Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 24/05/18
-
US EPA Extends Science 'Transparency' Proposal Consultation
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has extended the public comment period on its controversial science 'transparency' policy and said it plans to convene a public hearing on the proposed rule for 17 July in Washington, DC. -
Agency Wanted 'War Room' Press Coverage
May 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Records show EPA officials wanted to keep tabs on how Administrator Scott Pruitt was being covered by newspapers back home in Oklahoma. -
GOP Lawmakers, Industry Had EPA's Ear on Advisory Panels
May 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA leaned heavily on input from Republican politicians and advocacy groups in devising membership standards last year for its sprawling network of advisory committees, according to more than 700 pages of records released late yesterday in response to a federal court order. -
EPA Cost-Benefit Plan Signals Next Deregulatory Step But Faces Hurdles
May 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA's nascent rulemaking to establish more “consistency” in its analysis of regulations' costs and benefits appears to signal the next stage of the agency's push to limit the burden of its regulations, but former top agency officials say any final rule could face significant legal and procedural hurdles that could stymie or delay it for years. -
US EPA Received 38 New PMNs in November and December
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 20 new pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in November 2017 and 18 in December. -
(ACC Mentioned) D4 Poses Negligible Risk To Environment, Says Industry
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
D4 poses a "negligible risk to the environment", according to an industry-funded analysis of data collected for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Pledges Action on Legacy PFAS Chemicals
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
US EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has pledged to address possible health hazards posed by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). -
(ACC Mentioned) Some Takeaways from EPA’s PFAS National Leadership Summit
May 24, 2018 | National Law Review
By Susan M. Kirsch
On May 22-23, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosted a Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) National Leadership Summit (Summit) in Washington, D.C. -
NGOs In US Push for State-Level Action on PFASs
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Forty US NGOs are urging states to take the lead on eliminating the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), and are asking the EPA to give them the resources to support this. -
Science Proposal Muddies Reviews of Toxic Nonstick Chemicals
May 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
The top career EPA official responsible for safeguarding the nation's drinking water supply couldn't say yesterday how Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial move to restrict the types of scientific studies the agency can use might affect its efforts to protect the public from toxic nonstick chemicals. -
Court Ruling Could Condemn Echa to 'Endless Loop' of Dossier Evaluation
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
A European court judgment could significantly weaken Echa's ability to work with national authorities to ensure registration dossiers are in compliance. -
EU Adopts Revised Waste Framework Directive
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Council has adopted its revised Directive on waste, which includes a requirement for suppliers to notify Echa of the presence of substances of very high concern in articles. -
Top Offshore Regulator Says "Renewal of Optimism" in Gulf of Mexico
May 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
The top U.S. offshore safety official said Wednesday that drilling activity is increasing in the Gulf of Mexico, in part the result of a "renewal of optimism" following the Trump administration's push to roll back regulation. -
Shell Makes Deepwater Gulf Discovery Near New Appomattox Platform
May 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Royal Dutch Shell said Thursday it made another discovery in the Gulf of Mexico as it hopes to bring new life to the United States' languishing deep-water oil sector. -
New Sand Mine Planned for Rebounding Eagle Ford Shale
May 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
There's been a race to build new sand mines in West Texas' Permian Basin to satisfy all of the hydraulic fracturing needs for oil wells. -
Water Disposal Looms as Challenge After Bakken's Next Growth Phase, State Official Says
May 24, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Although there are plenty of near-term challenges tied to robust natural gas production and takeaway infrastructure in the Bakken Shale, water disposal in North Dakota is poised to emerge as a major and costly challenge in the longer-term, according to the state's chief oil and gas regulator. -
Oil and Gas Industry Challenges EU Estimate on Microplastics Use
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European offshore oil and gas industry has challenged an EU report that says it is responsible for using hundreds of tonnes of microplastics, some of which are potentially discharged into the sea. -
Apache Commits to Enterprise's 658-Mile Shin Oak Pipeline
May 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Houston producer Apache Corp. said it partnered with a major Houston pipeline firm to transport its natural gas liquids from West Texas' Alpine High development to the Houston area. -
Unlikely Supporter Exxon, Pledges to Fight Climate Change—Energy Journal
May 24, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Neanda Salvaterra
Exxon Mobil Corp. went from being dogged by accusations that it didn’t properly inform investors about the operational risks of climate change to pledging to join efforts to fight global warming, report the WSJ’s Rebecca Elliott and Sarah Kent. -
U.S. Chemical Safety Board Urges Chemical Plants to Weigh Disaster Risks
May 24, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Erwin Seba
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board on Thursday urged chemical plants to weigh the risks of natural disasters just as they would the integrity of pipes and production equipment. -
Trump Team Weighed 'Coherent' Climate Message
May 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
A leaked White House memo from last fall shows the Trump administration has been trying to reconcile the fact that government agencies continue to produce reports underscoring the serious risks from climate change, even as the agencies seek to scrap a host of climate policies and promote high-carbon fossil fuels. -
Clean Water Act 'Ambulance Chasers'? Firm Raises Eyebrows
May 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Trump administration is taking rare action against a Pennsylvania law firm for filing Clean Water Act citizen suits. -
McDonald’s Not Ready to Let Go of Plastic Straws
May 24, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
McDonald’s isn’t ready to stop offering plastic straws, despite environmental concerns. -
New York City to Consider Ban on Plastic Straws
May 24, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
Plastic straws and stirrers could soon be banned in bars, restaurants and coffee shops in New York City.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
US EPA Extends Science 'Transparency' Proposal Consultation
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has extended the public comment period on its controversial science 'transparency' policy and said it plans to convene a public hearing on the proposed rule for 17 July in Washington, DC.
The comment period will be extended from 30 May until 17 August.
The 'secret science' proposal, formally issued in late April, seeks to ensure that data and models underlying the agency's "pivotal regulatory science" are "available to the public for validation". This includes the studies, models and analyses used when calculating risks, costs, benefits and other impacts of EPA regulations.
The agency says the policy will "strengthen the science" used in its regulations.
But NGOs, scientists and Democrat lawmakers have loudly argued that the approach will block agency consideration of crucial public health data. And a chorus of stakeholders has called on the agency in recent weeks to extend its 30-day consultation and host hearings to discuss the proposal.
"EPA is committed to public participation and transparency in the rulemaking process," said agency administrator Scott Pruitt. "By extending the comment period for this rule and holding a public hearing, we are giving stakeholders the opportunity to provide valuable input about how EPA can improve the science underlying its rules."
https://chemicalwatch.com/67196/us-epa-extends-science-transparency-proposal-consultation
-
Agency Wanted 'War Room' Press Coverage
May 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Records show EPA officials wanted to keep tabs on how Administrator Scott Pruitt was being covered by newspapers back home in Oklahoma.
Agency contracting records obtained by E&E News under the Freedom of Information Act offer clues into what makes up EPA's media diet under the Trump administration. Documents detailing the agency's no-bid $120,000 news clipping service contract with Republican-run public affairs firm Definers Corp., which was canceled in December after a backlash, show which news outlets EPA officials were interested in following.
Under the contract's statement of work, more than 30 media organizations were to be included in Definers' search for clips.
Along with national newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, the contractor was tasked with checking on The Oklahoman and Tulsa World, too.
In addition, Definers was to search conservative-leaning outlets like Breitbart News and The Daily Caller, as well as publications that can focus on energy and environmental news, such as Bloomberg BNA and E&E News.
The firm also had Google News search terms that included "EPA" and "Scott Pruitt."
"Whether providing the media with press announcements; responding to media inquiries; or reacting to published stories, [the Office of Public Affairs] works to achieve articles that accurately represent EPA's perspective," said the document. "In order to accomplish this goal, OPA must constantly monitor media coverage and respond to inaccurate or incomplete stories."
It added, "OPA's ability to successfully address inaccurate or incomplete stories before the stories influence other reporters or are widely read is largely dependent on its ability to identify those stories shortly after publication, and OPA requires contractor support in order to do so."
The records, first reported on by Mother Jones, show EPA seeking a rapid-response production of media clips, similar to what happens on political campaigns.
Definers' monitoring service would give the administrator's office "an aggressive style of campaign-style delivery of real time coverage of stories, broadcasts and articles from major outlets," according to one document.
Under the contract, Definers was to complete several tasks, including "war room"-style coverage that included rapidly delivering stories to "a select list of approximately 30 OPA staff"; sending an email compendium of news coverage twice a day to roughly 600 people; providing via email "Near Live-Time Coverage" on high-priority issues; and maintaining a searchable database of past stories.
In its justification for offering the contract as sole-source, EPA said other media clipping services like Cision, Bulletin Intelligence and Critical Mention did not provide "the combined services" sought by the public affairs office.
Tricia Lynn, an EPA career employee in the press office, signed that document about a week before the contract's start date on Dec. 7 last year.
Nancy Grantham, the top career official in EPA's public affairs office, also sent a letter to justify the agency's no-bid contract for Definers' "media clip and war rooms media services."
"I believe it is of the best value to the agency to pursue this contract," she said.
In a statement, EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said, "The Definers contract was for news clip compilation."
He added, "The contract award was handled through the EPA Office of Acquisition Management and was $87,000 cheaper than our previous media monitoring vendor while offering 24-7 news alerts once a story goes public."
The EPA contract with Definers drew scrutiny for the firm's Republican ties.
Joe Pounder, Definers' president, has been research director for the Republican National Committee and worked on several GOP presidential campaigns. In addition, America Rising LLC, a Republican opposition research firm where Definers executives also work, had filed FOIA requests for emails of EPA union officials and employees who spoke out against the Trump administration.
Several EPA press officials come from the Republican political world, as well.
Wilcox has worked on several GOP campaigns, as well as at the RNC. Michael Abboud and James Hewitt have both worked at the RNC. Abboud has also worked at America Rising.
Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general, is considered to have political ambitions outside EPA and may run again for statewide office after he leaves the agency.
EPA under the Trump administration has had other ties with Republican consulting firms.
The agency signed a contract with Go BIG Media Inc., a consulting firm for GOP campaigns and groups, to help write the agency's year-end report, which touted Pruitt's accomplishments.
In addition, John Konkus, the deputy associate administrator in EPA's press office, was approved to work for outside clients, including his former employer, Jamestown Associates, a GOP campaign firm. Other records show, however, that he has not done any work for the firm while at the agency (E&E News Daily, April 27).
Definers never got to see out its contract with EPA.
Records show that by Dec. 19, the agency and the firm decided to part ways. Pounder said then that the firm would no longer seek federal contracts (Greenwire, Dec. 19, 2017).
Click here to see EPA's contracting records with Definers Corp.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/24/stories/1060082655
-
GOP Lawmakers, Industry Had EPA's Ear on Advisory Panels
May 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA leaned heavily on input from Republican politicians and advocacy groups in devising membership standards last year for its sprawling network of advisory committees, according to more than 700 pages of records released late yesterday in response to a federal court order.
But the documents, collectively labeled the "administrative record," offer little evidence of efforts by agency officials to weigh concerns from mainstream scientific or technical organizations before issuing the standards as part of an October directive.
Most notably, the new rules bar current recipients of EPA grants from serving on the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and other panels.
While EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has said the ban is intended to foster the "objectivity" of panel members, critics label it a pretext for keeping qualified scientists off the panels in favor of more industry-friendly participants.
The policy has prompted three lawsuits. Senior U.S. District Judge William Pauley III ordered the release of the records in response to a challenge brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council in the Southern District of New York.
In an accompanying statement, Richard Yamada, deputy assistant administrator at EPA's Office of Research and Development, said the records make up "a true and complete copy of all documents and materials considered by EPA" in issuing the directive.
Attempts to get further comment from NRDC and EPA were not immediately successful.
While EPA has almost two dozen advisory committees, with portfolios ranging from toxic chemicals to environmental justice, the administration's focus was mainly on two, the records show.
In a 2014 letter, for example, House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) complained to then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy of "a troubling lack of independence and transparency" by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) panel that was reviewing the adequacy of the agency's ground-level ozone standard.
The records also include a bill introduced last year by Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) to overhaul the membership criteria for the SAB, which provides outside expertise to EPA on a range of issues. The bill, which passed the House last year but has since languished in a Senate committee, contains a modified version of the ban on service by EPA grant recipients later adopted by Pruitt.
Also included are two 2016 letters to McCarthy from Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), criticizing the selection process and makeup of the CASAC, which advises EPA during statutorily required reviews of the air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter and four other common pollutants. Inhofe, like Smith, was critical of EPA's 2015 decision — made with CASAC's backing — to tighten the ozone standard to 70 parts per billion.
In one letter, Inhofe voices concerns about the "lack of fresh perspectives" on the CASAC. In the other, he specifically objects to the nomination of Donna Kenski, who had previously served on the committee from 2008 to 2010.
McCarthy nonetheless picked Kenski, director of data analysis for the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, for the committee. Pruitt, however, removed her last fall after issuing the new standards.
The October directive included a section on the need for promoting fresh perspectives; Pruitt has also effectively ended an informal tradition whereby CASAC and SAB members were reappointed to a second three-year term after serving their first. That change, coupled with normal turnover and the grants ban, has allowed Pruitt to make significant changes in particular to the composition of the SAB.
Also in the administrative record are several letters from Clint Woods, then the executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, which is made up mainly of regulators from Republican-leaning states. Woods, now the deputy chief of EPA's air office, in one 2016 letter urged EPA to "include significant state, local, or tribal participation and diverse geographic backgrounds" in choosing CASAC members. Pruitt's directive addresses both of those issues.
Other documents in the file include a letter from a top executive with American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, along with 2015 congressional testimony from officials with the Environmental Working Group and World Environment Center.
In that testimony, both officials expressed concerns about congressional attempts to overhaul the advisory board along the lines advocated by Lucas.
Notably absent from the administrative record is any consideration of input from groups like the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which bills itself as the world's largest general scientific society.
In an email yesterday, an AAAS spokeswoman said the group had not been consulted by EPA in developing the new membership standards. She also forwarded a October statement by the association's CEO, Rush Holt, condemning the prohibition on service by EPA grant recipients.
"Given its desire to limit expert perspectives and the role of scientific information," Holt said, "we question whether the EPA can continue to pursue its core mission to protect human health and the environment."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/24/stories/1060082657
-
EPA Cost-Benefit Plan Signals Next Deregulatory Step But Faces Hurdles
May 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA's nascent rulemaking to establish more “consistency” in its analysis of regulations' costs and benefits appears to signal the next stage of the agency's push to limit the burden of its regulations, but former top agency officials say any final rule could face significant legal and procedural hurdles that could stymie or delay it for years.
Assessing the impact of the emerging cost-benefit rule is complicated by the fact that EPA has released few details, these observers note, with the agency eyeing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that could tee up a wide ranging discussion of the issue.
But early signs point to the rule – recently expanded to include regulatory benefits – as a new step to seek “large structural changes to the way EPA does business,” Lisa Heinzerling, associate administrator of EPA's policy office during the Obama administration, tells Inside EPA, adding that the policy appearing to be an “economic parallel” to Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial proposed rule requiring use of only publicly available science to justify major rules.
And multiple observers also say EPA's planned cost-benefit rule, which would govern the economic analyses used to justify agency regulations, has the potential. to consume significant regulatory and litigation resources – to the extent it seeks to modify traditional EPA interpretations of agency authority to weigh costs of environmental controls under multiple environmental statutes that can have different cost benefit tests even within a single statute.
“That is a huge undertaking without [assuming] legislative fixes,” says another former EPA official, noting that both the rule and regulations based on it would be prime targets for judicial scrutiny. “I would suggest they apply some cost-benefit analysis to their own endeavor. If you end up obtaining nothing, was it worth the cost that went into it?” the former official asks.
The former official adds that addressing numerous and varied cost and benefit requirements in different sections of different statutes would likely add to the burden. “It's a Herculean undertaking to reconcile all the provisions in all the statutes,” the source says.
Such concerns may be widespread. Industry officials recently urged White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials to put resources into the rulemaking while playing down legal obstacles to consideration of costs in future rules.
EPA first indicated in its Fall 2017 regulatory agenda that it was considering crafting an ANPR to boost consistency in consideration of costs across EPA divisions and offices. The agency voiced concern that “many EPA statutes, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, provide language on the consideration of costs, but costs have historically been interpreted differently by the EPA depending on the office promulgating the regulatory action.”
The agency claimed this has led to EPA “choosing different standards under the same provision of the statute, the regulatory community not being able to rely on consistent application of the statute, and EPA developing internal policies on the consideration of costs through nontransparent actions.”
But the specifics of EPA's cost plan remain vague enough that a workgroup of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) this month punted, for now, on whether it should recommend that the full SAB review the issue.
Still, there are signs that the rulemaking is the subject of significant advocacy. At the recent OMB meeting, a host of major industry groups urged officials to take an ambitious approach, arguing in part that recent Supreme Court rulings – including the Clean Air Act case Michigan v. EPA and the Clean Water Act case Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc. – suggest the court is more willing to allow EPA latitude to consider costs than the agency may have assumed previously, even in cases where statutes may be silent.
Regulatory Benefits
EPA also appears to be broadening the focus of any rulemaking to include regulatory benefits. According to the agency's Spring 2018 regulatory agenda, the title of the effort has been revised, adding a focus on establishing consistency when calculating regulatory benefits, as well as the costs.
While the Pruitt EPA has been criticized for appearing to deemphasize benefits of environmental rules, Heinzerling says the inclusion of benefits in the current EPA effort could have deregulatory implications, to the extent it foreshadows efforts to push for comparison of costs with benefits in venues that have not historically required them.
Heinzerling adds the example of Clean Water Act technology standards – the subject of the Supreme Court's Riverkeeper case – that do not require detailed look at benefits once a “best available”technology has been identified.
“My guess is they are after a broad approach to setting regulatory standards that would use the full range of discretion to consider costs or to weigh costs against benefits,” said Heinzerling. “If that is right than that would be a huge deal,” she said.
Such an effort, however, could simply fail for a number of reasons, including that a broad push to revisit cost-benefit analysis agency-wide could render the stated goal of ensuring regulatory certainty – and legal defenses claiming it as an agency goal – “laughable,” she said.
And the other former EPA official says it is not a given that Michigan and Riverkeeper cases translate into a recipe for a broad, long-term rethinking of cost-benefit analysis.
For example, the Michigan case, which centered on EPA's threshold determination that its air toxics rule for power plants was “appropriate and necessary,” did not revolve around a decision by EPA to ignore costs, but on what stage of the regulatory process EPA considered them, the source says.
“All of these things are questions of whether the agency has done the right thing under Chevron deference, the source adds, suggesting that the Trump administration could try to revise cost-benefit approaches – with or without the Supreme Court rulings – but “another administration could also decide to go in a different direction.”
Deregulatory Agenda
The behind-the-scenes process on the cost-benefit consistency rule comes on the heels of a more conspicuous public fight over Pruitt's proposed rule, published April 30 in the Federal Register, that would require that EPA use only publicly available information to justify its regulations, with many observers interpreting both efforts as different prongs of a broader deregulatory agenda.
That science proposal is based on currently stalled legislation by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the retiring chairman of the House science committee, that would call for EPA to use the “best available science” in all its actions, but bar the agency from using any studies that cannot be released publicly online.
But the science data plan has drawn massive fire not only from environmentalists concerned it could undercut a range of studies showing the effects of pollution on human health but industry groups concerned that it undercuts protections for confidential business data used in venues including pesticide registrations. And many legal experts argue the science data rule may actually violate statutory mandates to consider best available science.
Alan Krupnick, an economist at Resources for the Future, also expresses concern that that the science proposal appeared aimed not at transparency but to “gum up the entire regulatory process.” For example, he noted that its impact would include attempting to discredit, for regulatory purposes, science studies including decades-old studies documenting well-understood links between fine particulate matter pollution and mortality.
So far, the cost-benefit rule has drawn more muted discussion, in part because it is only at the prerule stage and there is as yet no language to respond to.
But James Goodwin, of the Center for Progressive Reform, a group that advocates for strict environmental, health and safety rules, tells Inside EPA that he regards the cost rule as potentially an equally sweeping attempt to alter the machinery of how EPA's regulations are crafted.
It is about “how are we going to cook the economic books to support the anti-regulatory “outcome, as part of an effort to change “EPA's DNA, he says.
“They were trying to do with science . . . now they are trying to do with economics.”
Goodwin adds that the push to implement changes through a potential rulemaking effort – not just guidance – suggests an attempt to have a longer lasting impact. Should such an effort succeed, another future administration would have to launch another rulemaking if it wanted to change the policy.
https://insideepa.com/weekly-focus/epa-cost-benefit-plan-signals-next-deregulatory-step-faces-hurdles
-
US EPA Received 38 New PMNs in November and December
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 20 new pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in November 2017 and 18 in December. The agency also recorded 47 amendments to existing PMNs in the two-month period, reported on 22 May in two separate Federal Register notices.
The EPA announced in January that it had received 51 new PMNs in October.
The agency received one new significant new use notice (Snun) in November and three Snun amendments, one in November, two in December.
The EPA also received 12 new notices of commencement (NOCs) in November and 20 in December, as well as one amended NOC in each month.
The agency reported receiving test data on 15 substances in each month.
The EPA will accept comments on the submissions through 21 June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67159/us-epa-received-38-new-pmns-in-november-and-december
-
(ACC Mentioned) D4 Poses Negligible Risk To Environment, Says Industry
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
D4 poses a "negligible risk to the environment", according to an industry-funded analysis of data collected for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The chemical, a cyclosiloxane, is a building block for silicone polymers and is restricted under REACH in wash-off cosmetics.
Led by Josie Nusz at US consultancy Exponent, researchers examined data collected under a 2014 EPA enforceable consent agreement with five D4 (octamethylcyclosiloxane) manufacturers, processors or formulators (MPFs).
The researchers analysed sediment, surface water, and sediment-dwelling organisms collected at 14 sites, most of which are wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Some of the WWTPs receive input from D4 MPFs, while others are in residential areas.
Published in Science of the Total Environment, the study compared D4 concentrations measured in water and sediment with toxicity thresholds derived from lab studies. It also compared D4 concentrations in organisms with so-called critical target lipid body burdens.
"For all of the sites, the conclusion is that there is negligible risk from exposure to the environment," said Karluss Thomas, senior director of the American Chemistry Council's Silicones Environmental, Health and Safety Center (SEHSC), which funded the study. "We think sufficient data exist to make a conclusive regulatory determination with respect to the risk associated with D4 in the environment," he said.
"There has been a consensus within the scientific community for some time that it's really important to consider exposure in the evaluation of these materials."
Mr Thomas said, "the study certainly supports there not being a need for any product content restrictions on the use of D4 in the US."D4 in the EU
The European Commission published its regulation to restrict the use of D4 and D5 in wash-off cosmetic products in a concentration equal to or greater than 0.1% by weight in January 2018.
In March 2018, Echa published Germany's proposal to identify D4 as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) because of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) properties. The agency also launched a public consultation on the proposal, together with D5 and D6.
NGOs have criticised the restriction's limited scope and campaigned for D4 to be added to the authorisation list (REACH Annex XIV). In comments on the SVHC proposal, ChemTrust voiced its support for "swift additional regulatory action on D4, following the listing in the REACH Candidate list". It added that "ideally, a comprehensive restriction should be put in place first and then complemented by listing in Annex XIV to avoid future uses".
"The new information on lack of risk to certain organisms as reported by Nusz et al does not invalidate the conclusions on the PBT and vPvB properties of D4," said Tatiana Santos, from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB). The study doesn't include D4’s long-range transport in the atmosphere to remote areas, which is confirmed by monitoring data, she said.
In 2016, the European Commission proposed nominating D4 for inclusion in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). But one expert has said that the Convention's screening criteria could give a "false positive" for D4. The substance meets all of the criteria but arguably may not be a POP, says Michael McLachlan from Stockholm University, Sweden.
The companies involved in the EPA's enforceable consent agreement are Evonik, Dow Corning, Momentive Performance Materials, Shin-Etsu Silicones of America, and Wacker Chemical Corporation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67160/d4-poses-negligible-risk-to-environment-says-industry
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Pledges Action on Legacy PFAS Chemicals
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
US EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has pledged to address possible health hazards posed by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). But the agency's approach will apparently focus on contamination by the legacy chemicals PFOA and PFOS.
Meanwhile, thousands of PFASs could remain in active commerce, attendees heard at a recent agency summit.
Speaking before state representatives, federal agencies, trade groups and NGOs at the 22 May meeting in Washington, DC, Mr Pruitt announced plans to take such actions on legacy PFASs as developing a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water and enabling cleanup efforts.
Absent from the proposed plan, however, was an approach for assessing the thousands of PFASs used in such consumer products as food packaging, firefighting foams, building materials and textiles.
Industry groups hold that there is no evidence newer "short-chain" PFASs carry the same risks as their "long-chain" predecessors. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), which are not regulated, have been phased out under a stewardship programme and are no longer manufactured in the US.
Speaking at the summit, Jessica Bowman, executive director of American Chemistry Council subsidiary the FluoroCouncil, said regulators "should recognise the differences between various PFAS chemistries".
"Not all PFAS require risk-based regulation," Ms Bowman said.Disagreement
But some NGOs and state officials are unconvinced on the safety of short-chain PFASs and would like to see them regulated as a class.
"There is a direct disagreement that short-chain products are known to be any safer," Erik Olson, senior director for health and food at the National Resources Defense Council, told Chemical Watch. He was the only NGO representative invited to speak at the summit.
"I have yet to see any information that says these chemicals are safer to drink in your water," said Brandon Kernen of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. "There [are] a lot more questions than answers."
Mr Olson recommends that the EPA halt approval of new PFASs and issue significant new use rules (Snurs) limiting uses of those now in commerce. And he said the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should revoke approval of the 19 PFASs allowed as food contact substances.
Jeff Morris, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), said PFASs will be considered as a possible class of substances to be targeted as the agency prioritises chemicals for risk evaluation under TSCA.
Manufacturers have sought approval for 900 PFASs in the past 12 years, almost all before TSCA was amended in 2016, said Mr Morris. He did not say how many were approved, but he said the EPA has data from some 900 studies on approximately 200 PFASs.EPA approach
The EPA laid out the following "concrete steps" to address PFASs:evaluate the need for a nationwide maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking water for PFOA and PFOS;publish groundwater cleanup recommendations for PFOA and PFOS by autumn;consider naming some PFASs hazardous substances under the Superfund program, establishing liability for cleaning them up;develop toxicity values by this summer for PFBS (perfluorobutane sulfonate) and GenX, a PFOA alternative used in producing Teflon; andproduce a national PFAS management plan by this autumn.
The ACC said it supports "consideration of MCLs for PFOS, PFOA and other legacy PFAS", as well as regulation barring their import.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67167/us-epa-pledges-action-on-legacy-pfas-chemicals
-
(ACC Mentioned) Some Takeaways from EPA’s PFAS National Leadership Summit
May 24, 2018 | National Law Review
By Susan M. Kirsch
On May 22-23, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosted a Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) National Leadership Summit (Summit) in Washington, D.C. The Summit convened federal and state regulators, including representatives from EPA’s Office of Water (OW), EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), a small group of invited industry participants, and representative from the environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) community. The goals of the Summit were:To share information on efforts to characterize risks from PFAS and to develop monitoring and remediation technologies/techniques;To identify near-term actions to address current state and local challenges; andTo develop risk communication strategies to address public concerns and questions surrounding PFAS.
EPA broadcast the opening remarks and perspectives delivered by EPA Administrator Pruitt; Peter Grevatt, Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; Jeff Morris, Director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT); Craig Butler, Direct of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Chair of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) Water Committee; and Jessica Bowman, Senior Director of Global Fluoro-Chemistry, at the American Chemistry Council. During his remarks, Pruitt announced that EPA will soon classify two fluorochemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoroctane sulfonate (PFOS), as hazardous substances, and that EPA will begin to development maximum contaminant levels (MCL) for PFOA and PFOS under the Safe Drinking Water Act. PFOA and PFOS are largely legacy chemicals that were the subject of voluntary phase out by chemical manufacturers. The presence of PFOA and PFOS at former manufacturing sites and detections in groundwater and drinking water have raised public health concerns and made headlines over the last several months, particularly in Northeast states.
Butler’s remarks highlighted the key questions that ECOS and state participants hoped to have addressed by EPA over the course of the Summit, including any plans for MCL development, guidance on contaminated site remediation and PFAS analytical methods, and EPA’s plan to address data and knowledge gaps about PFOA and PFOS, as well as the alternative short-chain PFAS chemistry that makes up the majority of current and new uses of PFAS. States are eager for direction and assistance from EPA on standard-setting and, in the absence of federal standards, some states have begun to set their own standards. A copy of the ECOS statement is available here.
Grevatt shared plans for further co-regulator discussions and community engagement as part of an EPA “roadshow” beginning in late June in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Morris provided an overview of the rigors of the pre-market review process under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and OPPT’s ongoing work to better understand the diverse range of PFAS in the marketplace.
EPA intended for the Summit to serve as a formal launch of an ongoing dialogue with states, the public, and industry on PFAS, and more details will likely be shared in the coming weeks and months. A recording of the May 22, 2018, broadcast is available on EPA’s YouTube channel. Copies of the slide presentations from the Summit are available on EPA’s PFAS Summit website.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/some-takeaways-epa-s-pfas-national-leadership-summit
-
NGOs In US Push for State-Level Action on PFASs
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Forty US NGOs are urging states to take the lead on eliminating the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), and are asking the EPA to give them the resources to support this.
The call to action came in a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt that coincided with the agency's two-day PFAS "summit", and amid uproar over reports that the agency had a hand in holding back the release of a toxicological profile of the substances.
The EPA has pledged to act on the legacy chemicals perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) by establishing drinking water limits and setting forth cleanup recommendations. But it has remained largely silent on addressing newer 'short chain' PFASs – the safety of which is disputed by NGOs and industry.
In the letter, spearheaded by Safer States, the groups say they are encouraged that the EPA is hosting a summit. But interim director of the NGO Gretchen Lee Salter said "after decades of inaction and recent reporting of EPA and the White House suppressing science on PFAS, it is clear that states are going to have to keep leading the effort to address this public health crisis".
"Communities across the country can't count on this EPA" to address PFASs, added Liz Hitchcock, acting director of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families. "States must continue to lead."
The organisations have called on the EPA to:provide information on how and where PFASs are used in the US;release information about PFAS health risks, including the new risk levels in the as-yet-to-be-released Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) toxicology profile;support changing military specifications to allow the use of PFAS-free firefighting foams, which are currently required by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Federal Aviation Association (FAA); andprovide assistance to states for identifying and cleaning up PFAS in water and soil.States acting on PFASs
Policy experts predicted that PFASs would feature prominently in 2018 state legislative priorities. Since then, states have introduced dozens of measures targeting the substances' use in food contact materials and firefighting foam, and to control their levels in drinking water.
Washington state recently restricted the use of firefighting foams containing PFASs and enacted a measure to ban them from food contact materials. New York restricted state agency purchasing of food containers containing PFASs.
California plans to name carpets and rugs containing PFASs a "priority product" under its Safer Consumer Products programme. Such a designation would require manufacturers to conduct alternative analyses to identify safer substitutes, and could lead to their future regulation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67200/ngos-in-us-push-for-state-level-action-on-pfass
-
Science Proposal Muddies Reviews of Toxic Nonstick Chemicals
May 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
The top career EPA official responsible for safeguarding the nation's drinking water supply couldn't say yesterday how Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial move to restrict the types of scientific studies the agency can use might affect its efforts to protect the public from toxic nonstick chemicals.
"I think the important thing to focus on related to that proposed rule is that there are a variety of different perspectives," Peter Grevatt, the director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, said in an interview with E&E News. "We're not thinking through at this stage, trying to prejudge the outcome of that whole process."
Referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of stain- and fire-resistant chemicals linked to cancer and developmental problems, Grevatt said, "We will be focused on the best science that's available in addressing PFAS compounds, but also all the other potential public health concerns we have related to drinking water."
EPA concluded a two-day summit yesterday that focused on combating the health threats posed by PFAS chemicals, which the nonprofit Environmental Working Group estimates are present in drinking water systems across the country that serve up to 110 million customers.
The agency restricted press access to the first day of the summit and entirely barred reporters from the second day's discussions among state and federal regulators, prompting outcry from the Society of Environmental Journalists and other media professional organizations (E&E News PM, May 23).
After turning away E&E News from the summit for the second day in a row, EPA offered to make Grevatt and his boss, Assistant Administrator David Ross, available after the event. A spokeswoman later said "something has come up for Dave and he won't be able to make it, so we'll just move forward with Peter."
The interview was conducted at the agency's headquarters building with two communications aides and a water office staffer. It took place in a small conference room decorated with children's artwork and a whiteboard with a single quote on it from Dr. Seuss: "Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple."
When the drinking water chief was pressed on how the science proposal — which would likely prevent EPA from considering pollution studies that include confidential medical records — could affect Pruitt's promise to develop toxicity values from GenX and PFBS, two types of PFAS, he struggled to respond.
"I'm not in a position to conjecture on how that might be impacted," said Grevatt, who has been at EPA since 1998. "I don't think I have the opportunity right now to give you specifics about what I think about that. I think the important point is that it's a proposed rule that the public is invited to comment and provide their perspectives on that and the agency will consider that as they move forward."
Under pressure from public health and scientific organizations as well as some business groups, EPA has extended the comment period on the proposal to Aug. 16 (see related story).
Grevatt also discussed his takeaways from the PFAS summit's closed-door session yesterday.
One of the top priorities he heard from state regulators was around "risk communication and the importance of working together with states to develop tools to help states and local communities, together with the federal agencies, talk about these compounds with the public," he said. "There's a complex set of issues. And of course, PFAS in either contaminated sites or drinking water can raise very significant concerns for communities."
Another recurring question, Grevatt said, was how to regulate the broad array of PFAS.
"Do we start to think about them as a group rather than individually when there are so many?" he asked hypothetically. "If we say, well, let's understand the toxicity of this one and then once we check that one off, we move to the next, we may never finish that process."
With that in mind, Grevatt suggested the agency may ultimately conclude it's better to address the challenges posed by PFAS via a rule establishing a water treatment best practice rather than setting maximum contaminant limits for thousands of similar but chemically distinct types of PFAS.
At this point, however, Pruitt has promised to consider establishing binding limits for perfluorooctanesulfonic and perfluorooctanoic acids, or PFOS and PFOA.
EPA has already set a health advisory for those PFAS, which U.S. manufacturers voluntarily phased out the use of in 2015. But PFOA and PFOS can still be found in products imported from China and other countries (Greenwire, May 22).
"I want to make clear, as I give you these examples, that what the administrator committed to in the opening of the meeting was for EPA to focus now on working through the regulatory determination process under the Safe Drinking Water Act for PFOA and PFOS," Grevatt clarified. "That's not the same thing as committing to doing a regulation."
The drinking water chief also dismissed concerns raised by some state regulators that the agency's push to combat PFAS contamination could distract it from other priorities, like Pruitt's "war on lead" (E&E Daily, May 23).
"It's really not a matter of choosing either-or, lead or PFAS," Grevatt said. "These are issues we're taking on together. And we benefit a great deal from the administrator's focus and leadership on these issues."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/24/stories/1060082653
-
Court Ruling Could Condemn Echa to 'Endless Loop' of Dossier Evaluation
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
A European court judgment could significantly weaken Echa's ability to work with national authorities to ensure registration dossiers are in compliance.
In particular, the judgment could sound the death knell for statements of non-compliance (Soncs) – documents highlighting dosser weaknesses that Echa sends to member state enforcement authorities – and instead force Echa to return to the drawing board and rewrite the improvement requirements it sent to the registrant.
Echa has yet to decide whether to appeal against the ruling.
Chemical Watch sources say there are fears that the ruling could lead to an "endless loop" of compliance checking.
And, if Soncs are abandoned, the judgement could have consequences not only for Echa, but also for enforcement activities in member states. It may also make companies less reticent about challenging Echa decisions in court.Echa powers to push dossier improvement through
If, when Echa evaluates a registration dossier, it finds areas out-of-compliance because it believes the information is incomplete or too general, it sends a Decision to the registrant requiring it to submit certain additional information by a specified deadline. If the registrant fails to do so, the agency sometimes follows up by sending a Sonc to the relevant national enforcement authority. Responsibility for any enforcement action rests with that authority.
According to the European General Court (CJEU) ruling on 8 May – related to a dossier submitted by French oil company Esso Raffinage – if a registrant responds to an Echa Decision with new evidence to support its dossier that is not "manifestly unreasonable [and that does] not therefore amount to an abuse of procedure" the agency must, in accordance with REACH, start a new evaluation procedure.Background to the case
In April 2015 the agency issued a Sonc to the French member state competent authority asking it to address what it saw as non-compliance in the Esso Raffinage dossier.
Three years earlier Echa had asked the company – an affiliate of ExxonMobil – to provide a second prenatal developmental toxicity study in the dossier in addition to data already supplied.
The company provided information – including a substantial document setting out a weight-of-evidence adaptation for the second PNDT study – but Echa issued a Sonc, citing data gaps in the dossier.
In May 2015 the company went to court arguing the agency had breached REACH Article 42(1). This says Echa should examine any information submitted in consequence of a Decision issued under Articles 40 (examination of testing proposals) or 41 (compliance check of registrations).
The court has now ruled in favour of the company by annulling the letter. It said if Echa wants to find Esso Raffinage’s dossier non-compliant it must submit a new Decision in accordance with REACH. The agency has two months to appeal the decision.Court backs BoA's view
Ruxandra Cana, partner at law firm Steptoe in Brussels, said the European Court judgment opens up a ruling in a similar case by Echa's Board of Appeal (BoA) in 2015 brought by chemicals company Solutia Europe.
In this the agency had issued a Sonc for a notified new substance (Nons) dossier. Although the company updated the dossier, Echa said it had not provided studies requested by the Belgian competent authority. But the BoA annulled the Sonc on the grounds that the agency had not drafted a new Decision.
"The significance of the court case," Ms Cana said, "is that it confirms the logic and conclusions applied by the BoA in 2015, but it further specifies the conditions in which the agency has to initiate a new evaluation procedure. These are when a registrant supplies information that is not ‘manifestly unreasonable’, not necessarily just when the information is substantial and contains new submissions."
And, according to Marcus Navin-Jones, partner in law firm Keller and Heckman, that handled the case for Esso Raffinage, the ruling sheds important light on when an act is open to legal challenge: "Proving an act or decision by an EU agency can be challenged before the court is essential for every litigant, and this case is a significant addition to the case-law in this area."
In a statement to Chemical Watch, Echa said it is still analysing the judgment and "hasn't decided whether to appeal it or not.
"In the present case, the concerned act was issued in April 2015. Shortly after that Echa implemented a decision-making process covering largely the situation described by the court. Echa is now assessing if further changes are needed based on the court ruling."
The agency says it will assess the registration dossier again in light of the court judgment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67175/court-ruling-could-condemn-echa-to-endless-loop-of-dossier-evaluation
-
EU Adopts Revised Waste Framework Directive
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Council has adopted its revised Directive on waste, which includes a requirement for suppliers to notify Echa of the presence of substances of very high concern in articles.
The amendment to Article 9 of the Directive is part of the EU’s circular economy package to develop non-toxic material cycles so that recycled waste can be used as a major and reliable source of raw material, free from hazardous chemicals.
According to the Directive, Echa is required to establish a database for companies to submit the data eighteen months after it enters into force.
The European Parliament endorsed the changes last month.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67190/eu-adopts-revised-waste-framework-directive
-
Top Offshore Regulator Says "Renewal of Optimism" in Gulf of Mexico
May 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
The top U.S. offshore safety official said Wednesday that drilling activity is increasing in the Gulf of Mexico, in part the result of a "renewal of optimism" following the Trump administration's push to roll back regulation.
"This administration is very clear on offshore [oil and gas] being a prominent part of America's energy portfolio, and that impacts companies' desire to invest," Scott Angelle, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, said in an interview. "At the same energy prices have helped their spirits."
According to BSEE, there were 46 drilling rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico as of May 14, a level last seen in May 2016. And over the first four months of this year, 35 deepwater drilling permits were issued, almost double the tally from a year ago.
Those numbers differed dramatically from the data published by Baker Hughes, the drilling contractor whose weekly rig count is watched closely by analysts tracking the health of the oil industry.
According to Baker Hughes, the rig count in the Gulf of Mexico is down 22 percent from a year ago.
A spokesman for BSEE did not immediately explain the difference in the agency's data.
Interest in the Gulf is starting to pick up, "with two large discoveries that were announced within the last 6 months," said Imran Khan, a senior manager at the research firm Wood Mackenzie.
That is in large part driven to a rise in oil prices, with West Texas Intermediate now trading at more than $70 a barrel, its highest level since 2014.
At the same time Trump has been drawing applause from oil executives for his changes to environmental and safety regulations put in place following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in 2010.
The moves have drawn criticism from environmentalists and a number of Democrats, who worry the revisions could increase the chance of another large spill.
But Angelle insisted that his agency only changed 18 percent of the regulations, known as the well control rule, and stayed within the recommendations made by the bipartisan commission that former president Barack Obama ordered to study the causes of the accident.
"We can not ever sacrifice safety, but at the same time we can be a country that embraces safe operation and robust production," Angelle said.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Top-drilling-regulator-describes-renewal-of-12938504.php
-
Shell Makes Deepwater Gulf Discovery Near New Appomattox Platform
May 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Royal Dutch Shell said Thursday it made another discovery in the Gulf of Mexico as it hopes to bring new life to the United States' languishing deep-water oil sector.
The Anglo-Dutch Big Oil major said the new Dover well discovery is positioned near its brand-new, multibillion-dollar Appomattox platform that was completed and launched into the Gulf this month. The well is about 13 miles from the Appomattox.
That means the new discovery can be further drilled and developed through connections, called tiebacks, to the Appomattox to save costs, rather than build a new platform. The Appomattox is expected to start producing oil by the end of 2019 once it's fully set up.
The Dover discovery is Shell's sixth in the Norphlet region of the Gulf where the Appomattox is centered. The Dover well is about 170 miles offshore and is located southeast of New Orleans.Gas prices spike ahead of Memorial Day and Vermont City Marathon
"Dover showcases our expertise in discovering new, commercial resources in a heartland helping deliver our deep-water growth priority," said Andy Brown, Shell's upstream director. "By focusing on near-field exploration opportunities in the Norphlet, we are adding to our resource base in a prolific basin that will be anchored by the Appomattox development."
NO SURRENDER: New platform shows Shell isn't giving up on deepwater
The multibillion-dollar Appomattox was authorized by Shell in 2015, representing the first major deep-water project approved after oil prices crashed in late 2014. Since then, only two other Gulf platforms have moved forward, including Shell's Vito project, which was authorized in late April. The Vito decision is considered a sign that the long-languishing offshore sector is showing signs of life as oil prices hover above $70 a barrel.
Shell owns 79 percent of the Appomattox project. The remaining 21 percent is held by a subsidiary of the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp., or CNOOC.
The Dover well is positioned at a water depth of 7,500 feet and it was drilled to a depth of 29,000 feet deep vertically, Shell said.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Shell-makes-deepwater-Gulf-discovery-near-new-12940341.php
-
New Sand Mine Planned for Rebounding Eagle Ford Shale
May 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
There's been a race to build new sand mines in West Texas' Permian Basin to satisfy all of the hydraulic fracturing needs for oil wells. But now there are signs of growth in South Texas' long-stagnant Eagle Ford shale.
Fort Worth-based Black Mountain Sand said it plans to construct a new sand mine south of San Antonio near the Eagle Ford to serve the growing oil and gas production in the region as crude oil prices continue to rebound.
After building two mines in the Permian, Black Mountain said it is turning its attention to the Eagle Ford. The company acquired 2,300 acres in Atascosa County with the aim of completing a mine by the end of this year that would churn out 2.2 million metric tons of sand annually. The mine would employ about 75 people.
Ever-increasing large volumes of sand and water are required to frack the shale oil and gas wells to shatter the tough shale rock and release the petroleum.Recommended Video:The World is Running Out of Sand
The world is running out of sand because of mining and consumption. Sean Dowling (@seandowlingtv) has more.Media: Buzz60
"With the (Eagle Ford) region currently producing approximately 12 percent of the U.S. total oil production and growing, the need for local sand has become paramount for our customers," said Rhett Bennett, founder and chief executive of Black Mountain Sand.
The company is financially backed by the Dallas-based private equity firm NGP Energy Capital.
The proposed mine's total sand capacity is already sold out through long-term contracts, Bennett said.
Texas oil and gas producers used to rely more on purer Northern White sand from states like Wisconsin and Minnesota. But the industry is increasingly relying on a bevy of newly constructed Texas mines that produce cheaper sand that's much easier to transport, even if the quality isn't quite as good.
However, there's been some opposition from local residents regarding sand mines built closer to communities, especially when tiny particles of sand can be hazardous to people's health and lungs.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/New-sand-mine-planned-for-rebounding-Eagle-Ford-12940439.php
-
Water Disposal Looms as Challenge After Bakken's Next Growth Phase, State Official Says
May 24, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Although there are plenty of near-term challenges tied to robust natural gas production and takeaway infrastructure in the Bakken Shale, water disposal in North Dakota is poised to emerge as a major and costly challenge in the longer-term, according to the state's chief oil and gas regulator.
In an interview with NGI"s Shale Daily at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference (WBPC) in Bismarck, Lynn Helms, director of the state Department of Mineral Resources, took out his crystal ball, comparing what he expects the Bakken to look like in 2030 to what the Eagle Ford Shale is today with active wells approaching 40,000. The caveat, however, is that North Dakota's black gold might be tarnished by water limitations, he said.
"The emerging issue I see about that time is water re-use or water disposal," said Helms, reiterating what he warned about in another context two years ago at the WBPC, calling out state water policy and industry operating practices. "We've found that there are localized parts of our disposal zone that have limits, and the oil/gas industry is pushing up against those limits."
North Dakota now has what Helms called "a major initiative" to map the underground situation, and researchers at North Dakota State University’s Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC) are developing a web-based model so state water officials can do a better job of monitoring the situation, he said.
Noting that this issue isn't related to his state's strong stand against the Obama administration's Waters of the United States (WOTUS) policy that is being revised by the Trump administration, Helms said the focus now is on a disposal zone about a mile underground, and "are we going to be forced to move a significant part of that [oil and gas wastewater] disposal another 1,200 feet deeper at more cost into a different formation? We haven't found any technology that allows us to recycle water here."
Helms said a technological breakthrough in water disposal is very unlikely. "The whole area of water production, disposal, etc., is industry's number one operating cost, so they need to be focused on that very heavily, and there hasn't been much focus," he said. "We haven't seen the kind of investment and technology development in that area that we have seen in drilling and stimulation."
Helms expects that by 2030, the Bakken will be at about two-thirds of its ultimate well count, sort of where he sees the Eagle Ford today. "Operating costs -- not capital investment -- will be the dominant theme then."
Aside from the rosy long-term projections in which he sees drilling advances leading to faster completions and better production, Helms identified a lot of near-term issues that will need to be addressed to assure the Bakken develops as anticipated.
"I think we are going to see a lot of the things companies have developed in the Eagle Ford come back into the Bakken, different fracture designs and enhanced oil recovery [EOR] processes that will increase our recovery factor per well,"He said, adding that the state's six-month recovery factor has improved by 70% over the past four years on a well-to-well comparison. "In the Eagle Ford, they have been able to achieve 30-70% improvements in estimated ultimate recovery using different fracturing and EOR methods."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114489-water-disposal-looms-as-challenge-after-bakkens-next-growth-phase-state-official-says
-
Oil and Gas Industry Challenges EU Estimate on Microplastics Use
May 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European offshore oil and gas industry has challenged an EU report that says it is responsible for using hundreds of tonnes of microplastics, some of which are potentially discharged into the sea.
The sector has questioned the estimate made in a European Commission study last year. It has been named as an area of investigation in Echa's recent call for evidence on the use of products with intentionally added microplastics.
The study, carried out by UK energy consultants Amec Foster Wheeler, gave a sector-by-sector overview of tonnages and concentrations of microplastics in products. It said there was "evidence that suggests the use of microplastics in offshore oil and gas could be substantial, in the magnitude of hundreds of tonnes".
The study followed a Commission request to Echa to investigate the need for a restriction on microplastics. It could "serve as a basis for a restriction proposal under REACH", it said.
But Nik Robinson, secretary of the European Oilfield Speciality Chemicals Association (Eosca), told Chemical Watch that the EU study had relied on "poor and unreferenced reports".
The EU study did not give a precise quantitative estimate for the oil and gas sector, due to lack of available data. But it assumed a nominal amount of 1,000 tonnes per year "for a default worst-case assessment" of potential environmental hazard.Survey indications
Eosca has carried out a survey of its members as part of its input into Echa's restriction consultation. Mr Robinson said the data generated from this shows that these figures are "extremely high and not in line with the reported discharges of 2016".
He did not disclose the discharge estimate reported in the survey, but said that a substantial part of microplastics used in the oil industry is not released into the environment.
More than 30 suppliers contributed to the survey. The information collected, combined with that from five contracting parties under Ospar – the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, means Eosca has data covering almost 90% of products in the sector, Mr Robinson said.
However, he added that the trade association would not publish the survey results until after an Echa stakeholder workshop in Helsinki on 30-31 May. This will discuss the outcome of the agency's consultation on microplastics.
Many assumptions have been made about different industries' use of microplastics in response to Echa's call, Mr Robinson said, "and we want to ensure that these match".
Meanwhile, Ospar is conducting its own study to quantify microplastics discharged by contracting parties, according to the EU study.
Mr Robinson explained microplastics in the oil and gas sector are used in:drilling: additives in cement, used to keep steel tubing in place; and loss circulation material added to a mud system to prevent the flow of drilling fluid into a weak or porous rock in the well bore;production: wax inhibitors to prevent wax restrictions and plugs in pipework systems as oil cools and solidifies; andpipelines: cross-linking chemicals – compounds that react with other chemicals in the pipeline, creating a fluid of high, closely controlled viscosity.Key definition
For Eosca, the definition of microplastics and their "fate and partitioning" is crucial to the discussion about potential discharges and remedies.
It has started to speak with Echa and wants them to consider the specific partitioning that takes place in the oil and gas industry, which means less is actually discharged into the sea.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67188/oil-and-gas-industry-challenges-eu-estimate-on-microplastics-use
-
Apache Commits to Enterprise's 658-Mile Shin Oak Pipeline
May 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Houston producer Apache Corp. said it partnered with a major Houston pipeline firm to transport its natural gas liquids from West Texas' Alpine High development to the Houston area.
Apache signed on as an anchor customer of Enterprise Products Partners' Shin Oak NGL pipeline that will traverse 658 miles from Reeves County, Texas to Enteprise's storage hub just east of Houston in Mont Belvieu.
The pipeline is under construction and is slated for completion in the second quarter of 2019. Apache now has the option of purchasing a 33 percent stake in the Enterprise pipeline.
Earlier this month, Apache signed on as a major customer of the planned EPIC Crude Oil pipeline project to move crude from Apache's Alpine High to Corpus Christi, from where the oil can either be refined or exported.
The Alpine High development, which is west of Fort Stockton in the Permian Basin, is expected to produce plenty of oil and natural gas liquids, called NGLs, much of which are used to manufacture plastics and other petrochemicals.
Apache is committing to move more than 200,000 barrels of NGLs a day on the Shin Oak pipeline, which will have a capacity of 550,000 barrels a day initially.
"Alpine High is an enormous hydrocarbon resource that encompasses rich gas, dry gas and oil-bearing horizons. This agreement provides an efficient long-term outlet for the tremendous volume of NGLs that Apache plans to produce from the rich gas window of the play," said Brian Feed, Apache's senior vice president for midstream and marketing.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Apache-commits-to-Enterprise-s-658-mile-Shin-Oak-12940309.php
-
Unlikely Supporter Exxon, Pledges to Fight Climate Change—Energy Journal
May 24, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Neanda Salvaterra
https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2018/05/24/energy-journal-unlikely-supporter-exxon-pledges-to-fight-climate-change/?guid=BL-MBB-68424&mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2&dsk=y
-
U.S. Chemical Safety Board Urges Chemical Plants to Weigh Disaster Risks
May 24, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Erwin Seba
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board on Thursday urged chemical plants to weigh the risks of natural disasters just as they would the integrity of pipes and production equipment.
"Such facilities should perform an analysis to determine their susceptibility to extreme weather events," the board said in its final report on a chemical fire at the Arkema SA plant in Crosby, Texas, during Hurricane Harvey in August and September 2017.
"In addition, companies should assess seismic hazard maps to determine the risk of earthquakes and consider the risk of other extreme weather such as high-wind events," the board said in the report.
An Arkema representative was not immediately available on Thursday morning for comment.
Harvey dropped five feet of water on the Crosby plant, cutting off power to low-temperature warehouses meant to keep cool organic peroxides used in plastics production.
"Once the rain started falling, there was almost nothing to be done," board Lead Investigator Mark Wingard said. "They were not expecting the level of rain they got."
Much of the planning for flooding was based on past experience and not worst-case scenarios, Wingard said.
During Harvey the crew working during the storm moved the peroxides to refrigerated trailers as a last resort to keep them from decomposing and catching fire at the plant located 27 miles (43 km) east of Houston.
But when floodwaters cut power to the trailers, the peroxides decomposed, heated up and caught fire, forcing the evacuation of 200 people living within a 1-1/2-mile (2.4-km)radius of the plant. Twenty-one people sought treatment for exposure to fumes from the blaze.
The evacuation ended after officials set fire to the storage trailers to burn up all of the peroxides.
The board, which has no enforcement or regulatory authority, recommended Arkema develop plans for flood risks at its plants and put in place multiple, redundant systems for storing chemicals.
The board also recommended that the American Institute of Chemical Engineers' Center for Process Safety develop guidelines so plants can evaluate risk from extreme weather.
The board said Harris County, Texas, should update training and protective equipment for emergency responders to prevent exposure to hazardous chemicals.
Many of those exposed to the fumes from the fire were emergency responders.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/05/24/world/europe/24reuters-chemicals-probe-arkema-harvey.html
-
Trump Team Weighed 'Coherent' Climate Message
May 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
A leaked White House memo from last fall shows the Trump administration has been trying to reconcile the fact that government agencies continue to produce reports underscoring the serious risks from climate change, even as the agencies seek to scrap a host of climate policies and promote high-carbon fossil fuels.
The Washington Post, which obtained a copy of the Sept. 18 memo from then-White House environment adviser Mike Catanzaro, reports in a May 22 story that administration officials have largely followed one option in the memo, to “ignore” the climate science that continues to be produced by federal agencies and outside groups.
The memo also suggested two other options, “highlight uncertainties” in climate science, or craft a “coherent, fact-based message about climate science.”
The Post cites a range of studies that are continuing to be issued by federal officials, including a high-profile climate science report from an inter-agency group, as well as other studies from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Park Service and others.
All generally show that anthropogenic climate change presents a wide range of significant risks to the United States and other areas around the world.
Many such reports have been issued without an official announcement, and several top Trump officials have declined to say whether the reports influence their view about human-caused climate change.
The memo was produced ahead of a White House meeting last year that was held to craft a “forward-looking strategy” on climate, energy and environmental issues, according to a Politico story.
Besides offering up ideas about touting energy innovation and jobs created by the energy sector, that story reported that officials “also discussed how to combat the public perception that the administration is out of touch with climate science.”
Former Obama officials have long charged that the Trump administration has a “convoluted” position on climate change, in which EPA and other agencies are aggressively targeting climate mitigation policies for roll back while not completely denying mainstream climate science.
A chief example of such muddled policy is the fact that President Donald Trump's March 2017 “energy independence” executive order did not target EPA's landmark greenhouse gas endangerment finding -- the basis for all of its climate rules -- according to a former top Obama EPA official, Bob Sussman, who is now a consultant.
“Why didn't it happen?” Sussman wrote in April 2017. “The best explanation is that the Trump team is divided on both the substance and foreign policy implications of a hard-line position on climate change and is playing for time.”
He finds “poor” prospects for a “soft landing” from Trump's “high-wire act” on climate policy. “Trump will be increasingly trapped in internal contradictions that he cannot reconcile.”
Since that time, Trump has pledged to leave the Paris climate agreement but has often suggested he might stay in the deal under “better terms,” a stance that could further underscore the administration's lack of a “coherent” strategy on the underlying risks of climate change.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/trump-team-weighed-coherent-climate-message
-
Clean Water Act 'Ambulance Chasers'? Firm Raises Eyebrows
May 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Trump administration is taking rare action against a Pennsylvania law firm for filing Clean Water Act citizen suits.
The Department of Justice filed statements last week in three ongoing lawsuits brought by Brodsky & Smith LLC against California companies alleging violations of stormwater discharge limits.
DOJ raised concerns not only about the suits and proposed settlement agreements, which include unusual payments to the plaintiffs, but also about the volume of Clean Water Act litigation that Brodsky & Smith has brought in the past two years.
"The United States has not identified any firm, solo practitioner, or organization having filed a similar volume of citizen suit actions in a similar timeframe over the 41-year history of CWA citizen suit litigation," the department said.
DOJ asked the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where the three suits were filed, to require the firm to justify proposed settlement agreements and attorneys' fees.
While the government occasionally weighs in on Clean Water Act citizen suits and settlements, legal experts say DOJ's court filings are highly unusual.
"I never saw anything like this during my time at EPA," said Mark Ryan, an attorney who spent 24 years at the agency as a Clean Water Act litigator.
The law's citizen suit provision provides a mechanism for citizens and environmental groups to bring litigation against both private parties and EPA. It allows the public to play the role of "private attorney general" to enforce water standards, said Daniel Estrin, general counsel at the Waterkeeper Alliance.
"Citizen suits are an extremely important tool that Congress gave to the public, I think, out of recognition that the government would not always do its job," Estrin said. "There are many different reasons why that may be the case, whether it's lack of resources or lack of political will."
The vast majority of Clean Water Act citizen suits brought against private parties are settled.
"There's always risk on both sides if you let a case go to judgment by the courts," Estrin said. With settling, "typically, neither side gets everything they want, but neither side loses everything they stand to lose, either," he said.
Over the last several years, stormwater runoff has become a hot topic in Clean Water Act citizen litigation, said Karl Coplan, director of the environmental litigation clinic at Pace University's Elisabeth Haub School of Law.
"Anything that's in certain industrial categories, if you have rainfall on your site, and it's being collected anywhere, and it ends up going in a stream somewhere, you need coverage under a permit," Coplan said.
"It ends up affecting a lot of small businesses that may not know they needed the permit in the first place, or may not have a compliance officer," he said.'Novel innovation'
At issue in DOJ court filings: lawsuits that Brodsky & Smith brought on behalf of California citizens against three small businesses over stormwater.
The lawsuits in question are:In November 2016, Gary Lunsford sued Los Angeles-based Arrowhead Brass Plumbing and Arrowhead Brass & Plumbing LLC.In October 2017, Luke Delgadillo Garcia filed suit against Whittier-based Miller Castings Inc.In January, Alfonso Lares' case targeted Riverside-based Reliable Wholesale Lumber Inc.
All three lawsuits alleged the same thing: that the company has been "discharging and continues to discharge polluted stormwater from the facility in violation of the express terms and conditions of Sections 301 and 402 of the Clean Water Act," as well as in violation of California's general industrial stormwater permits.
The three companies, according to the lawsuits, engage in an outdoor operation where pollutants are exposed to rainfall.
In each case, Brodsky & Smith sought a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, civil penalties and the award of costs, including fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. There are pending consent agreements in each case.
DOJ last week complained that the explanations of the alleged violations in the complaints were vague and identified multiple problems with the proposed agreements.
The department said that the agreements have weak enforcement mechanisms, create confusion about permit requirements and identify environmental projects that have no nexus to the alleged violations.
The government also raised concerns that the firm had filed to justify attorneys' fees, costs and other payments. Under the agreements, the plaintiffs would receive a total of $20,000, while Brodsky & Smith would collect $170,500.
"In correspondence with Brodsky & Smith, counsel attempted to explain how these settlement agreements provided some environmental benefit for underlying CWA violations," DOJ said. "The United States does not find those explanations to be sufficient."
DOJ raised questions about Brodsky & Smith's broader Clean Water Act citizen suit practice, mostly stemming from the large number of suits that the firm has filed in the last two years.
According to DOJ, Brodsky & Smith has filed 158 notices of violation against companies since June 2016. Most have been resolved outside of court. In the past two years, the firm has made nearly $700,000 in Clean Water Act-related attorneys' fees, DOJ said.
"The practice of initiating and settling a large volume of CWA citizen suits appears a novel innovation," the department said. "The United States is thus concerned that these lawsuits may not be well founded and may be contrary to the expressed intent of Congress regarding the CWA's citizen suit provision."Key Clean Water Act provision
By passing the Clean Water Act's citizen suit provision in the 1970s, Congress created a role for DOJ to keep an eye on lawsuits and settlements.
Under the Clean Water Act, litigants are required to submit their 60-day notices of violation to the government. After they settle a complaint, they are required to send a copy of the consent decree to the Justice Department for review.
"Congress clearly anticipated that DOJ should watch these things," said Ryan, the former EPA attorney.
DOJ has in the past objected to Clean Water Act settlements. In the early days of the citizen suit provision, the department would object to settlements that didn't include penalties going to the Treasury, Koplan said.
The government, for example, filed a formal objection to a proposed consent decree in a 1990 lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club against an Oregon circuit-board manufacturing plant because it didn't include a requirement that payments go to the Treasury.
But a more common DOJ response to a Clean Water Act citizen suit is a letter, such as one that the department submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2016 in litigation that the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance brought over stormwater runoff at a lumber yard in Cloverdale, Calif.
DOJ notified the court that the government had no objection to a proposed settlement between the alliance and the defendant, Pacific States Industries Inc. The settlement included $50,000 for an environmental project to improve water quality.
DOJ spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said the department each year typically files variations of the letter dozens of times in courts around the country.
The government, though, doesn't always acknowledge receiving a notice from a suing party. Ryan said that in practice, it's hard for DOJ to look closely at all the notices of violation it receives.
According to a study Ryan did last fall based on DOJ data, 567 complaints were filed under the Clean Water Act citizen suit provision between 2010 and 2016.
"Ninety-five percent of the time, we just read them and tossed them in the trash because we didn't have the resources to get involved," Ryan said. "But occasionally, we would look at one and go, 'Hmmm, this one is not really in the public interest.'"
He added, "There are a few firms out there that are kind of ambulance chasers, frankly. I mean, most of them are not. But there are a few."
Certain aspects of citizen suits and settlement agreements raise immediate red flags, legal experts say.
That includes payments to plaintiffs in lieu of penalties paid to the Treasury and failure to include injunctive relief, such as a requirement that a facility obtain a lacking permit or a supplemental environmental project.
"Plaintiffs should not be enriching themselves through citizen suits," Koplan said. "The idea is that the citizen suit is brought to enforce environmental values should be settled where any payments that don't go back to the Treasury should go toward environmental projects."
While the number of notices of violation that Brodsky & Smith allegedly filed in two years is unusually high, a large number of notices of violation in and of itself is not necessarily a red flag, Koplan added.
"It's not unusual for a public-interest law firm to investigate a large number of potential violators and send out notice letters and then resolve which ones are actually in compliance," he said.Firm disagrees with DOJ
On its website, Brodsky & Smith says it wants to reduce stormwater runoff.
"Through citizen suits, our clients seek injunctive relief and penalties from companies that discharge pollutants into the nation's waterways," the website says.
Evan Smith, a founding member at Brodsky & Smith and the lead attorney on the three lawsuits, declined to discuss the specific cases or answer questions about the firm's broader Clean Water Act citizen suit practice.
"While we are not able to comment on ongoing litigation, we obviously disagree with the Department of Justice's position and intend to file a responsive pleading at the appropriate time," Smith wrote in an email to E&E News.
Waterkeeper's Estrin wouldn't comment on DOJ's specific complaints about the firm but said abuses of the Clean Water Act citizen suit provision are uncommon.
"I have rarely seen any situation where it looks to me like someone is making a regular practice out of abusing this process," he said. "I think the systems that have been set up make it very difficult to do that, and I think anyone who thinks they're going to make a living doing that will quickly realize that they've made a bad decision, because you're not going get away with that for very long."
Estrin's group and its local affiliates often file citizen suits, including ones that allege violations of stormwater runoff.
He said successful lawsuits can help regulated entities "conform their behavior" to water standards.
"We certainly would not want there to be a general perception that citizen suits are being misused or cases are being brought frivolously in order to essentially make money without any real environmental benefit," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/24/stories/1060082651
-
McDonald’s Not Ready to Let Go of Plastic Straws
May 24, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
McDonald’s isn’t ready to stop offering plastic straws, despite environmental concerns.
A shareholder proposal to pressure the world’s biggest hamburger chain on the matter was voted down at the company’s annual meeting Thursday. The proposal by activist group SumOfUs asked for a report about the “business risks” of using plastic straws at the chain’s 37,000 locations globally.
McDonald’s said it was already working on finding alternatives to plastic straws and urged shareholders to reject the proposal.
The push to ban plastic straws has been getting more attention lately. A New York city councilman introduced a bill this week saying restaurants should replace plastic straws with paper or metal alternatives.
Seattle and Miami Beach have passed bans on plastic straws. The city of Malibu, California, is banning plastic cutlery and straws.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/mcdonalds-not-ready-to-let-go-of-plastic-straws/2018/05/24/ddff9ede-5f6a-11e8-b656-236c6214ef01_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0e77638645db
-
New York City to Consider Ban on Plastic Straws
May 24, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
Plastic straws and stirrers could soon be banned in bars, restaurants and coffee shops in New York City.
Democratic City Councilman Rafael Espinal introduced a bill on Wednesday, saying restaurants should replace plastic with paper or metal straws.
Exceptions would be made for people with disabilities or medical conditions. The penalty would be a $100 fine.
The move comes as cities and nations begin to tackle the growing problem of plastic pollution.
Espinal says 500 million plastic straws are discarded each day in the U.S. and up to 12 million metric tons of plastic end up in the oceans each year.
Malibu, California, is banning all plastic cutlery and straws. Seattle and Miami Beach also have enacted bans on plastic straws.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/new-york-city-to-consider-ban-on-plastic-straws/2018/05/23/a3c7d4f2-5ee3-11e8-b656-236c6214ef01_story.html?utm_term=.97a8b75b42b2
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested