Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 2/21/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) DEEP to Launch Plastic Film Recycling Intiative
Feb 20, 2017 | The Day
By Judy Benson
Used plastic bread bags and grocery bags, bubble wrap, dry-cleaning bags, heavy plastic wrap for water bottle cases and other types of plastic film aren’t garbage — they’re valuable raw materials for new products. -
How Safe are Common Chemicals? It’s Time to Shift the Burden of Proof to Manufacturers
Feb 21, 2017 | Organic Authority
By Emily Monaco
What do artificially colored breakfast cereals, plastic bottles, and tomatoes have in common? All are present in American supermarkets without a federal regulatory body ever testing them for dangerous chemicals, of which there are likely many. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Markets Has Solid First Quarter
Feb 21, 2017 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.2 percent in January. This follows a downwardly revised 0.3 percent gain in December. -
EU Member States Agree Four Phthalates are EDCs for Health
Feb 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A majority of member states have backed Denmark's proposal to add four phthalates to the candidate list of SVHCs due to their endocrine disrupting properties for which there are probable serious effects on human health. -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Advocates Push Back Against Exxon's Safety Claims
Feb 20, 2017 | Caller Times
By Fares Sabawi
If one of the world's largest ethylene cracker plants were to be constructed just outside Portland city limits, would it help or hurt the region? -
A Case for Oil Demand and Oil Prices
Feb 20, 2017 | Seeking Alpha (in Real Clear Energy)
By Gaurav Agnihotri
Last week, oil prices went down as there were signs that the market still remains oversupplied with crude oil. -
Water Regulators for Philly, NYC Mum on Gas Drilling Talks
Feb 20, 2017 | Washington Post
By Michael Rubinkam
Environmental groups and anti-drilling residents fear regulators are taking steps to lift a seven-year moratorium on natural gas development near the Delaware River, whose watershed supplies Philadelphia and half the population of New York City. -
Bill Would Create 'Amber Alerts' for Chemical Emergencies
Feb 20, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Mark Collette
If there's a tornado warning or a kidnapped child, your phone might wake you at 3 a.m. But if there's a cloud of chlorine gas descending on your neighborhood, it's anybody's guess who will let you know, and when. -
Trump to Roll Back Obama’s Climate, Water Rules Through Executive Action
Feb 20, 2017 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson
President Trump is preparing executive orders aimed at curtailing Obama-era policies on climate and water pollution, according to individuals briefed on the measures. -
Congress and Trump Won't 'Terminate the EPA'
Feb 16, 2017 | The Atlantic (in Real Clear Energy)
By Robinson Meyer
It could not look more grave, more straightforwardly destructive. Below a simple title—H. R. 861, A BILL TO TERMINATE THE EPA—runs the staggering text: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018. -
Judges Question EPA Phaseout of Greenhouse Gas Refrigerants
Feb 21, 2017 | BNA Daily
By David Schultz
A panel of federal appeals court judges appeared skeptical Feb. 17 that the EPA has the authority to force a phaseout of a refrigerant on the grounds that it contributes to climate change.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) DEEP to Launch Plastic Film Recycling Intiative
Feb 20, 2017 | The Day
By Judy Benson
Used plastic bread bags and grocery bags, bubble wrap, dry-cleaning bags, heavy plastic wrap for water bottle cases and other types of plastic film aren’t garbage — they’re valuable raw materials for new products.
That’s the message the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is sending as part of its new initiative to get more of the thin, flexible sheets of plastic recycled. These include those labeled with a “4” resin code: low density polyethylene; linear low density polyethylene; and medium and high density polyethylene.
“If you collect plastic bags and plastic film separately it has value,” said Sherill Baldwin, coordinator of the CT Wrap Program, which will be launched by DEEP with an event Tuesday at the Price Chopper in Middletown. “It’s amazing how much material can be recycled.”
As part of the initiative, DEEP is trying to get the word out about the more than 200 bins at supermarkets and retail stores around the state where clean, dry grocery bags, wrappers for paper towels, toilet paper and newspapers, shipping pillows and other types of plastic film can be brought. Forty cities and towns, including Old Lyme, Lyme and Old Saybrook, have signed on as “municipal champions” to promote the program, Baldwin said.
Many people, she said, have the misconception that only plastic grocery bags can be placed in the bins. Actually, grocery bags comprise only about 25 percent of all recyclable plastic film, with much of the rest of it ending up in the trash and burned in incinerators, or erroneously added to curbside recycling collections along with newspapers, glass and plastic bottles, she said. When plastic film is added to the mixed recycling stream, it can foul the process, she said.
The plastic film collected in the bins is taken to retail warehouses, where it is bundled and sent to recycling companies who turn it into products such as plastic lumber, benches, fencing and bags, said Shari Jackson, director of film recycling for the American Chemistry Council, which is partnering with DEEP on the initiative.
Currently she said, about one billion pounds of plastic film is being recycled.
“We’re looking to double that to two billion pounds by 2020,” she said.
As part of its effort, the chemistry council is working to encourage more stores to add bins for recycling plastic film.
Connecticut is one of three states that have joined the chemistry council in promoting plastic film recycling, along with North Carolina and Wisconsin. In November, the federal Environmental Protection Agency also became a partner, she said. At least four other states have expressed interest in also joining, she added.
On the website www.plasticfilmrecycling.org, locations of bins for plastic film recycling can be found, along with a list of the types of material that can be brought there. These include Shop Rite stores in New London and Norwich, JCPenney and Lowe’s Home Improvement in Waterford, and Walmart in Groton.
http://www.theday.com/local/20170220/deep-to-launch-plastic-film-recycling-intiative
-
How Safe are Common Chemicals? It’s Time to Shift the Burden of Proof to Manufacturers
Feb 21, 2017 | Organic Authority
By Emily Monaco
What do artificially colored breakfast cereals, plastic bottles, and tomatoes have in common? All are present in American supermarkets without a federal regulatory body ever testing them for dangerous chemicals, of which there are likely many.
“In this country, FDA and EPA are placed with the burden of trying to prove that something is unsafe,” explains Bill Walker, Vice President and Managing Editor at the Environmental Working Group, “rather than the companies having to prove that it is safe.”
This backwards process may sound like something out of a dystopian novel, but it’s the truth of the system we’re living in.
How is This Possible?
This shocking state of affairs is due in part to manipulation of GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe), an FDA rule that allows companies to begin selling products containing ingredients backed, not by FDA, but by independent researchers.
“Manufacturers can determine whether something is GRAS in secret, without telling the government,” reported Consumerist in August, referencing a 1997 FDA rule that allowed companies to merely notify FDA of the safety of an ingredient, without asking for validation of the independent science.
This procedure creates ample possibilities for items like carrageenan, MSG, bovine growth hormones, and Olestra to make it into our food system before FDA.
While according to Walker, FDA is always able to ask for further studies, he also notes that “this typically results in a years-long back and forth with the companies, and it’s still very hard to prove that there’s a problem. The way the law is structured right now, we basically put all the cards are in the company’s hand.”
“Many of the most unhealthy companies in the world are also the largest,” notes Tara Mackey, author of Cured by Nature and founder of The Organic Life. “They still dominate the market at the moment, and they fight hard to make sure that they can skirt as many label requirements as possible in order to keep making and selling their products to us.”
In addition, until June of last year, EPA’s hands had been tied by a 40-year-old chemical law known as the Toxic Substances Control Act, a law that environmental groups called “one of the worst environmental laws on the books,” according to the Washington Post.
While the burden of scientific proof was somewhat lessened by President Obama’s modification of this law in June, the original wording set such a high threshold for proof that EPA’s evidence against asbestos, which kills as many as 15,000 Americans a year, wasn’t enough to get it outlawed on the federal level.
In the last four decades, EPA has tested only about seven percent of the roughly 3,000 high-volume chemicals used in the U.S. – and banned only five of the more than 80,000 total chemicals used.
How are We Solving This Problem?
Despite this summer’s law, EPA will continue to face “substantial hurdles” in reviewing the tens of thousands of potentially dangerous chemicals on the market according to the International Business Times, since it lacks necessary funding and staffing power.
The Environmental Working Group also notes that the new law could backfire, as it strips states of their power to stop products from going to market pending a three-year EPA investigation.
In addition, chemical companies can continue to tie up EPA’s oversights in courts, making the process even longer and more laborious than it needs to be.
Carli Jensen, the toxics campaign director at U.S. Public Interest Research Groups, says it may take a full generation before Americans see the benefits of the reforms. This is especially true given the plan to test just 20 chemicals at a time, with a deadline of seven years per chemical – and the new law doesn’t even apply to pesticides used in food production.
The new law also doesn’t get to the root of the problem – it shouldn’t be up to FDA and EPA to prove toxicity, when it would be far easier for manufacturers to be forced to prove the safety (or lack thereof) of the potentially dangerous chemicals they’re using.
“No other developed country that we know of has a similar system in which companies can decide the safety of chemicals put directly into food,” notes Natural Resources Defense Council senior scientist Maricel Maffini.
The European Example
Our neighbors to the east have a completely different system for verifying the safety of chemicals: in Europe, it’s the “exact opposite” according to Walker.
“Before introducing a new chemical into commerce, the companies have to prove that it’s safe,” he says. “The burden of proof is on them, as it should be.”
Europe generally tends to “rely more on the precautionary principle,” according to Dr. Linley Dixon of the Cornucopia Institute. The European Union operates with stricter health standards than the U.S. and “aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk,” the European Commission notes.
After consulting the same 2007 double-blind study that showed that eating artificially colored food increased children’s hyperactivity, for example, European authorities placed warning labels on products containing them (and UK authorities barred them entirely), whereas in the U.S., FDA found the study inconclusive and allowed for the continued use of these dyes. Other products, such as atrazine and neonicotinoids, which are highly regulated or even banned in the EU remain present in the U.S. due to this method.
How Do We Regulate Dangerous Chemicals in the U.S.?
Since our hands are tied at the federal level, alternative ways of regulating potentially toxic substances have arisen in the U.S., often occurring at the consumer level by way of lawsuits.
Sometimes, consumers don’t even have to make it as far as court, according to Dixon, who notes that the NOSB decision to remove carrageenan from organic food last November stemmed entirely from consumer demand; the scientific evidence wasn’t enough to sway the Board, but consumer voices were. It’s no wonder that Walker and the EWG are appealing to consumers to petition FDA to tighten restrictions on PFCs in food contact paper like fast food wrappers and pizza boxes.
These restrictions very rarely manifest as full-out bans; instead, EPA and FDA often opt for negotiating voluntary limits and phase-outs, a hallmark of the American approach to chemical regulation manifested in such announcements as Panera’s decision to remove all artificial additives from its food in 2016 or General Mills’ commitment to ditch artificial colors in 2015. Nike, Walmart, Target, Walgreens, and Apple are some of the many companies that have stricter chemical policies than American federal law.
Consumers, then, can choose to trust individual companies whose mission statements they believe in, or even opt to buy foods verified by independent labels, such as USDA certified organic or non-GMO Project.
Still, some groups, like the Tendr (Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks) Coalition continue to appeal for more research and federal regulations when it comes to certain dangerous chemicals and substances, like organophosphate pesticides, flame retardants, lead, phthalates, and combustion-related air pollutants.
“Before we can prescribe medicine, we have to prove it’s safe,” explains Dr. Jeanne Conry, obstetrician-gynecologist and Tendr member, to the New York Times. “So how come with the chemical industry, we assume everything is safe and have to prove there’s harm?”
http://www.organicauthority.com/its-time-to-shift-the-burden-of-proof-for-dangerous-chemicals-to-manufacturers/
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Markets Has Solid First Quarter
Feb 21, 2017 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.2 percent in January. This follows a downwardly revised 0.3 percent gain in December.
Volumes have generally been moving up since May. All changes in the data are reported on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. Of the twenty-eight specialty chemical segments we monitor, fifteen expanded in January, ten experienced decline and three were flat. During January, large gains (1 percent and over) were noted only in oilfield chemicals.
The overall specialty chemicals volume index was up 0.4 percent on a year-over-year (Y/Y) 3MMA basis. The index stood at 105.9 percent of its average 2012 levels. This is equivalent to 7.30 billion pounds (3.31 million metric tons). The down-turn in the oil and gas sector affected headline volumes and weakness spread to other segments. Year-earlier comparisons were negative from 2nd quarter 2015 through 2nd quarter 2016 but are now improving. On a Y/Y basis, there were gains among 16 market and functional specialty chemical segments.
Click here for information about the PBS Toronto event, May 16-18, 2017
Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics, and food, among others.
Specialty chemicals differ from commodity chemicals. They may only have one or two uses, while commodities may have multiple or different applications for each chemical. Commodity chemicals make up most of the production volume in the global marketplace, while specialty chemicals make up most of the diversity in commerce at any given time, and are relatively high value with greater market growth rates.
This data is the only timely source of market trends for twenty-eight market and functional specialty chemical segments. Chemistry directly touches over ninety-six percent of all manufactured goods, and trends in these specialty chemical segments provide a detailed view of trends in manufacturing. The data also sheds light on how various consumer end-use markets are performing compared to others in the marketplace.
http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/U-S-Specialty-Chemicals-Markets-Has-Solid-First-Quarter-02-21-2017
-
EU Member States Agree Four Phthalates are EDCs for Health
Feb 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A majority of member states have backed Denmark's proposal to add four phthalates to the candidate list of SVHCs due to their endocrine disrupting properties for which there are probable serious effects on human health.
The vote on BBP, DBP, DEHP and DiBP came at last week's REACH Committee meeting, having been postponed since last September because of opposition from some member states.
Denmark's Environment and Food Minister Esben Lunde Larsen said identifying the phthalates as endocrine disruptors was "a great victory" and showed the EU has entered "the fight" against EDCs.
But while it may initially make it harder for European producers to get approval to use these phthalates in their products, adding the four to the candidate list was "not enough" because many products on the EU market are imported and may still contain the substances.
Health and Environment Alliance senior policy advisor, Lisette van Vliet hailed the vote as a "historic development". She said it was the first time that the EU REACH system has officially recognised "chemicals as being of very high concern because of their endocrine disrupting properties to humans.
"The next major step is to put away the erroneous fiction that we can reliably establish 'safe levels' for endocrine disruptors – and then to regulate them accordingly."
That the REACH Committee is able to come to decisions on whether individual substances are EDCs or not contrasts with the problems the European Commission has been having getting member states to agree on its proposed criteria for identifying EDCs under biocides and pesticides legislation. Its latest draft proposal is due to be discussed, and possibly voted on, on 28 February, at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF).
Another NGO, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), said listing the four phthalates as endocrine disrupting to humans will lead to different risk management considerations in REACH applications for authorisation and restriction.
Initially Denmark's proposal wanted the four on the candidate list because of endocrine disrupting properties affecting the environment, as well as human health. But after lengthy discussions, this was withdrawn.
DEHP is already on the candidate list as a suspected endocrine disruptor for the environment. And all four are on the list for their suspected reprotoxic properties.
Echa’s Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) set Dnel (derived no-effect level) values for DEHP, BBP and DBP on the assumption that reprotoxicants are threshold substances by default, said EEB senior policy officer, Tatiana Santos, but their reprotoxicity is mediated by an endocrine mode of action.
But now the committee will have to withdraw the Dnels and applicants for authorisation "will have to demonstrate that these substances do have a threshold, something that is very difficult (if not impossible)."
The member states' vote will also affect Echa's restriction proposal for these substances in articles, she said. Their identification as EDCs for human health is, she said, a "crucial consideration in this restriction process because as EDCs for human health any level of exposure would constitute a risk to be addressed."
The European Council for Plasticisers and Intermediates (Ecpi), however, shows little concern for the substances' new listing. It says the four existing entries on the candidate list – for toxic to reproduction – will merely be updated to add equivalent level of concern due to endocrine activity.
"Since both listings refer to the same adverse reproductive effects, Ecpi's view is that this double listing is not useful," the Council told Chemical Watch.
Meanwhile, legal NGO ClientEarth has filed its case against the Commission for granting authorisation for uses of DEHP in recycled PVC. The Commission has two months to respond, after which there will be a hearing.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53653/eu-member-states-agree-four-phthalates-are-edcs-for-health
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Advocates Push Back Against Exxon's Safety Claims
Feb 20, 2017 | Caller Times
By Fares Sabawi
If one of the world's largest ethylene cracker plants were to be constructed just outside Portland city limits, would it help or hurt the region?
It depends on who you ask.
Portland Citizens United hosted a forum Monday evening about the potential impacts if ExxonMobil and Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation built the plant at Farm-to-Market Road 2986 and U.S. Highway 181. The forum featured environmental experts Neil Carman with the Sierra Club and Ilan Levin with the Environmental Integrity Project.
Carman warned residents at the forum that industries don't accurately measure what pollutants are put out by its facilities.
"Pollutants are a major concern. They should be fully monitored," Carman said. "For the most part, these plants do not measure anywhere close to 100 percent of (pollutants)."
Russ Roberts, a spokesman for Gulf Coast Growth Ventures, disputed Carman's claim. Gulf Coast Growth Ventures is a group established by Exxon and SABIC to lead the plant project. Roberts pointed to a 15-year study that concluded that exposure levels inside plants are much lower than is legally permitted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Roberts also said Exxon and SABIC are each certified as a "Responsible Care" company by the American Chemistry Council, meaning the company has high safety standards.
"Once you're in Responsible Care, you don't automatically stay in," Roberts said. "If you drop in any of the categories in an audit, they will remove you."
Carman also took aim at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. As an air pollution inspector, Carman said every air permit he has seen included too many loopholes. He also criticized TCEQ for being lax on enforcement of the permits.
"The bottom line is the agency tends to favor industry over public health," he said.
Carman has crossed paths with Exxon before. In 2010, the Sierra Club and Environment Texas sued ExxonMobil for its Baytown refinery and chemical plants over pollution violations. The case is still moving through the appellate court system.
Errol Summerlin, a Portland Citizens United member who opened the forum, said the group remains "profoundly concerned" about the plant. The group has opposed the plant because it would be less than two miles away from Portland schools and Summerlin said Exxon and SABIC have not been transparent in its plans.
Roberts said his group has been a part of 73 community meetings in two months and kept in contact with residents and officials alike. He said the plant can lead to economic growth in the region while maintaining the environment.
"I don't want the community to believe they have to choose one or the other," he said. "This project offers both."
San Patricio County is one of four spots being considered for the plant in Texas and Louisiana. Roberts said a final location should be chosen by the end of March.
http://www.caller.com/story/news/local/2017/02/20/environmental-advocates-push-back-against-exxons-safety-claims/98053022/
-
A Case for Oil Demand and Oil Prices
Feb 20, 2017 | Seeking Alpha (in Real Clear Energy)
By Gaurav Agnihotri
Last week, oil prices went down as there were signs that the market still remains oversupplied with crude oil. Although OPEC's record compliance levels did support the markets, it failed to lift the prices which were reeling under pressure because of high U.S oil production and rising inventory levels. The WTI and Brent were trading at $53.4 and $55.81, respectively, at the time of writing this article. In my previous article, I had stated that there are several bearish factors that are acting on oil prices (NYSEARCA:OIL) (NYSEARCA:BNO) (NYSEARCA:DBO) (NYSEARCA:DNO) (NYSEARCA:DTO) (BATS:OILK) (NYSEARCA:OILX) (NYSEARCA:USO) (NYSEARCA:OLEM) (NYSEARCA:OLO) at the moment. Out of these factors, rising fuel glut in Asia is one of the biggest reasons why oil may remain under pressure in near future.
A glut in refined fuels could last for years
According to a recent report which was published in The Wall Street Journal, Asia's refining market is becoming less lucrative for oil companies. In 2017, the supply for diesel and gasoline in Asia may exceed demand by 750,000 barrels (which is around 5% of Asia's total annual consumption). According to BMI research, this trend will continue till 2021. "For years, Asia has been the centre of global oil demand growth, led by China. From 2008 to 2016, Chinese oil demand rose an average of 5.1% a year, while U.S. oil demand was virtually flat," said Sushant Gupta from Wood Mackenzie. In my opinion, the supply-demand imbalance in Asia can put severe pressure on oil prices as Asia is the biggest market for refiners at the moment. Besides, investors must also note that India's fuel demand growth went down in January 2017, while China's falling automobile sales also added to a slowdown in overall crude oil demand. With a combined population of almost 3 billion and a huge domestic consumption market, I have already stated in my earlier articles that China's and India's oil demand growth will drive oil prices in the near future. If China's and India's demand growth falters, then oil prices will definitely come under further pressure.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4047507-case-oil-demand-oil-prices
-
Water Regulators for Philly, NYC Mum on Gas Drilling Talks
Feb 20, 2017 | Washington Post
By Michael Rubinkam
Environmental groups and anti-drilling residents fear regulators are taking steps to lift a seven-year moratorium on natural gas development near the Delaware River, whose watershed supplies Philadelphia and half the population of New York City.
They may or may not have anything to worry about.
The Delaware River Basin Commission, the agency that monitors and regulates the water supply of more than 15 million people, is remaining characteristically opaque about the progress of natural gas regulations that would open Pennsylvania’s northeastern tip to drilling and fracking.
Nevertheless, environmental activists packed a commission meeting last week to voice opposition amid rumblings that the agency has been accelerating work on the long-delayed regulations, which have been under development since former President Barack Obama’s first term.
The activists became uneasy after learning that staff from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection recently met with basin commission staff to discuss draft regulations for drilling in the Delaware watershed.
“It raised alarm bells for us right away,” said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.
The Nov. 29 meeting was disclosed in the Pennsylvania DEP’s January report to a citizens advisory group. The DEP said that “all jurisdictions” at the meeting reviewed the draft regulations and “provided direction to the commission related to the next steps for regulatory actions.”
A basin commission spokesman responded to an Associated Press inquiry about the status of the drilling regulations by linking to the commission’s rarely updated web page on drilling, which states: “There is no timeframe for when the draft regulations will again come up for a vote.” The spokesman refused to answer follow-up questions.
The commission, which has representatives from New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the federal government, abruptly shelved draft regulations in late 2011, and there has been little public movement on the issue since. It’s not clear the five-member commission has any appetite to lift the drilling moratorium, which it imposed in 2010, citing the need to develop regulations to protect the environment.
But advocates say the situation bears watching.
“The public is at a disadvantage because we can’t find out what’s really going on,” Carluccio said. “But we think there are enough danger signals here to warrant the public’s response.”
Environmental groups contend large-scale gas exploration so close to crucial waterways and renowned fisheries invites catastrophe. Farmers and other landowners say drilling will bring jobs and prosperity, and chafe at what they see as unwarranted regulatory foot-dragging by the commission. Thousands of Marcellus Shale wells have been drilled in other parts of Pennsylvania.
A federal lawsuit filed in May argues the basin commission has no legal authority to block natural gas development. The plaintiff is Wayne Land and Mineral Group LLC, which wants to drill on its 180-acre property in northeastern Pennsylvania but has been stymied by the moratorium. The landowners have asked a judge to rule that the commission lacks jurisdiction to regulate drilling. The suit is pending.
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, who has a seat on the basin commission by virtue of his office, said in 2015 he supported the moratorium. His position has not changed, said his spokesman, J.J. Abbott.
“Any decision regarding the de facto moratorium on new permits should be made regionally with the participation of all DRBC members,” Abbott said.
A spokesman for first-year Delaware Gov. John Carney said Carney wants to “thoroughly review any regulations impacting the standing moratorium” before taking a position. The office of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has banned fracking ban in his state, did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the office of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
The federal representative to the basin commission is Brigadier Gen. William Graham of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Graham’s spokesman had no immediate comment. Activists worry the administration of President Donald Trump might push to lift the moratorium.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/water-regulators-for-philly-nyc-mum-on-gas-drilling-talks/2017/02/20/0e153162-f787-11e6-aa1e-5f735ee31334_story.html?utm_term=.ae217bf639ba
-
Bill Would Create 'Amber Alerts' for Chemical Emergencies
Feb 20, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Mark Collette
If there's a tornado warning or a kidnapped child, your phone might wake you at 3 a.m.
But if there's a cloud of chlorine gas descending on your neighborhood, it's anybody's guess who will let you know, and when.
A state lawmaker has filed a bill to bridge the gap in emergency notification.
It would create a system to push alerts to mobile phones during any chemical mishap that would "substantially endanger human health or the environment."
Chemical fires and releases across Houston in the last year, and the Houston Chronicle's Chemical Breakdown series, have shed light on problems with toxic stockpiles and emergency response. The bill's backers hope the added attention will drive the legislation forward.
The bill would create a statewide "opt-out" system, meaning phone users would get the alerts unless they deliberately choose not to, just as some Amber Alerts and weather warnings are pushed to mobile phones automatically. Currently, decisions about chemical alerts are left up to a patchwork of local agencies, which may release conflicting information or fail to notify the public at all.
That's what happened a week ago when a sulfur-like stench drifted across Houston, said Adrian Shelley, director of Air Alliance Houston. Initial reports linked the smell to a chemical refinery, but officials later walked back that assessment, and the incident remains under investigation. Some residents wondered how the government could be assured the vapors posed no danger, Shelley said.
Under federal law, Texas companies are required to report toxic releases to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality when they exceed a certain amount, which varies with each chemical. The threshold amount for chlorine gas, for example, is 10 pounds.
Under the bill by Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin, the commission would use those reports to trigger an alert in the affected area.
"I am proud of HB 1927, a bill that I have joint authored with State Representative Hubert Vo of Houston," Rodriguez said in a statement. "This bill will ensure that Texans receive timely, accurate and useful information regarding toxic chemical spills in an accessible way."
'Imminent threat'
Shelley acknowledged it's not the perfect solution. The commission could make the wrong call. And it might be based on inaccurate or incomplete information from the company. In 2014, when a gas release at DuPont's pesticide plant in La Porte killed four workers, the initial 911 caller from DuPont told a dispatcher that the release posed no public danger. In fact, there was no air monitoring, and the U.S. Chemical Safety Board later determined that the gas could have ignited and exploded.
Those are deeper problems this bill can't address. But "this is a good step in situations where there is a known imminent threat," said Stephanie Thomas, an organizer for Public Citizen who called for better alerts last year after a chemical warehouse fire in Spring Branch.
"My hope is that this can instigate an even larger conversation about how we make sure we relay information properly between the industry and emergency management, and how we support some of the communities where - if you have a volunteer fire department - you are dependent on the industry" to accurately depict the threat, Thomas said.
Unnecessary danger
One solution, Shelley said, might be to indemnify companies against lawsuits that could arise from shelter or evacuation orders that inconvenience people but may be deemed unnecessary after the threat has passed.
The bill will need a Republican co-sponsor to vault it out of committee. Shelley said it might appeal to Rep. Kyle Kacal, R-Bryan, whose district includes the fertilizer depot that blew up in West in 2013, destroying a section of town and killing 15 people. Federal investigators deemed it an unsolved arson, but they also pointed to problems with the way the explosive fertilizer was stored, and with the emergency response, which put firefighters and residents in unnecessary danger.
Kacal couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/planet-texas/article/Bill-would-create-Amber-Alerts-for-chemical-10946474.php
-
Trump to Roll Back Obama’s Climate, Water Rules Through Executive Action
Feb 20, 2017 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson
President Trump is preparing executive orders aimed at curtailing Obama-era policies on climate and water pollution, according to individuals briefed on the measures.
While both directives will take time to implement, they will send an unmistakable signal that the new administration is determined to promote fossil-fuel production and economic activity even when those activities collide with some environmental safeguards. Individuals familiar with the proposals asked for anonymity to describe them in advance of their announcement, which could come as soon as this week.
One executive order — which the Trump administration will couch as reducing U.S. dependence on other countries for energy — will instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to begin rewriting the 2015 regulation that limits greenhouse-gas emissions from existing electric utilities. It also instructs the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lift a moratorium on federal coal leasing.
A second order will instruct the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to revamp a 2015 rule, known as the Waters of the United States rule, that applies to 60 percent of the water bodies in the country. That regulation was issued under the 1972 Clean Water Act, which gives the federal government authority over not only major water bodies but also the wetlands, rivers and streams that feed into them. It affects development as well as some farming operations on the grounds that these activities could pollute the smaller or intermittent bodies of water that flow into major ones.
Trump has joined many industry groups in criticizing these rules as examples of the federal government exceeding its authority and curbing economic growth. While any move to undo these policies will spark new legal battles and entail work within the agencies that could take as long as a year and a half to finalize, the orders could affect investment decisions within the utility, mining, agriculture and real estate sectors, as well as activities on the ground.
Trump, who signed legislation last week that nullified a recent regulation prohibiting surface-mining operations from dumping waste in nearby waterways, said he was eager to support coal miners who had backed his presidential bid. “The miners are a big deal,” he said Thursday. “I’ve had support from some of these folks right from the very beginning, and I won’t forget it.”
Bloomberg reported several elements of the executive orders Friday.
The greenhouse-gas limits on existing power plants, dubbed the Clean Power Plan, represented a central components of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. The regulations, which were put on hold by the Supreme Court and are being weighed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, direct every state to form detailed plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from such sources as coal-fired power plants, enough to decrease carbon pollution by about one-third by 2030, compared with 2005 levels.
Trump repeatedly criticized these and other rules aimed at reducing fossil-fuel use as an attack on the U.S. coal industry. Myron Ebell, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who served on Trump’s EPA transition team, said the president “is fulfilling his campaign promise” by directing key agencies to shift course. Ebell warned, however, that undoing these rules “will take time. It could take days, months and years.”
One measure — lifting the moratorium on federal coal leasing — could take immediate effect. That freeze has been in effect since December 2015, and last month the Interior Department proposed major changes to a program that guides coal exploration and production across 570 million publicly owned acres.
Days before Obama left office, the Interior Department issued a report saying the federal government should explore options that include charging a higher royalty rate to companies, factoring in the climate impact of the coal being burned through an additional charge to firms and setting an overall carbon budget for the nation’s coal leasing permits. But the new administration has expressed little interest in pursuing these policies and appears to be opening up the option of coal leasing again without any preconditions.
The House has already passed legislation that would eliminate a BLM rule curbing the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from oil and gas operations on federal land. The resolution, which needs Senate and presidential approval to take effect, uses the 1996 Congressional Review Act to reverse one of the final rules the Obama administration issued. While Trump administration officials have discussed whether to address methane regulation in the upcoming executive order, it may not be included in light of Congress’s recent action.
Separately, Trump and his deputies are reopening a question of water policy that has bedeviled government officials from both parties for two decades. Two Supreme Court decisions that came down during the George W. Bush administration, in 2001 and 2006, spurred uncertainty over exactly which bodies of water fall under the federal government’s jurisdiction. The Bush administration worked on drafting regulations to address the issue, but once Obama took office the EPA began rewriting them. The current rule gives the federal government wide latitude to protect smaller tributaries as well as some, such as wetlands, that may be dry periodically, on the grounds that they still need to be preserved as critical water supplies.
But groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation argue that the new restrictions could require farmers to pay significant fees to gain federal permission for filling in areas on their property and could halt some operations altogether.
Hunter and angler groups, however, have expressed concern about any rollback of the rule, which they say will preserve wetlands and other habitat that is crucial for outdoor recreation.
“If they have a better way to do it, we’re all for it,” said Whit Fosburgh, president of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “But we want to make sure the wetlands and streams covered in the Obama rule can be covered in whatever they develop as a replacement. That’s our bottom line.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/20/trump-to-roll-back-obamas-climate-water-rules-through-executive-action/?utm_term=.7e0c945b47b6
-
Congress and Trump Won't 'Terminate the EPA'
Feb 16, 2017 | The Atlantic (in Real Clear Energy)
By Robinson Meyer
It could not look more grave, more straightforwardly destructive. Below a simple title—H. R. 861, A BILL TO TERMINATE THE EPA—runs the staggering text:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.
Here lies the illustrious EPA: established in 1970 by President Richard Milhous Nixon, strengthened by the Supreme Court and George H. W. Bush, and murdered in the first month of the Trump administration. And the man who did the deed is Matt Gaetz, a 34-year-old Republican who represents Florida’s 1st district. He has been in Congress for all of a month. The blood of the air itself is on his hands. (Don’t question that metaphor.)
H. R. 861 is real—its page on Congress.gov has gone viral over the past few weeks—but the reality that it proposes to enact will not arrive any time soon. This Congress will almost certainly not terminate the EPA, and, even if it does, H. R. 861 is not the legislative blade it will wield. H. R. 861 is a classic piece of stunt legislation: It is short, punchy, without co-sponsors, and introduced by a novice legislator. Gaetz may accomplish nothing else of note this year, but he can truthfully tell his constituents that he proposed terminating the EPA.
His bill will not pass, and the reasons it will not pass are instructive. This is not a “Donald Trump can never become president” situation: There are legal, political, and institutional obstacles that keep H. R. 861 from moving forward.
The first is simple: It is not nearly long enough. A slew of federal laws, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, assume that the EPA exists and charge it with tasks. Just last year, Congress passed a new chemical-safety law that handed new powers to the EPA. Any law seeking to “terminate the EPA” would have to amend all those older laws that delegate authority to the agency. You cannot easily do that in a 10-word sentence.
Second, while the election of Trump—a fierce EPA critic—might indicate otherwise, a large majority of Americans like the agency. Three in five Americans say strict environmental regulations are worth their cost. Even most Republican voters want the EPA to basically stay the same.
“Terminating the EPA,” meanwhile, sounds drastic and bad. (That’s because it would be drastic and bad.) Many House Republicans in swing districts have told voters that they will reduce the agency’s “anti-business” red tape. They have not told voters they would destroy it completely, and it is likely that they will encounter high public resistance if they move to eliminate it.
Third, any major piece of legislation will have to pass a filibuster in the Senate, and it is extremely unlikely that eight Democratic senators could be found who would send the agency to its death. For that matter, it is extremely unlikely that enough Republicans could be found. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican of Maine, rejected Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the EPA on Wednesday because she determined he was too hostile to the agency’s purpose.
All this being said: It’s not wrong for Americans who care about the EPA to be concerned right now. Many Republicans want to see its powers diminished or removed altogether. But Congress will not attempt to curb the EPA’s influence by closing it outright. Instead, it will wage war on the agency through a thousand little cuts—through bills, through joint resolutions, and through budget riders.
These will not be as self-evidently bad as H.R. 861. They will be more boring to read and harder to understand. But they could impose some harms just as consequential and long-lasting as the EPA’s outright termination.
Many of the tools for cutting down the EPA are already in place. For instance, Senator Rand Paul and 33 of his Republican colleagues have introduced the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, also known as the REINS Act. If passed, REINS would require that both the House and the Senate vote to approve any new agency regulation whose estimated cost exceeds $100 million. If Congress doesn’t approve a new rule within 70 days of its publication, the regulation dies.
$100 million may sound like a high bar to clear, but much environmental regulation falls under its purview. The EPA’s recent rule restricting toxic mercury emissions from power plants is estimated to cost $9.6 billion. The agency says the annual benefits to public health will range between $37 billion and $90 billion.
Under REINS, Congress would never have had to vote on this regulation: Simply by doing nothing, the mercury rule would have died.
Other laws could prove equally harmful to the agency. The Secret Science Reform Act requires that the EPA only make decisions based on information that is “publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.” As my colleague Ed Yong writes, this sounds awesome—scientists love reproduction!—except that it would effectively keep the EPA from using public-health research, which often relies on private and confidential medical records.
The list goes on. More than 100 House Republicans have proposed prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases and, thus, climate change. Congress is also moving to kill several Obama-era environmental regulations under the the Congressional Review Act, including rules on methane released at fracking sites and on smog that crosses state borders. It has already axed a rule preventing coal waste from being dumped into mountain streams. These actions permanently hobble the agency: Once Congress kills a rule under the Congressional Review Act, the EPA can never again promulgate a regulation on that topic.
The Trump administration can restrict the agency’s work in many other ways. There are reports that the administration will attempt to break up the EPA’s enforcement division, which would severely reduce the agency’s ability to make businesses comply with environmental rules. Congress and the Trump administration can attach instructions to the budget that prohibit the EPA from spending time or money on certain problems.
If you’re interested in reading more about these steps, my colleague Ed Yong has written extensively about how Congress and the White House could limit the EPA. And Brad Plumer of Vox has sketched five possible futures for the agency over the next four years, ranging from its termination to the status quo.
None of these measures has the drama of “A Bill to Terminate the EPA.” But in their slow erosion of power, in the costly restrictions that they add to the agency, they reduce its ability to straightforwardly tackle environmental problems. If Congress tried to terminate the EPA, huge swaths of the public would lash out. If Congress hobbles the EPA slowly, most people will never notice.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/congress-wont-terminate-the-epa/516918/
-
Judges Question EPA Phaseout of Greenhouse Gas Refrigerants
Feb 21, 2017 | BNA Daily
By David Schultz
A panel of federal appeals court judges appeared skeptical Feb. 17 that the EPA has the authority to force a phaseout of a refrigerant on the grounds that it contributes to climate change.
An unfavorable ruling for the Environmental Protection Agency in this case could hamper the agency's power to regulate some of the most potent greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.
Judges Skeptical
A pair of chemical makers are suing the EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over its regulations on hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which are used in refrigeration and air conditioning. Though HFC emissions are small, the chemicals are extremely potent, with a heat-trapping potential more than 1,000 times that of carbon dioxide (Mexichem Fluor v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1328, argued 2/17/17).
The three-judge panel hearing the case—which includes two George W. Bush appointees—seemed sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ arguments during the hearing. They especially took issue with the fact that the EPA had earlier designated HFCs as a safer substitute to older chemicals that damage the ozone layer.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh said that reversing course on HFCs could “pull the rug out” from companies that invested money in switching to them.
One of the main issues during the arguments was whether it was fair for EPA to force businesses to replace HFCs with another chemical, when in fact HFCs were originally intended to be replacement chemicals themselves. Kavanaugh said that when the EPA initially created in the 1990s its list of refrigerants that were not harmful to the ozone layer, it said that any future changes to this list would be minor.
Dustin Maghamfar, a Department of Justice attorney representing the agency, acknowledged that a forced phase-out of one of the listed chemicals is not minor. But he sought to resolve this discrepancy by pointing out that the EPA only said at the time that it expected any changes would be minor, which elicited a chuckle from Kavanaugh.
HFC Regulations at Issue
The EPA initially approved the use of HFCs in the 1990s as a replacement for substances that deplete the ozone layer, but in 2015, the EPA ordered the chemicals to be phased out, citing their effects on climate change.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit say the EPA can't use a program that was designed to protect the ozone layer to ban a chemical for its effects on climate change, a separate issue.
Dan Himmelfarb, an attorney with the firm Mayer Brown who was representing the plaintiffs, said that as ozone-depleting chemicals stop being used, the EPA's program of identifying substitute chemicals should also wind down. Instead, Himmelfarb said, the opposite has happened.
But other companies that have developed replacements for HFCs also have a financial stake. David Doniger, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is intervening in the suit on behalf of the EPA, told Bloomberg BNA that the case will come down to whose interests the court values more: those of the HFC manufacturers or those of the companies that developed the HFC replacements.
Not a Slam Dunk
However, the case does not appear to necessarily be a slam dunk for the plaintiffs.
Kavanaugh and the other judges said that, by the the plaintiffs’ reasoning, the EPA would never be able to alter its list of substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals—even if it later learned that one of those substitutes now poses a significant new harm, which is what the EPA says happened in this case.
Also, Tom Lorenzen, an attorney with the firm Crowell & Moring, pointed out that the HFC-making plaintiffs aren't the only ones with a financial stake here. Lorenzen is representing a company that has developed a replacement for HFCs and said this company invested millions of dollars to do this under the assumption that the EPA has the power to phase out HFCs.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105798477&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105798477&jd=105798477
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested