carbon-free sources by 2025 (Greenwire, June 29, 2016).
Advocates had urged the Liberal Party leader to probe Trump for assurances the administration will remain engaged in bilateral cooperation on efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and boost clean energy, including upholding the Paris climate agreement (Greenwire, Feb. 13).
A joint statement from Trump and Trudeau, issued ahead of the press briefing, emphasized the close relationship between the two countries and ongoing collaboration, including on energy and environment issues. Climate was not mentioned.
"We have built the world's largest energy trading relationship. We share the goals of energy security, a robust and secure energy grid, and a strong and resilient energy infrastructure that contributes to energy efficiency in both countries," they stated. "We collaborate closely on energy innovation, particularly in the clean energy sphere."
It also noted future efforts on environmental cooperation, "particularly along our border and at the Great Lakes," and continued work "to enhance the quality of our air and water."
The pair sat down this morning for a roundtable in the Cabinet Room with women executives, including Dawn Farrell, CEO of TransAlta Corp., an electricity power generator and wholesale marketing company headquartered in Calgary, Alberta.
Environmentalists called Trudeau out for his support of pipeline projects they argue would be detrimental for communities on both sides of the border and the climate.
"Trudeau needs to understand that Trump is no friend to Canadians, and is a disaster for our climate," said Adam Scott, senior campaigner at Oil Change International.
Scott added, "We know that Justin and Barack had a budding bromance, which came to an abrupt end when Trump took office. Like any friend would say to someone getting over a breakup, our message to Justin is: Don't let Donald be your rebound. It won't end well. Donald is no Barack."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/02/13/stories/1060049977
-
Fuel Choice Aim of New Energy Policy, Committee Chair Says
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Environmental laws and regulations will be reviewed with an eye to giving consumers and electric utilities more choice on the fuels they use, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee told utility regulators and executives.
The summary remarks Feb. 13 by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) about the agenda for his committee sounded like warnings of potential trouble for the supporters of renewable fuel mandates for transportation, subsidies for wind and solar energy and President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan.
The committee plans to “pursue targeted reforms to the Clean Air Act, including a broader long-term review that examines transportation fuels, efficiency standards and the renewable fuels mandate,” Walden told a meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
That could worry ethanol manufacturers and the state governments, farm groups and members of Congress who support the renewable fuels mandate, and the environmental groups and lawmakers who support energy efficiency standards.
Walden said the idea is to ensure consumers get affordable, reliable, safe and secure energy supplies.
Targeting Clean Power Plan
The committee chairman's ideas about market competition and fuel choices encompassed utility choices along with consumer options.
“We want to make certain that the proper roles are in place between the federal government and the states for dealing with the important issue of utility resource planning,” Walden said. “This includes working with the new administration to reverse recent efforts by the EPA to erode the states’ authority through the Clean Power Plan.”
Critics charge the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan was written with standards designed to phase out the use of coal as a fuel in power plants.
One of the things that utilities with nuclear power plants need is a long-term storage site for waste. Walden was blunt about wanting to revive the plan for the Yucca Mountain waste repository in Nevada, which lawmakers from that state adamantly oppose.
“The Yucca Mountain project must remain central to our nuclear waste management system,” Walden said. “The committee will take a comprehensive approach to this effort, which could—could—include authorizing a centralized interim storage facility.”
Set Good Goals, Executive Says
Chris Crane, president and chief executive officer of Exelon Corp., expressed some hopes similar to those of Walden as he spoke to the utility commissioners’ conference. Federal and state governments should set goals, not play favorites in terms of energy sources, Crane said.
Crane cited the example of federal regulations to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury. The goals were set and the market did the rest, and it was a success, Crane said.
Exelon operates the nation's largest fleet of nuclear power plants. Several nuclear plant operators have been losing money in competitive wholesale power markets in recent years while the federal government and state governments promote the addition of wind and solar energy to the markets.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105619754&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105619754&jd=105619754
-
Group Says House Republicans Have Several Obama-Era Energy Rules in the Crosshairs
Feb 13, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
A group of Republican House lawmakers from Western states said they plan to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) this week to roll back one -- and possibly more -- rules enacted during the Obama administration, and that a total of 13 regulations should be targeted.
Meanwhile, the Senate appears poised to begin taking up three resolutions that the House passed earlier this month, including one to scrap the venting and flaring rule proposed by the Department of Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management.
According to the Congressional Western Caucus (CWC), Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) will introduce a CRA bill this week to invalidate a final rule introduced last summer by DOI's Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR).
"The ONRR's new rule ostensibly sought to simplify and clarify the process for valuing oil, gas, and coal production on federal and Indian lands in order to provide 'certainty' to industry and to ensure all royalties due to ONRR have been paid," the CWC said on its website. "In fact, it did the opposite. The rule didn't simplify the process, disallows common cost deductions, and added burdensome and redundant reporting requirements."
The CWC said HJ Res. 69, a joint resolution introduced last Tuesday by Rep. Don Young (R-AK), is scheduled to be on the House floor this week. The measure calls for invalidating a final rule created by the DOI and its Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for restricting hunting and wildlife practices on federal lands in Alaska.
Another eight CRA resolutions are waiting in the wings, according to the CWC. One bill, HJ Res. 70, calls for disapproving a rule unveiled last summer by the DOI's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) governing oil and gas exploration in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf.
According to the CWC, the DOI conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the BSEE/BOEM rule and determined that it would cost the oil and gas industry $2.1 billion to comply. The rule would, the group said, add "exorbitant costs to the already billions of dollars needed to acquire leases and responsibly develop in the Arctic."
HJ Res. 70 was introduced Thursday by Young.
The other seven CRA resolutions are: HJ Res. 59 -- introduced on Feb. 1 by Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), the resolution calls for disapproving a rule published last month by the Environmental Protection Agency on the safety of facilities that use and distribute hazardous chemicals; HJ Res. 60 -- introduced on Feb. 2 by Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) to invalidate a compensatory mitigation policy under the Endangered Species Act; HJ Res. 55 -- to scrap a final rule to amend the ONRR's civil penalty regulations -- introduced on Jan. 31 by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT); HJ Res. 68 -- introduced last Tuesday by Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) to disapprove of a BLM rule over standards of measurement and reporting for natural gas removed or sold from federal and Indian lands; HJ Res. 56 -- to eliminate a BLM rule over onshore oil and gas operations, federal and Indian oil and gas leases, and site security -- introduced on Feb. 1 by Rep. Stevan Pearce (R-NM); HJ Res. 45 -- introduced on Jan. 30 by Cramer, to disapprove of a FWS rule relating to management of non-federal oil and gas rights; and HJ Res. 46 -- to scrap a final rule from the National Park Service over non-federal oil and gas rights -- introduced on Jan. 30 by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ).
So far, House Republicans have successfully voted to invoke the CRA to invalidate three Obama-era rules.
The House first used the CRA to target the Stream Protection Rule (SPR), which was promulgated by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, another DOI agency. On Feb. 1, the House voted 228-194 to pass HJ Res 38, a resolution introduced by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) to nullify the SPR. The resolution passed the Senate on a 54-45 vote on Feb. 2, and was presented to President Trump four days later.
On Feb. 3, the House invoked the CRA for a second time and passed HJ Res. 36. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), calls for congressional disapproval of the BLM's Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation Rule -- also known as the BLM's venting and flaring rule. It passed the House on a 221-191 vote and was received by the Senate on Feb. 3.
Last Tuesday, House lawmakers passed HJ Res. 44 on a 234-186 vote. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), calls for disapproving a BLM rule to revise the resource management planning process, also known as Planning Rule 2.0. The bill was received by the Senate last Wednesday.
"Any changes to the way the BLM manages federal land would have sweeping impacts in Colorado and the West, so it was deeply troubling that the BLM disregarded calls from western counties, farm bureaus, and Congress requesting that the bureau provide an opportunity for meaningful public involvement during the development of its Planning 2.0 rule," Tipton said in a statement.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109407-group-says-house-republicans-have-several-obama-era-energy-rules-in-the-crosshairs
-
Veresen Revives Jordan Cove LNG Export Project at FERC
Feb 13, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Left in the ditch last year by FERC, Calgary, Alberta-based Veresen Inc. on Friday revived its efforts to build the first U.S. West Coast liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project along the south-central coast of Oregon. Despite past setbacks, the sponsors remain confident of getting a final go-ahead on the project.
Jordan Cove LNG's pre-filing application was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, reopening the way for the $7.5 billion-plus project to work its way through the federal permitting process, something its backers thought they had accomplished until FERC rejected their application last March. FERC nixed a rehearing request last fall.
Still included in the more than decade-old plans is the sometimes problematic 232-mile Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline that would run northwest from interstate pipeline connections at Malin, OR, to the Jordan Cove LNG facility in the deep water international port at Coos Bay, OR.
"We have invested more than a decade in optimizing the engineering design and minimizing our environmental footprint through scientific analysis and community feedback," said Betsy Spomer, CEO of Jordan Cove LNG. "We are confident Jordan Cove will receive regulatory approval and contribute significant direct and indirect benefits to southern Oregon."
Spomer and her colleagues at Veresen continue to stress the project's scope and potential economic impact. They reiterate that it would be the largest single private investment in the history of southern Oregon, generating hundreds of million of dollars in payments and tax revenue for Coos, Douglas, Jackson and Klamath counties throughout construction and operation.
"In addition, the Jordan Cove project will create thousands of family-sustaining local construction jobs and create hundreds of high paying permanent positions," a project spokesperson said.
The natural gas pipeline will provide new gas supply access for southern Oregon residents who currently lack access to a natural gas network that serves more populated parts of the state. These communities currently rely on burning wood and more expensive forms of energy, the spokesperson said.
Jordan Cove indicated it is working with FERC to schedule open houses, which will provide the public the opportunity to learn more about the project, ask questions, and meet Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector personnel.
The project has received strong support from Colorado natural gas producers and prospective Asian energy buyers who last year urged FERC to grant the rehearing. Japan's electric utility joint venture and a major national energy buying force, JERA Co. Inc., and the West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association (WSCOGA) urged FERC last October to move the stalled project forward, only to get a second rejection.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has shied away from taking a position on the project, which was originally proposed 12 years ago as an LNG import project.
WSCOGA Executive Director David Ludlam said the denial last year was politically motivated and "ignored" the project's economic benefits to other western states, such as Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. This time around, a coalition of gas producing states will be more active at FERC in support of Jordan Cove, Ludlam said.
"We'll work with our U.S. senators to ensure the streamlined and technologically enhanced project application gets an approval quickly," he said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109398-veresen-revives-jordan-cove-lng-export-project-at-ferc
-
Many US Cracker Projects Moving Along As Expected, Earnings Calls Show
Feb 14, 2017 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
Total aims to decide this year whether to move forward with a second steam cracker at its refining and petrochemical complex in Port Arthur, Texas, executives said last week. The French oil major launched front-end engineering and design (FEED) for the 1 million mt/year ethane side cracker in September 2015, with plans to make the final investment decision (FID) by the end of 2016.
Chief Executive Patrick Pouyanne said during the company’s quarterly earnings call that two years of slow project sanctions amid low oil prices globally has left suppliers and contractors “desperately hungry for projects,” and the company expects to move ahead on nearly a dozen of them, mostly upstream. The cracker is the only downstream project in the mix. Chicago Bridge & Iron has handled the FEED contract for the cracker.
Dow Chemical’s new 1.5 million mt/year Texas cracker was 95% complete in January with more than half of inside unit operations undergoing commissioning and startup, Jim Fitterling, Dow’s president and chief operating officer, told analysts in late January. The plant and two derivative polyethylene plants remain on target to start up in mid-2017.
An additional 250,000 mt/year of capacity at a Dow cracker in Plaquemine, Louisiana, started up in late 2016 after a turnaround, pushing overall capacity to about 1 million mt/year. The facility also can now crack more than 80% ethane while maintaining flexibility to switch to propane from ethane, he said.
LyondellBasell last month announced completion of its 363,000 mt/year ethylene expansion in Corpus Christi, Texas, which will boost output by 50% to 1.13 million mt/year.
Royal Dutch Shell’s 1.5 million mt/year ethane cracker complex in southwest Pennsylvania will mark the company’s re-entry into polyolefins, Chief Executive Ben van Beurden told analysts this month. Shell exited polyolefins “in a very difficult, convoluted way” through joint ventures in the past, but the new project will sustain Shell’s position as a polyolefins player, he said.
Shell and BASF formed their Basell Polyolefins joint venture in 2000, but Access Industries bought it in 2005 and merged with Lyondell in 2007 to form LyondellBasell.
Shell is seeking necessary permits for the Pennsylvania project and expect to begin construction in earnest by the end of the year or early 2018, van Beurden said.
“We haven’t announced exactly when it will start up but I expect that to be not anymore this decade, because it is a very large greenfield project,” he said. “We have gone quite a long way already in terms of getting the site ready.”
ExxonMobil’s 1.5 mt/year ethane cracker in Baytown, Texas, and two polyethylene plants in nearby Mont Belvieu remain on track to begin phased startups in the second half of 2017, according to Jeff Woodbury, vice president of investor relations. Those projects and a 650,000 mt/year polyethylene expansion at the company’s complex in Beaumont will increase Exxon’s US PE production by 40%, or nearly 2 million mt/year, making Texas its largest PE supply point.
Exxon and Saudi Basic Industries Corp (SABIC) are still considering four potential sites for a new joint-venture petrochemical complex in Texas and Louisiana, but their preferred site is near Portland, Texas, across the Nueces Bay from Corpus Christi in San Patricio County. SABIC spokeswoman Susan LeBourdais said the companies will not choose a site until “more is known” about the companies’ requests for tax abatements from the county and local school districts.
The San Patricio County site is a few miles from Occidental Petroleum Corp.’s joint-venture 550,000 mt/year cracker in Ingleside, Texas. Occidental Chief Executive Vicki Hollub told analysts last week that the plant, a joint venture with MexiChem, is undergoing commissioning with startup on target for the first quarter this year.
Enterprise Products Partners expects to load more than 5 million barrels of polymer-grade propylene cargoes from the Houston Ship Channel this year, double the amount the company shipped out in 2016. Chief Executive Jim Teague told analysts the company sold its first PGP export cargo to Asia, and at 160,000 barrels, it was more than double the typical size of a propylene cargo.
US International Trade Commission data show the US exported 392,811 mt of propylene through November of 2016, up 43% from all of 2015.
Enterprise also announced plans to build a 425,000 mt/year isobutene dehydrogenation unit in Mont Belvieu to start up in the fourth quarter of 2019. Isobutylene produced by the plant will feed Enterprise’s underused capacity to manufacture lubricants, rubber products, MTBE for export and alkylate. Refiners will seek more octane-boosting blendstocks like alkylate in the coming years as fuel economy standards increase and auto manufacturers produce more high-compression vehicles.
Chevron Phillips Chemical’s two new polyethylene units in Sweeny, Texas, are in commissioning phases while the new 1.5 million mt/year ethane cracker nearly 90 miles away in Baytown, Texas, is on track for completion during the fourth quarter, Phillips 66 President Tim Taylor told analysts this month. He said the PE unit startups in the summer will bring partial value uplift to the company, but full value uplift will come in 2018 “as the cracker really comes online at that point” after startup costs are absorbed in the fourth quarter this year.
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/02/14/us-cracker-projects-earnings/
-
Sierra Club Cites Dire EPA Warning in Fracking Suit
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
The Sierra Club has another tool in its lawsuit against Chesapeake Operating LLC and other companies over fracking-induced earthquakes that have rocked Oklahoma since 2009.
It comes in the form of an EPA letter to Oklahoma officials urging them to step up efforts to minimize the temblors.
The concerns raised by the EPA, particularly the risk that another strong temblor could cause a “catastrophic” rupture of a huge oil storage facility in Cushing, Okla., ups the ante in the closely watched fracking litigation.
The just-released letter, the environmental group says, bolsters arguments that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma should order steps to reduce environmental risks posed by disposal wells.
The Sierra Club's arguments came in a Feb. 10 motion to supplement the court record (Sierra Club v. Chesapeake Operating LLC, W.D. Okla., No. 16-cv-00134, motion to supplement record 2/10/17).
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission should “consider additional actions to protect public safety, health and the environment,” and to prevent possible contamination of underground drinking water sources the November 2016 letter by Regional Administrator Ron Curry, of the EPA's Dallas office, states.
That letter strengthens the case for court monitoring because it suggests that state efforts aren't enough to address the frequent earthquakes in the state, the Sierra Club says.
“The EPA told the OCC you aren't doing enough to stop the substantial threat of even bigger earthquakes, and the OCC made a vanilla response about needing more further study,” Scott Poynter, of the Poynter Law Group in Little Rock, Ark., told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 13 in an e-mail. Poynter is co-counsel for the Sierra Club in the litigation.
Oil Distribution Hub Seen at Risk
The EPA missive also notes that a breach of the Cushing facility, a major hub for oil distribution, “could be catastrophic for both the environment and the national energy system given the more than 80 million barrels of crude oil storage capacity.”
Although the number of quakes decreased in 2016, there was a “dramatic increase in energy” for the quakes that do occur, the EPA noted. “More needs to be done to address this issue,” it said.
Tim Rhodes, OCC's director of administration, replied to Curry in a Nov. 29 letter. A task force had been assembled to “look into alternative methods for handling produced water from oil and gas wells,” he wrote. But OCC's regulatory authority has limits, and doesn't extend to certain classes of wells “under sole EPA jurisdiction,” he said.
OCC's “limited permitting authority” for some wells shows it doesn't have comprehensive authority over the environmental issues raised in the suit, buttressing the case for federal court oversight, the Sierra Club said.
It isn't clear whether any of the companies in the litigation will file a response, and it is unlikely the court would schedule a hearing on the Sierra Club's motion, Poynter said.
Counsel for Chesapeake referred a request for comment to the company, but a Feb. 13 inquiry to Chesapeake didn't receive a response. Requests for comments sent to counsel for Devon Energy Production Co., New Dominion LLC and Sandridge Exploration and Production LLC Feb. 13 also didn't receive a reply.
The Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy organization based in Oakland, Calif., filed the citizen suit in 2016 under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
RCRA, a federal law governing solid waste disposal, includes a provision permitting citizen suits over “imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.”
The suit asks the court to, among other actions, order substantial reductions in the amount of wastewater pumped into underground wells in the state to avoid catastrophic earthquakes caused by waste water wells.
The wells, drilled to deposit fluids produced in oil and gas extraction operations, have been linked by the U.S. Geological Survey to some of the state's earthquakes. There are more than 3,000 such wells in Oklahoma.
The companies asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to dismiss the case nine months ago. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission should be allowed to exercise its regulatory authority over the state's disposal wells, they argue.
Since then, a magnitude 5.8 earthquake struck the Pawnee, Okla. area last Labor Day weekend, and two more strong quakes struck Oklahoma in November 2016.
The law offices of the Poynter Law Group represent the Sierra Club.
Beveridge & Diamond, as well as McAfee & Taft and Ryan Whaley Coldiron represent Chesapeake Operating.
McGuire Woods, as well as Crowe & Dunlevy represent Devon Energy Group.
Gum Puckett & MacKechnie represent New Dominion.
Covington & Burling, as well as Conner & Winters represent Sandridge.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105619753&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105619753&jd=105619753
-
Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Avoids Another Delay in Court Ruling
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Harris
Energy Transfer Partners LP's Dakota Access pipeline avoided yet another delay after a judge rejected a Native American tribe's request for a temporary halt over claims the project desecrates hallowed religious grounds.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's decision allows construction of the last leg of a 1,172-mile (1,886-kilometer) crude oil conduit to continue for now. He left open the door to a future restraining order after scheduling arguments for Feb. 27 on the tribe's request.
Boasberg's ruling comes just days after the U.S. Army gave its final approval and pipeline-building consortium Dakota Access LLC resumed work on the controversial $3.8 billion project, which has sparked months-long protests by tribes and environmentalists. Energy Transfer shares jumped 1.1 percent to $38.50 on the ruling.
Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer, declined to comment on the decision.
The Cheyenne River Sioux tribe had asked Boasberg on Feb. 9 to block the final link and force the Army to retract the easement it granted. The government's approval, the tribe said, would enable Dakota Access to tunnel under Lake Oahe in North Dakota. Boasberg's decision covered only the temporary restraining order and not the group's request to force an easement retraction.
President Donald Trump, in a Jan. 24 memorandum, had ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expedite a review of the on-again, off-again project. The Obama administration had paused it for further environmental review after Boasberg rejected an earlier request by another Sioux tribe to block it on similar grounds.
The Army's sudden easement approval came while the consortium's request for a court order compelling such an action was still pending. While Trump had said he would negotiate terms of the pipeline, the green-light came with no strings attached.
“The Lakota people believe that the mere existence of a crude oil pipeline under the waters of Lake Oahe will desecrate those waters and render them unsuitable for use in their religious sacraments,” the Cheyenne tribe said in its filing.
“The pipeline correlates with a terrible Black Snake prophesied to come into the Lakota homeland and cause destruction,” argued the tribe, which filed its lawsuit under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which sued in July, told Boasberg that it's joining in Cheyenne River's request.
Three Weeks
Attorneys for the pipeline consortium said in a Feb. 13 filing that the tribes had waited too long to raise a claim they could have asserted months ago. The pipeline posed no imminent threat, from the flow of oil or possible breach, that warranted an immediate order blocking construction, according to the filing.
The lawyers previously told the court that it would take about 83 days after construction resumed for the pipeline to be in service. That timeline could now be as soon as three weeks before oil starts flowing, Dakota Access lawyer David Debold told the judge Feb. 13.
“Cheyenne River is heaving a last-ditch desperation throw to the end-zone,” the consortium's lawyers said in court papers. Carrying the football analogy forward, they added, “These long pass attempts, rarely successful, are usually made as time is running out,” and the tribe is out of time.
Another Sioux band, the Ogalala, filed a separate lawsuit on Feb. 11 accusing the U.S. of failing to analyze the down-stream impact of a possible pipeline rupture. No hearings have been scheduled in that case.
The case is Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 16-cv-1534, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
—With assistance from Meenal Vamburkar
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105619759&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105619759&jd=105619759
-
California Dam Crisis Leaves Power Market Short of Hydroelectric
Feb 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ryan Collins
A crippled spillway is threatening to submerge a region of Northern California after a deluge forced almost 200,000 people to evacuate their homes. And the state's power market may not emerge unscathed.
As state officials rush to repair a hole found in the emergency spillway for the Oroville dam—just 150 miles (241 kilometers) north of San Francisco—an 819-megawatt hydropower plant, capable of supplying about 600,000 homes with electricity, remains shut there. That's the equivalent of two natural gas-fired power plants that will need to kick into gear elsewhere in California to make up for the lost supplies, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
The potential boost in gas demand comes as supplies of the power-plant fuel remain constrained in California. The Aliso Canyon gas storage field outside of Los Angeles has been shut after a massive leak was discovered in late 2015, and operators are awaiting for permission from regulators to reopen the facility.
“Gas generation probably needs to pick up the slack from what you lose at the Oroville Dam,” said Het Shah, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “You need two gas facilities to fill in that gap.”
About a dozen power plants, including four solar facilities, could be affected by a major flood at Oroville, according to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Two 230-kilovolt power lines in the area have been deenergized, said Steven Greenlee, a spokesman at California ISO, which oversees the region's power grid. No other problems have occurred on the grid in relation to the dam, Greenlee said.
“Just like with any transmission outage, we re-optimized the grid and found alternative routes,” he said.
The Oroville plant closure comes at a time of low seasonal demand for natural gas in California. Temperatures in the state have climbed after a cold spell earlier in the winter, reducing gas consumption for heating.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105619747&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105619747&jd=105619747
-
Congress: A Noisy Hall With A Nightly Brawl
Feb 13, 2017 | RailwayAge
By Frank N. Wilner
With early indications that the Trump Administration is a political version of the Jerry Springer show, expect an atypical legislative session, with the Republican majority sometimes in open conflict with a Republican President who is unpredictable, impetuous, lacking previous government experience and quick to take vengeance on those critical of him.
Contrary to Republican orthodoxy of less federal spending, free trade and limited government, President Donald J. Trump advocates a budget-busting infrastructure program, imposition of trade barriers and Presidential intrusion into corporate decision-making from a bully pulpit and Twitter account. Brewing on Capitol Hill is a noisy hall with a nightly brawl. On some issues, railroads are in harm’s way, but legislative gains also are probable.
As for the railroads’ two principal regulatory agencies—the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—both soon will be under new Republican control to decide issues of significant dollar importance to railroads.
Favorable to railroads is that the new Congress and its leadership are mostly unchanged. Recall that the 2015 Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act, largely a creation of then and current Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), preserved the partial economic deregulation delivered in the 1980 Staggers Rail Act, and was markedly less draconian than what his predecessor, Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) unsuccessfully advocated when Democrats controlled the Senate.
As for Amtrak subsidies, it’s a hard sell no matter which political party is in control. Indeed, Democrat Bill Clinton zeroed-out Amtrak in one White House budget proposal.
Here is a summary of other issues important to railroads:
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT: An early congressional fracas will involve Trump’s promise of $1.3 trillion in infrastructure spending over 10 years, but whose revenue source is opaque. Railroads support the plan. Part of the bounty will renew and improve roads, bridges, tunnels, transit and Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, delivering to freight railroads meaningful boosts in construction materials haulage, and improving highway links between intermodal terminals and ports.
Trump envisions public-private partnerships encouraged by $137 billion in tax credits. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao calls it “a heavy lift,” as even minor federal financial participation may require deficit spending that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Chao’s husband, said he will not support. House Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I) Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) says realistic payment details must come first.
A Democratic alternative to Trump’s plan, which relies mostly on deficit spending, surely is doomed.
The problem with increased federal spending unsupported by budget-balancing increased taxes following years of deficit spending is that it will fuel inflation and lead to higher interest rates that then discourage job-creating capital spending.
Increasingly disturbing on Capitol Hill is rising federal debt. It soared from $8 trillion in 2006 to more than $19 trillion today, a sum that is 104% of gross domestic product—up from 65% a decade ago, and well above Germany’s 71% and the UK’s 89%. Even absent new spending on infrastructure, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates federal debt will climb another $9 trillion by 2027.
Yet budget-balancing tax hikes to accompany new spending programs will be challenging in the extreme. Most Republican lawmakers have signed a blood-oath pledge to oppose every tax increase proposal, notwithstanding that tax aversion is an indulgence, and infrastructure investment a long-term societal benefit paying substantial downstream economic dividends.
TRADE BARRIERS: Railroads stand to suffer from abandonment of a Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership, a gutting of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and Trump’s desire to boost tariffs on imports from China and Mexico that, in fact, will be paid by U.S. consumers.
In his inaugural address, Trump said, “Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.” Yet history records that the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff hikes (lower than sought by Trump) spawned retaliatory moves, causing U.S. exports overall to decline by 61% (82% to Europe), contributed to the Great Depression and fueled political extremism worldwide that sowed seeds of World War II.
Construction of trade walls rather than bridges invites trade wars that risk forcing consumer prices higher, can shrink intermodal container traffic, threaten export coal and grain traffic, further eviscerate rail employment that will test the financial integrity of the Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment systems, and likely upset just-in-time global supply chains.
On tariff hikes, not all Republicans are fellow travelers. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said, “More trade means more people from every country, buying, selling, investing, creating—all working together to build a better world.” FedEx CEO Fred Smith, who could equally be speaking for rival UPS, said, “The United States being cut off from trade would be like trying to breathe without oxygen.”
In fact, most U.S. job losses are not the result of unbalanced trade, nor is America, as Trump asserts, a land of “rusted-out factories.” America now manufactures 85% more goods than in 1987, but with 66% of the workers, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Most domestic employment losses are traceable to technological advances. Railroads, for example, have shed almost 700,000 jobs since 1960 even as ton-miles hauled doubled, owing to mechanization, automation and cybernation.
Related to free trade issues is concern over Chinese investment in U.S. rail suppliers, especially after the Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) rejected complaints related to Chinese financial control of Wilmington, Del.- based Vertex Railcar, which in 2016 began competing with six other manufacturers.
Initiating that investigation was a bipartisan group of 100 House and Senate members anxious that China Railroad Rolling Stock Corp.—the world’s largest and four-times the size of the U.S. sector—may transfer Vertex freight car production to China, using subsidized Chinese steel and low-wage labor to undercut prices of competitors. Expect a legislative effort to make CFIUS guidelines comport more with Trump’s “America First” mantra.
TAX POLICY is another thorny issue affecting railroads, which support Republican efforts to reduce the current 35% statutory corporate tax rate. Such is expected to induce multi-national U.S.-based industries, now parking profits abroad in lower-tax havens, to repatriate them for job-creating domestic investment, which could generate more rail traffic. Muddying that objective are antitrade policies. As Mexico’s peso weakens against the dollar, the lure to invest in Mexico, driven by Adam Smith’s invisible hand more than Trump’s clenched fist, grows even stronger.
Railroads, as most American corporations, don’t pay the statutory 35% tax rate frequently cited as infamously high compared to other developed nations. Owing to deductions and deferments, the average cash-taxes-paid rate for CSX, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific over the past three years is around 26%. As for short lines, their special-interest 50% investment tax credit could disappear under tax reform, perhaps making their effective tax rate higher. Short line holding company Genesee & Wyoming, for example, has a three-year average cash-taxes-paid rate of just 9.7%.
FELA: Since 1907, railroads have been subject to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), a fault-based injured-worker compensation scheme encouraging rail workers to sue employers for damages.
Unlike no-fault state/federal worker compensation plans covering non-rail workers, FELA is a cesspool of favorable jury shopping and high-stakes courting of union bosses for client referrals, the latter of which has landed three rail labor presidents in federal prison. The Republican majority could fold FELA into state/federal worker compensation plans.
COMPETITIVE EQUITY: Big trucks pummel pavements and weaken highway bridges, shortening the lives of each while avoiding full payment for the damage caused. Skilful railroad lobbying could correct highway homicide by conditioning an infrastructure spending bill on revised user charges matching the cost of heavy-truck bridge and pavement damage.
Republican opposition to higher taxes stands in the way, but the no-higher-tax pledge may be forced into hibernation if long-overdue highway revitalization is to occur. The per-gallon federal fuels tax has not budged since 1993, creating a $16 billion annual gap in the Highway Trust Fund between user charge revenue and expenses as inflation eroded the purchasing power of the outdated fuels tax by 65% and vehicles became more fuel efficient.
Competitive equity means a better method of matching big-truck user charges with cost responsibility; and legislatively freezing current truck size and weight limits until such equity is achieved.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA): Freight railroads seek two crucial outcomes under a Republican-controlled FRA.
One is to end efforts begun by a former administrator to require a minimum of two-person train crews without any evidence they are safer than engineer-only. While Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), a former chairman of the House T&I Committee (2001-2007), has introduced legislation requiring two-person train crews, it is seen as a favor in exchange for long-standing political support by rail labor, and is unlikely to gain committee approval.
The second is to reexamine a 2015 rule requiring installation of electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes on trains moving high-hazard flammable liquids. The FRA computed a negative 9-to-1 benefit/cost ratio for ECP brakes, and railroads fret that the $2 billion cost unnecessarily diverts investment from more effective safety efforts, as there have been no brake-related accidents involving crude oil or ethanol trains.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD (STB): Most crucial to railroads is preserving Stand-Alone Cost (SAC) as the STB’s principal test for determining whether a freight rate is reasonable; and averting a ruling that railroads provide competitive switching, under limited conditions, at certain sole-served facilities to allow a shipper to use a competing railroad whose tracks are nearby (shippers want up to 30 miles or more). The objective is not necessarily to use the switching, but to create a competitive alternative at sole-served points to keep rates in check.
As for SAC cases, shippers lacking effective alternatives to rail transportation fuss that having to spend $5 million to pursue SAC relief is unjustifiable. A Transportation Research Board (TRB) study concluded that the SAC test is “not working for shippers of most commodities, including grain.” When the STB recently changed evidentiary requirements mid-case, a shipper attorney said, “The world’s most complicated rate challenge process just keeps getting more complicated.”
Among recommended substitutes is final-offer arbitration whereby each party submits their last best offer and the arbitrator chooses one over the other.
As for competitive switching, the STB’s now Acting Chairman, Ann Begeman, questions its practical application and potential impacts (“We have to know more about what we are doing before we decide whether to do it”). The STB hasn’t yet investigated close cousins—Conrail Shared Assets Operations, Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis and Belt Railway of Chicago, all of which provide non-discriminatory switching to connecting railroads. And there is available for review a study of a neutral switching arrangement south of Pittsburgh that the STB’s Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council pursued in 1997.
Supporting railroads, the principal author of the TRB study said, “We see no case now for wholesale competitive switching … We don’t know enough. We want to regulate against extreme abuses. We think it could be done better than it is—not tighter, but smarter.”
But making the railroad argument more difficult is that competitive switching is standard in Canada; and industry celebrity and former Canadian Pacific (CP) CEO Hunter Harrison was content to volunteer it south of the border as a condition of a now tabled CP-Norfolk Southern merger. Harrison may soon take the reins at CSX.
The three current STB members are in agreement to delay action on both issues until two vacant seats are filled. Expect lengthy litigation to follow, whatever the vote result.
As Trump and congressional Republicans seek a pas de deux, and we await confirmation of a new Federal Railroad Administration chief and two new Surface Transportation Board members, expect railroads to be saying little as they take measure. History records railroads long at the top of the leader board. It hasn’t been by happenstance.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/frank-n-wilner/congress-a-noisy-hall-with-a-nightly-brawl.html
-
Environmentalists Defend EPA's Utility Mact Cost Finding
Feb 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are defending EPA's revised finding that its power plant maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule air toxics rule was “appropriate and necessary” even after considering costs of the rule, as they seek to defend the regulation amid uncertainty about whether the Trump administration will drop its defense of the MACT.
In their Feb. 10 brief in Murray Energy, et al. v. EPA, et al., now in briefing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, environmental and public health groups including the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and others say that the Clean Air Act itself refutes claims by industry and state opponents of the MACT that have faulted the agency's use of monetized benefits in the cost review.
The Supreme Court in a 2015 ruling in Michigan v. EPA faulted EPA's “appropriate” finding for failing to consider costs, and remanded the issue to the D.C. Circuit, which kept the MACT in effect while EPA reworked the finding to include costs. EPA in the finding took two approaches: One based on costs to power plants it considered reasonable, and another based on the original cost-benefit analysis developed for the MACT itself.
Critics say the MACT's implementation costs far outweigh its benefits if “co-benefits” of regulating particulate matter (PM) -- which is not classed as an air toxic -- are removed.
They further argue that EPA cannot justify the MACT, established under air law section 112, based on benefits it does not even attempt to quantify.
But environmentalists in their new filing argue that, “if only monetized emissions reductions mattered, Section 112 would make no sense, since it mandates regulation whenever emissions exceed volumetric thresholds.”
Further, they say that the Clean Air Act “is silent on how EPA should consider cost in deciding whether it is 'appropriate' to regulate power plants, prescribing no methodology.”
Under EPA's alternative justification for its cost finding, EPA was fully justified in counting the “co-benefits” of PM reduction, the groups argue, saying, “the reality that controls for hazardous pollutants simultaneously save thousands of lives by reducing other harmful emissions strongly supports the appropriateness of regulation.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-defend-epas-utility-mact-cost-finding
-
Texas Sues EPA Over Sulfur Dioxide Designations
Feb 14, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is challenging U.S. EPA's sulfur dioxide attainment designations for the state.
The designations, made final in December, require "expensive and excessive restrictions that will damage not only our economy, but the livelihood of citizens across the state with little to no effect on the environment," Paxton said in a news release this afternoon announcing the petitions for review filed Friday with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In the designations, EPA declared that three areas of east Texas were out of compliance with the one-hour standard for sulfur dioxide of 75 parts billion. All three areas surround coal-fired power plants that EPA had identified as the primary local sources of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Assuming the designations withstand court review, Texas regulators will have 18 months to devise plans for bringing the areas into compliance, launching what could be a lengthy effort to meet the 75 ppb threshold.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/02/13/stories/1060049981
-
State Utility Regulators Eye Next Steps To Cut Carbon Emissions
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA's role in regulating carbon emissions will be on the agenda when state utility regulators meet this week in Washington, although it won't be as prominent an issue as in recent years.
On Tuesday, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) will feature a panel discussion that will look at options the Trump administration would have for evolving the carbon regulations for existing power plants that are pending before the courts.
It will be moderated by Edward Finley of the North Carolina Utilities Commission and Nancy Lange of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
Panelists are Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America; David Doniger, director of the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council; and Roger Martella, partner with the law firm Sidley Austin.
On Monday, NARUC's Subcommittee on Clean Coal and Carbon Management will hold a session to look at how the Trump administration has upended many of the Obama administration's energy policy priorities.
The moderator will be Jeremy Oden of the Alabama Public Service Commission.
Joseph Giove, director of coal business operations at the Department of Energy, will provide an update on where coal stands and which programs and technologies may receive a higher or lower level of interest during the next four years.
Carey King and Josh Rhodes, both from the Energy Institute at the University of Texas, Austin, will talk about their white paper "New U.S. Power Costs: By County, with Environmental Externalities."
In the paper, they calculate the levelized cost of electricity of new power plants fueled by coal (bituminous and subbituminous, with partial and full carbon capture and sequestration) and other generation sources for each U.S. county under a number of economic scenarios.Other Clean Power Plan notes
Last week, Fitch Ratings analyst Gregory Remec issued a note about why the "likely demise of the CPP does not mean that we are returning to the days when coal-fired generation was the norm."
He said "substantial growth in power generation from natural gas" will displace "much of what's left of coal generation" as a function of simple economics.
"The appetite for renewables is still very strong and there remains a push toward cleaner generation overall even with no statutory mandate," Remec said.
On Capitol Hill, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) will continue serving as chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety during the 115th Congress. The subcommittee oversees EPA regulations established under the Clean Air Act, including rules to curb carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.
In the last Congress, Capito used the subcommittee to conduct field hearings in her home state about the impact of EPA carbon regulations and what she called "misguided regulations."
In this Congress, Capito may find herself having to conduct oversight on whatever EPA poses as an alternative rule to the Clean Power Plan or even weigh legislative changes to the Clean Air Act to explicitly remove EPA's role in regulating CO2.In case you missed it
· A prominent attorney who represents electric cooperatives against the Clean Power Plan suggested the process of undoing it might not be so cumbersome (Energywire, Feb. 10).
· Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy met with Democratic leaders in California and called on states to push forward on climate policy (Climatewire, Feb. 9).
· The number of ideas for replacing the Clean Power Plan is beginning to grow as a group of distinguished Republicans proposed taxing carbon dioxide (Climatewire, Feb. 9).
· Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), nominated to lead EPA, has laid out some specific thoughts on how he would have written federal carbon regulations for coal plants (Climatewire, Feb. 7).
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060049921
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