Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 7/8/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Seeks to Expand TSCA Advisory Panel for Broader Representation
Aug 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The Trump EPA is seeking to add members representing various stakeholders to an advisory panel created by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law enacted last year, and is looking to candidates previously nominated but not selected to grow the size of Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). -
IMPACT Interview: Fern Abrams, IPC
Aug 7, 2017 | I-Connect007
By Patty Goldman
I wanted to get the inside story on the meeting with EPA that occurred Tuesday afternoon and who better to talk with than IPC’s Fern Abrams. I was able to chat with her Wednesday morning. -
Maine Bans Flame Retardants in Upholstered Furniture
Aug 7, 2017 | Furniture Today
By Erin Berg
Maine has passed a law banning all flame retardants in upholstered furniture and has become the first state in the nation to do so. -
Environmental Groups Sue FDA to Take Formaldehyde out of Salons
Aug 7, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Monica Amarelo
The Food and Drug Administration has failed to act on dangerous hair straighteners that contain unsafe levels of formaldehyde and pose a significant health hazard to consumers and salon workers, the Environmental Working Group and Women’s Voices for the Earth allege in a motion filed July 28 in federal district court. -
Canadian Formaldehyde Emissions Regulations May Echo US Laws
Aug 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Canada has proposed an approach to regulating formaldehydeemissions from composite wood products that may follow closely regulations adopted by the US in 2016. -
Canada Imposes Conditions on Bisphenol Dicyanate
Aug 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Canadian government has imposed ministerial conditions for the manufacture or import ofbisphenol dicyanate. -
Jersey, Gibraltar to Follow UK Microbead Ban
Aug 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Jersey and Gibraltar have announced they are to follow the UK's example and ban the sale of cosmetics containing plastic microbeads. -
Oil & Gas Official Fears Months Of Uncertainty Regarding Methane NSPS
Aug 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds and Lee Logan
A top oil and gas sector official is raising the specter of months of compliance uncertainty regarding EPA's methane standards for new drilling equipment, saying that the agency has not explained how it will enforce major aspects of the rule after a court rejected its effort to pause those provisions and ordered officials to implement them. -
Court Approves Wyo. Deal, but Challenges Remain
Aug 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A deal to transfer a roster of Wyoming coalbed methane wells from the bankrupt Storm Cat Energy Corp. cleared a major hurdle last week, but the effort faces more challenges in the coming months. -
Puerto Rico Offshore Project in Doubt
Aug 7, 2017 | E&E Energywatch
In the wake of a utility bankruptcy, the fate of a $380 million offshore gas project in Puerto Rico remains uncertain. -
Chemical Spill at Port of Long Beach Injures 13 People
Aug 7, 2017 | ship-technology
Twelve dock workers and a firefighter were injured following the leakage of flammable liquid from a container ship at the Port of Long Beach, US. -
Dupont Pays $400M in Environmental Settlements
Aug 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Chemical giant DuPont has shelled out almost $400 million to settle two environmental lawsuits before its merger with Dow Chemical Co. -
Accounting for Public Heath Gains from Pollution Control
Aug 7, 2017 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Despite scientific uncertainties, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency needs to estimate the value of all significant public health benefits when it considers regulating pollutants, a new report says (Science 2017, DOI: 10.1126/science.aam8204).
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Seeks to Expand TSCA Advisory Panel for Broader Representation
Aug 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The Trump EPA is seeking to add members representing various stakeholders to an advisory panel created by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law enacted last year, and is looking to candidates previously nominated but not selected to grow the size of Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC).
“EPA has decided to increase the membership of the SACC to approximately 24 members to better address the objectives and scope of activities for the committee,” EPA's Aug. 3 Federal Register notice states. The SACC presently has 18 members.
“The Agency, at this time, anticipates selecting approximately six additional SACC members with specific expertise and perspectives representing industry, labor, animal protection, government, public health, and public interest groups,” the notice adds.
The announcement follows the Trump EPA's decision last spring not to renew the expiring terms of half of the members of another scientific advisory panel, the Board of Scientific Counselors. At the time, an agency spokesman explained that Administrator Scott Pruitt wanted the panel to include more members with industry experience.
The decision also follows concerns from several industry associations about the panel's size and makeup as EPA was finalizing its membership last January -- with particular concern that industry views be sufficiently represented on the new committee.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) urged EPA in written comments to better clarify the criteria it was using to select members for the SACC, as did other industry groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Their comments came in response to a Jan. 9 comment deadline that EPA established for commenting on some 29 candidates agency staff identified as potential SACC members, culled from nearly 100 nominations submitted in response to two separate requests in 2016.
“To make fully informed comments, stakeholders will need an explanation of why only 29 of nearly one hundred nominees have been put forth,” AFPM's comments say. The group also sought further explanation of EPA’s initial decision to limit the SACC to 14 members and its selection of nine members who at that time served on the now-disbanded Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC).
The Chamber stressed the importance of a “fairly balanced” panel that meets the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act -- which guides all of EPA's independent advisory groups -- and its implementing regulations that require the composition of a committee be based on the need for divergent points of view and other factors.
“A fair balance will not be achieved, however, if EPA appoints a panel comprised largely of academics and representatives of state and federal agencies that regulate chemicals or support the regulation of chemicals, with only one or two scientists who can bring an industry perspective to bear,” the Chamber says in its comments.
SACC Membership
EPA, however, declined to extend the comment deadline, and when the agency launched the new committee in February, it had 18 members. The SACC “superseded” CSAC, itself a relatively new advisory committee, according to EPA's website for the committees.
The Obama EPA created CSAC in 2015 to peer review risk assessments from its TSCA work plan program and to provide advice to EPA's toxics office. Obama EPA officials introduced the work plan program in 2012 as a way to more strictly enforce TSCA on existing chemicals -- those already on the marketplace when the original TSCA was enacted in 1976 -- and to prepare agency staff should Congress reform TSCA.
The TSCA reform law section 26, enacted last summer, directs EPA to set up the SACC. The law describes SACCs's purpose as “to provide independent advice and expert consultation, at the request of the Administrator, with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of issues relating to the implementation of this title.”
The law stipulates that panel members shall be “representatives of such science, government, labor, public health, public interest, animal protection, industry, and other groups as the Administrator determines to be advisable, including representatives that have specific scientific expertise in the relationship of chemical exposures to women, children, and other potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations.”
EPA's new SACC will be chaired by Kenneth Portier, a biostatistician and vice president of the Statistics & Evaluation Center at the American Cancer Society. Portier had also been named as the chairman of the now superseded CSAC. Portier is not the only panelist to also have been a member of the short-lived CSAC; seven of the 10 members of that panel were named to SACC.
EPA's notice explains that is considering for the additional members candidates nominated in response to EPA's August 2016 and December 2016 Federal Register notices seeking nominations. The candidates represent a pool of some 93 candidates. EPA is accepting comments on them through Sept. 5.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-seeks-expand-tsca-advisory-panel-broader-representation
-
IMPACT Interview: Fern Abrams, IPC
Aug 7, 2017 | I-Connect007
By Patty Goldman
I wanted to get the inside story on the meeting with EPA that occurred Tuesday afternoon and who better to talk with than IPC’s Fern Abrams. I was able to chat with her Wednesday morning.
Patty Goldman: Fern, as director of regulatory affairs for IPC, you are deeply involved with IMPACT, on the environmental end of things, especially. Tell me about yesterday.
Fern Abrams: We had a meeting with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, and his Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, Byron Brown. I think I would speak accurately for everyone if I say it was an excellent meeting. I heard one of our attendees say that it was our best meeting of the day—but I’m biased.
Goldman: Well, the fact that you spoke with the top person there says a whole lot.
Abrams: In a career of almost 20 years working in environmental policy, this is the third EPA administrator I’ve had the privilege to meet, and I would say this was just a delightful meeting.
Goldman: Wonderful. What did he have to say?
Abrams: IPC’s president, John Mitchell, kicked off the meeting by telling the administrator about IPC, what we do, the members we represent, and also letting the administrator know that we had a proud history of working with the EPA. He talked a little bit about our involvement in the Design for the Environment program and mentioned that one of our staff, David Bergman, had been recognized by the EPA for his work in helping the industry transition out of ozone-depleting chemicals, but that was a long time ago, quite frankly. We are looking forward to working with this administration on cooperative environmental protection that is based on science and is cost-effective.
Goldman: Are there any hot buttons right now?
Abrams: We talked about three. The first is the recycling of byproducts and what I would say is the unfair treatment of them under the Toxic Substances Control Act, where industry has worked very diligently to find beneficial reuses of byproducts. But now under TSCA they’re treated as new chemicals and so companies that choose to recycle them have the burden of reporting and the liability of that complicated reporting if they don’t get it just right. Whereas, if they’d chosen to simply dispose of it they would have neither the TSCA reporting nor the liability. This has been an issue for our members for some time. Since the mid-2000s we tried to work with EPA to address this and they’ve been rather intransigent. That’s why we worked with Congress. You heard Congressman Bill Johnson (R-OH) speak two nights ago about this issue and you heard it mentioned last night, both by Mr. Shimkus (R-IL) and Mr. Reed (R-NY), both of whom we worked with.
Under the legislation in the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act that was signed last summer, the EPA is required to conduct a negotiated rule-making. That’s where all parties involved sit down—EPA, industry, environmental groups, recyclers, all get a seat at the table—and we try to find common ground. The EPA will take that input and then, under the law, propose a rule in three years and finalize a rule in three-and-a-half years. We talked about that, and the process is already underway. The first public meeting will be next week and IPC will be represented by myself and Bret Bruhn. Bret is the environmental operations manager with TTM, in Oregon. He also chairs IPC’s EHS committee.
We mentioned that to the administrator and said we were looking forward to working with him on that. The reason for bringing it up was to reinforce our hope that EPA will be a good faith participant in the negotiated rulemaking. In the past, as I’ve mentioned, they’ve been somewhat intransigent on this issue. We had many meetings where they’d say they’d do something, agree with us and say it sounds reasonable…
Goldman: And then nothing happens.
Abrams: Exactly. So, we’re looking forward hopefully to a new attitude, new beginning with this administration. That was the first issue that was raised. The second one is the reporting of lead under the Toxic Release Inventory. It’s part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act. It’s purely a reporting exercise.
There’s no actual environmental protection and as we pointed out to EPA, the reporting threshold is based on used, processed or stored. So a lot of our EMS members, in fact 32% of all companies that reported to TRI, reported zero pounds released. They spend, by EPA’s estimate, about $9,000 per facility. Bhawnesh Mathur, President of Creation Technologies and Chair of the IPC GR Committee, said he has six facilities that all filed that they had reported zero pounds and they must do that every year.
Goldman: That’s a substantial cost.
Abrams: He said he thinks that cost is much higher, that it’s underestimated. In any case, as the administrator said, “So every year you do this to tell us every year that you release no pounds?” We said, “Yes.” He noted that 100 pounds was a pretty low threshold. We said it used to be 25,000 pounds until EPA lowered it, and he asked what the basis was for that.
http://flex.iconnect007.com/index.php/article/105705/impact-interview-fern-abrams-ipc/105708/?skin=flex
-
Maine Bans Flame Retardants in Upholstered Furniture
Aug 7, 2017 | Furniture Today
By Erin Berg
Maine has passed a law banning all flame retardants in upholstered furniture and has become the first state in the nation to do so.
The new law will take effect Jan. 1, 2019, and prohibits the sale of residential upholstered furniture that contains more than 0.1% of flame retardant chemical or more than 0.1% of a mixture that includes them.
In passing the measure (LD182), both the House and Senate overrode the Governor’s veto by overwhelming margins.
The bill was backed by firefighters groups, as has been the case in other states’ efforts to ban flame retardants, because the chemicals are linked to cancer, and studies show professional firefighters suffer from multiple types of cancer at higher rates than the general population. Flame retardant chemicals are also said to increase the risk of birth defects and learning disabilities in young children.
Safety experts and firefighters have said that flame retardants are not necessary for fire safety or to slow down fires.
The Professional Firefighters of Maine, the American Academy of Pediatrics and several non-government organizations were among many groups that supported the measure.
“No state in the nation requires the use of these toxic chemicals, and most furniture manufacturers have stopped using them for obvious reasons. It is time to get the last remaining companies using these chemicals to stop,” said Beth Ahearn, political director of Maine Conservation Voters.
http://www.furnituretoday.com/article/545358-maine-first-nation-ban-flame-retardants-upholstered-furniture/
-
Environmental Groups Sue FDA to Take Formaldehyde out of Salons
Aug 7, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Monica Amarelo
The Food and Drug Administration has failed to act on dangerous hair straighteners that contain unsafe levels of formaldehyde and pose a significant health hazard to consumers and salon workers, the Environmental Working Group and Women’s Voices for the Earth allege in a motion filed July 28 in federal district court.
The motion is part of the groups' lawsuit against the FDA for its failure to act on a six-year-old petition requesting an investigation into popular hair smoothing treatments that are still sold in stores and salons. These straighteners – often known as keratin treatments or by the name of one prominent brand, Brazilian Blowout – contain formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen and potent allergen.
“The FDA has failed to protect stylists and consumers from exposure to formaldehyde,” said Melanie Benesh, a legislative attorney at EWG. “Since at least 2008, the agency has known about the health hazards associated with these hair straightening products and done nothing. Despite the complaints, the FDA has yet to take action to regulate these products.”
High levels of formaldehyde make many keratin hair straightening treatments a serious health threat for both clients and salon workers. These treatments involve liquids applied to hair, which are then heated using blow dryers and straightening irons. The high temperatures of these hair styling tools cause the liquids to release formaldehyde into the air.
“Salon workers have particularly suffered due to symptoms associated with these products, with many reporting long-term health problems,” said Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women’s Voices for the Earth. “The health risks posed by these products deserved immediate action from the FDA when it was brought to its attention in 2008. Allowing salon workers and their customers to continue to be harmed by these products for more than six years is unconscionable.”
Salon workers have reported that the application of these hair treatments caused difficulty breathing, eye irritation and nosebleeds. These injuries – in addition to rashes, blistering and hair loss – are associated with formaldehyde exposure.
“The formaldehyde in these products is harmful to the hair stylists who have been sensitized to it and the clients who receive these treatments,” said Kathy Langford, a professional hair stylist from Brandon, Fla. “Salon workers who perform these services are exposed to the noxious fumes when these products are heated. Consumers have no choice but to inhale the fumes, and when they use straightening irons at home, they reheat the chemicals and breathe them in repeatedly. This is scary for everyone.”
“Too many stylists are injured from these treatments that are marketed as safe. Every client that walks in the salon doors is at risk, including children,” said Kelly Merriman, a stylist from Joliet, Ill. “Clients who receive this service go home with this straightening treatment on their hair. It off-gasses, continuously exposing them to formaldehyde, especially when the hair becomes wet or any heat is applied.”
Benesh said many customers have reported experiencing severe and long-lasting health problems even from a single hair-straightening process. Customers receiving multiple treatments are more likely to be at risk of developing allergies, which may include reactions such as asthma, hives and blisters.
“To make matters worse, products labeled 'for professional use only' aren’t required to list their ingredients on the bottle,” Benesh said. “Legislation proposed by Sens. Diane Feinstein and Susan Collins would close this labeling loophole and require ingredients to be listed on all cosmetics products.”
In addition, legislation introduced in California would require manufacturers to disclose the ingredients used in salon products. If the bill passes, it will be the first such law to take effect in the nation.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration can issue citations to salons where the procedure is offered if formaldehyde released into the air exceeds permissible limits. Even the cosmetics industry’s own safety review panel declared hair straightening treatments containing formaldehyde unsafe. Yet the FDA has limited its public action to generating an informational webpage and issuing warning letters to two manufacturers.
Other states and nations, including California, Oregon, Canada, France and Ireland, have taken action against products such as Brazilian Blowout by removing products with dangerous levels of formaldehyde from store shelves.
In 2011, EWG filed a citizen petition, or formal request, that the agency investigate the products and take appropriate action. When the FDA neglected to act, EWG and WVE sued the agency in December 2016.
The new motion argues that the FDA has failed its duty by unreasonably delaying a response. It asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to order the FDA to review whether to ban the use of formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals in keratin hair straighteners and to require labels warning of these products’ hazards.
http://www.ewg.org/release/environmental-groups-sue-fda-take-formaldehyde-out-salons#.WYiXDoSGPIV
-
Canadian Formaldehyde Emissions Regulations May Echo US Laws
Aug 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Canada has proposed an approach to regulating formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products that may follow closely regulations adopted by the US in 2016. It's a plan the government says was supported by all stakeholders who submitted preliminary comments.
The US rule requires the products covered to comply with the requirements of the California Air Resources Board onformaldehyde emissions. It also sets out requirements for product traceability and certification. It is due to go into effect on 12 December, but the US EPA is engaged in arulemaking process designed to delay several deadlines.
Canada intends to propose regulations in early 2018. Ahead of this, Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada have released a proposed approach for consultation that takes into account feedback received after they published a notice of intent on 18 March.
The regulation is envisioned to cover all composite wood products, including laminated products and finished goods made from composite wood products. It would exempt those with naturally occurring traces of formaldehyde. The government is considering requirements for testing, labelling and recordkeeping. It says it received comments from two industry associations, three NGOs, and one federal crown corporation, all "supportive of the development of formaldehyde regulations, suggesting alignment" with the US EPA standards "and/or" the related California standard.
Commenters also recommended:
· taking a "precautionary approach" in considering alternatives to formaldehyde;
· "effective management of stockpiled products;
· third-party labelling and tracking of components and products; and
· a phase-in period for eventual removal of all formaldehyde uses.
The government says that commenters also requested the outlining of the inclusions and exclusions in the regulations, as well as clear definition of terms for the consumer products. This is to avoid confusion between standards in other jurisdictions and to increase compliance.
The document does not say outright that the rules will mirror the US regulation, but makes repeated reference to it. The proposed approach also notes that the government "is considering the CSA [Canadian Standards Association] standard and regulatory approaches taken in the US and other jurisdictions as models for designing the proposed federal regulations". The CSA created its voluntary standard for formaldehyde emissions to "harmonise" with the California rules.
More than half of Canada's exports of structural and wood panels go to the US, according to the document. It reports that the country exported more than $7bn in composite wood products in 2016 and imported some $3.6bn.
Stakeholders can submit comments until 1 September. The government will convene a "multi-stakeholder workshop" on the rules on 6 September.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58065/canadian-formaldehyde-emissions-regulations-may-echo-us-laws
-
Canada Imposes Conditions on Bisphenol Dicyanate
Aug 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Canadian government has imposed ministerial conditions for the manufacture or import of bisphenol dicyanate.
The action – under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act – is a response to a notice given on 22 May of plans to use the substance. Because the government suspects that it is toxic, or capable of becoming toxic as defined by section 64 of Cepa, it is imposing certain restrictions on its manufacture and import.
These include recordkeeping requirements, aquatic and environmental release restrictions, and waste collection provisions.
The conditions took effect on 11 July.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58068/canada-imposes-conditions-on-bisphenol-dicyanate
-
Jersey, Gibraltar to Follow UK Microbead Ban
Aug 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Jersey and Gibraltar have announced they are to follow the UK's example and ban the sale of cosmetics containing plastic microbeads.
Last month British environment minister Michael Gove repeated a pledge to introduce legislation banning the manufacture of rinse-off cosmetics containing microbeads from 1 January 2018. The sale of such products would be halted from 30 June next year.
Jersey and Gibraltar are both self governing, but defer some responsibilities to the UK government.
Although Jersey is keen to follow the British lead its environment minister Steve Luce pointed out that legislation might be unnecessary.
"The majority of our products which contain microbeads would come from the UK initially," he said. "So we may not need to introduce legislation, because the UK ban will practically end importation to Jersey of those products.
"But I will ask my officers to look into the matter, and if we do need to introduce legislation, we intend to be a fast follower."
https://chemicalwatch.com/58069/jersey-gibraltar-to-follow-uk-microbead-ban
-
Oil & Gas Official Fears Months Of Uncertainty Regarding Methane NSPS
Aug 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds and Lee Logan
A top oil and gas sector official is raising the specter of months of compliance uncertainty regarding EPA's methane standards for new drilling equipment, saying that the agency has not explained how it will enforce major aspects of the rule after a court rejected its effort to pause those provisions and ordered officials to implement them.
The court's rejection of the Trump EPA's administrative stay of the methane new source performance standards (NSPS) makes compliance “an EPA enforcement issue, and we have had no guidance from EPA on the enforcement process that they will undertake,” said Lee Fuller of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), during an Aug. 3 interview with Inside EPA on the sidelines of the Texas Environmental Superconference here.
Fuller noted that the rule requires biannual leak detection and repair efforts for equipment constructed since September 2015. Operators were to have submitted their first report of leaks at their wells and other drilling equipment by June 3, though that deadline was paused by EPA's stay.
Now that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has vacated the stay and ordered the agency to implement the rule, Fuller said it is not immediately clear how or when facilities must comply with that deadline and a subsequent 30-day deadline to begin fixing the leaks.
One lingering issue in the litigation are pending requests from industry groups and their state allies for the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider a three-judge panel's 2-1 ruling vacating EPA's stay of the rule.
However, Fuller acknowledged that the en banc requests are “a pretty uphill battle,” given that the full court in a 9-2 order July 31 issued its mandate for the panel's ruling.
Asked by Inside EPA why EPA did not seek en banc review, Fuller said he was not certain but that the decision could have been made by the Justice Department's solicitor general.
But it is not clear whether EPA will be able to provide relief -- at least before the agency completes a separate ruleaimed at staying the methane regulation for two years. John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council told Inside EPA on the sidelines of the conference that the NSPS is in effect and that EPA cannot give “hasty relief” because that is what it tried to do with the stay that drew a court rebuke.
Separately, Walke said that the court's order issuing the mandate “made pretty clear that it didn't think there was merit to those petitions, but it wanted the proper court processes with replies and responses being filed.”
Regarding EPA's decision not to seek en banc review, Walke believes officials “thought they didn't have a chance. They would have lost, and that was pretty clear” from the mandate order.
Briefing on the en banc petitions has concluded, and observers say the court could issue its decision on the matter any day.
The court had signaled its intentions in a 9-2 order July 31 that immediately issued the court's mandate for the panel's ruling. Citing that order, Fuller had predicted that the en banc requests would be a “pretty uphill battle.”
Two-Year Stay
Potentially adding to the uncertainty, EPA is developing new proposed rules to stay the rule for up to two years. Comments are due on those measures Aug. 9.
Fuller said EPA might be in a position to finalize that stay by early October, though some sources have speculated that the agency might be able to act quicker.
Regardless, there will now be an “interregnum of activity” between the vacated stay and any future pause of the rule's requirements, and EPA's enforcement strategy is unclear.
He added that any stay is sure to be challenged by environmentalists, “and I don't know what the court will do on that.”
The court vacated EPA's original 90-day stay, issued under section 307 of the Clean Air Act, finding that such a stay must be linked to “mandatory” reconsideration proceedings under that section.
EPA must launch reconsideration if the regulatory issues in question meet a two-pronged test: they were “impracticable” to raise during the original rulemaking's comment period, and are “central” to the outcome of the rule.
The court found that because industry raised objections to the provisions at issue during the rulemaking, the first prong of the test failed, meaning the reconsideration was not mandatory and thus EPA could not use air act section 307(d)(7)(B) to stay the rule.
Environmentalists have charged that the pending proposals are of “dubious” legality, in part because they also rely on EPA's section 307 authority.
Another issue that could prolong uncertainty, IPAA's Fuller says, is the fact that the agency “really hasn't started any reconsideration process” of the methane NSPS. “There have been no conversations except very cursory ones with the technical people on what we need to do to put together the information that they need to reconsider [the rule] and what kind of supporting evidence” would be required to justify a new decision.
That suggests that if EPA's new effort to stay the rule fails under court scrutiny, the NSPS could be in effect for many months as the agency compiles a new technical record to revise the regulation.
Fuller noted that the leak detection and repair requirements would be the “most compelling and costly piece” of the rule, suggesting those should take top priority in any reconsideration effort.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/oil-gas-official-fears-months-uncertainty-regarding-methane-nsps
-
Court Approves Wyo. Deal, but Challenges Remain
Aug 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A deal to transfer a roster of Wyoming coalbed methane wells from the bankrupt Storm Cat Energy Corp. cleared a major hurdle last week, but the effort faces more challenges in the coming months.
Storm Cat is among the many companies that failed after natural gas prices plummeted. Since 2014, 4,681 wells have been left in the hands of the state and private landowners, with few having environmental cleanup plans.
Instead of adding to that list, Storm Cat has proposed to sell the wells that could still produce gas to Summit Gas Resources Inc. and leave only the exhausted sites on the orphaned well list.
"The only benefit we have to selling or assigning the assets over to Summit Gas is simply being able to sleep at night and not being a bad citizen by just kind of walking away from our remediation responsibilities," Chris Naro, Storm Cat's last remaining executive, said in May.
The deal got court approval last week, but Summit faces tight deadlines to hand over the $2 million it promised for bonding as part of the agreement.
Opponents of the deal, meanwhile, are seeking cleanup, rather than continued production, at the wells that will eventually belong to Summit (Heather Richards, Billings Gazette, Aug. 6). — NS
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/08/07/stories/1060058462
-
Puerto Rico Offshore Project in Doubt
Aug 7, 2017 | E&E Energywatch
In the wake of a utility bankruptcy, the fate of a $380 million offshore gas project in Puerto Rico remains uncertain.
Federal financial oversight officials placed the island's public utility, known as Prepa, under bankruptcy protection last month.
That led Excelerate Energy LP to announce last week that it had canceled contracts with Prepa to construct a floating natural gas terminal off Puerto Rico's southern coast.
The planned Aguirre Offshore GasPort (AOGP) was conceived as a way to import cheap natural gas and help wean the island off dirtier fuel sources.
While uncertainty now surrounds AOGP, a spokeswoman for Excelerate said, "This does not signal the end of the project."
"Excelerate is presently engaged with Prepa to find a path forward to make the AOGP project a reality," she said (Andrew Scurria, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 3). — MJ
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/08/07/stories/1060058427
-
Chemical Spill at Port of Long Beach Injures 13 People
Aug 7, 2017 | ship-technology
Twelve dock workers and a firefighter were injured following the leakage of flammable liquid from a container ship at the Port of Long Beach, US.
The firefighter and a worker were exposed to the fumes during the incident on Sunday morning and were subsequently taken to a hospital, reported Los Angeles Times.
Both victims suffered minor injuries and were in stable condition by Sunday afternoon, according to the Long Beach Fire Department and US Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard has identified the leaked chemical as propyl acetate, which is mainly used as a solvent.
The Long Beach Fire Department dispatched an engine company to the port's Pier G after receiving a call at around 9:30am on Sunday.
It was found that a 6,000gal chemical tank on-board an anchored container ship spilled the hazardous substance at the terminal, which is spread across an area of 29 acres.
A hazardous materials unit, a search-and-rescue unit and numerous paramedics were also sent to the accident site.
Two Long Beach fire boats and a lifeguard rescue boat were deployed alongside the anchored ship to establish a 1,000ft perimeter in order to protect the environment from damage.
The leak was contained and a safety zone of 150 yards was created around the ship to allow personnel to remove the chemical from the water.
Local and federal officials are currently investigating the incident and monitoring clean-up efforts, reported Associated Press.
http://www.ship-technology.com/news/newschemical-spill-at-port-of-long-beach-injures-13-people-5893541
-
Dupont Pays $400M in Environmental Settlements
Aug 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Chemical giant DuPont has shelled out almost $400 million to settle two environmental lawsuits before its merger with Dow Chemical Co.
A DuPont spokesman said the timing of the settlements was coincidental and that the company was not trying to reduce its environmental liability ahead of the merger.
"We are pleased to have reached a mutually satisfactory resolution in these decades-old matters," said spokesman Dan Turner. "These actions are unrelated to the proposed merger with Dow."
Both DuPont and Dow are trying to boost their appeal among millennials by creating sustainable "green" products (Greenwire, July 28).
The merger is expected to close at the end of the month (Jeff Mordock, Wilmington [Del.] News Journal, Aug. 4). — MJ
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/08/07/stories/1060058456
-
Accounting for Public Heath Gains from Pollution Control
Aug 7, 2017 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Despite scientific uncertainties, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency needs to estimate the value of all significant public health benefits when it considers regulating pollutants, a new report says (Science 2017, DOI: 10.1126/science.aam8204).
As it decides whether and how much to control pollution, EPA estimates costs to industry and others as well as benefits from improved public health. But when the agency calculates the dollar value of these benefits, it often fails to include all available health-related data, points out a team of researchers from EPA, New York University, and the University of California, San Francisco.
EPA has long estimated the monetary benefits from reducing exposure to pollutants linked to cancer. It also considers noncancer health effects, such as asthma and other lung problems, when determining the benefits of cuts in major air pollutants, such as ground-level ozone. But frequently, the agency omits noncancer effects from other contaminants, such as those in drinking water or hazardous waste sites, the researchers point out.
“Thus, benefits of preventing exposure to chemicals linked to adverse health outcomes such as birth defects, neurodevelopmental effects, and cardiovascular disease are typically not quantified,” the paper says. This could lead the agency to overlook significant pluses when it considers whether and how much to regulate pollution, the authors suggest.
Scientific uncertainty associated with toxicity or epidemiology data has led the agency to exclude such information as it estimates benefits of regulation, explains coauthor Tracey Woodruff of the UCSF School of Medicine. But analytical calculations can account for uncertainty about adverse effects from pollutant exposure in cost-benefit assessments provided to EPA’s decision-makers, she says.
Policy-makers need the most complete information possible so they can make “more scientifically informed decisions,” Woodruff says.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i32/Accounting-public-heath-gains-pollution.html
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested