Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 08/10/18
-
Full Committee Hearing to Examine Blackstart
Oct 11, 2018 | Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Threats to the Homeland
Oct 10, 2018 | U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee
Location: 342-D Dirksen / 08:30 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) As Plastic Waste Chokes the Planet, Can Petrochemical Industry Respond?
Oct 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Katherine Blunt
Jim Becker arrived in Asia in 2010 to market plastics for Chevron Phillips Chemical only to be confronted by a problem that the petrochemicals industry had for years done little to address: plastic waste. -
(ACC Mentioned) Demilec Spray Foam Insulation Technology Wins 2018 Polyurethane Innovation Award
Oct 8, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, DC) announced Demilec (USA) Inc. (Arlington, TX) as the winner of the 2018 Polyurethane Innovation Award. Demilec’s winning entry, one of three finalists -
Yes, Radiation is Bad for You. The EPA’s ‘Transparency Rule’ Would be Even Worse.
Oct 8, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Audra J. Wolfe
Last Tuesday, a headline from the Associated Press sparked outrage in the ordinarily quiet world of science policy. -
OIG's 2019-2023 Plan Targets EPA Goals For Audit, Vows Efficiency Boosts
Oct 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) in its newly unveiled strategic plan for 2019-23 is vowing to quickly open audits of the agency’s progress toward six goals that former Administrator Scott Pruitt set for the same time period, while also offering steps for how the OIG plans... -
Senate Democrats Query EPA Placing Children's Office Head on Leave
Oct 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
Democratic members of the Senate Appropriations committee are urging Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler to explain the recent decision to place the head of EPA's children's health office on leave, and asking about his plans for the office's future... -
The Chemical Industry is Bracing for a Nylon 6,6 Shortage
Oct 7, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
On Aug. 22, 2015, a brand-new adiponitrile plant in the burgeoning Chinese chemical town of Yantai exploded, killing one person. -
Chemicals Legally on Market List Coming By Year’s End: EPA
Oct 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA will release by year’s end its list of chemicals that companies can legally make and use, the agency said Oct. 5. -
EPA Releases Final Rule on TSCA User Fees
Oct 5, 2018 | National Law Review
On September 27, 2018, EPA (the Agency) released a pre-publication copy of the final rule establishing “user fees” for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.). -
(ACC Mentioned) Canada, U.S. to Bolster Cooperation on Chemical Assessments
Oct 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By James Munson
A plan by Canadian and U.S. agencies to examine how they can jointly assess the environmental and health risks of a widely used industrial solvent and paint remover could open the door to further close cooperation. -
(ACC Mentioned) BPA Safety Confirmed, Once Again, by Final Report from National Toxicology Program
Oct 6, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
If I told you that the final report on bisphenol A (BPA) has been issued, would you believe me? After nearly two decades of studies from various groups attempting to prove that BPA either causes—or does not cause—problems in humans, the results released last week once again confirm... -
(ACC Mentioned) What’s In LaCroix Water And Is It As Scary As One Lawsuit Claims It To Be?
Oct 5, 2018 | BuzzFeed
By Venessa Wong
The trendy sparkling water brand LaCroix claims it is all natural, but a new class-action lawsuit says the “water is neither all natural or 100% natural” and seeks to “obtain redress for all persons injured” by the claim. -
Six Cancer-Causing Food Additives Banned by FDA
Oct 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Six synthetic flavoring substances are being banned by the federal government over cancer concerns at the urging of environmental advocacy groups. -
Angry Mich. Residents Demand Answers from EPA
Oct 5, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Frustrated residents and local officials grappling with the widespread contamination of drinking water from nonstick chemicals gathered here today to call for faster action — and answers — from state and federal regulators. -
United States is Undergoing a Chemical Weapons Attack
Oct 7, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By John M. DeMaggio
Is the United States under attack from Chemical Weapons in the form of dangerous and toxic chemicals, as defined by the Chemical Weapons Convention, camouflaged as narcotics for illicit distribution resulting in death tolls rivaling those levels from the Chemical Warfare of WW I? -
Toxins From Recycled Items Could Find Their Way Into Commonly Used Goods, Experts Warn
Oct 5, 2018 | CBS New York
By Dana Tyler
Most of us recycle, and that’s a good thing since those items are then used in the manufacturing of new products. -
Forget Cars, Plastics Could Soon Become the 'Single Most Important Driver' of Oil Demand
Oct 8, 2018 | CNBC
By Sam Meredith
Petrochemical products like plastics will become the most prominent driver of oil demand over the coming years, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) told CNBC Monday. -
Insight: Us Natural Gas, Coal Markets Calm About Low Inventories … for Now
Oct 5, 2018 | Platts
By J. Robinson and Andrew Moore
The growth of low-priced natural gas supply from Appalachia and Texas appears to be changing the market calculus on winter heating demand this year. -
Army Corps Pulls Mountain Valley Pipeline Permits
Oct 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Ben LeFebvre
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers today suspended the permits given to the Mountain Valley pipeline project, forcing the company to halt construction of the natural gas line. -
EPA Rejects Call To End Oil & Gas MOU Ahead Of Wastewater Public Meeting
Oct 8, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
EPA is rejecting environmentalists' calls to end an agreement with New Mexico to explore possibilities for reuse of wastewater from oil and gas extraction, ahead of an Oct. 9 meeting where the agency will offer an update on its national study of ways to manage wastewater... -
New Sage Grouse Plans Could Allow More Drilling, Other Development
Oct 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
More commercial activity and infrastructure projects may be allowed in habitat of the greater sage grouse under proposed changes to land use plans protecting the bird released by the U.S. Forest Service Oct. 5. -
Epic Eyeing Early Start to Move Permian Crude to South Texas
Oct 8, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Because of “high customer demand” from Permian Basin producers, Epic Crude Oil Pipeline is expanding the size of its system and moving up the start date, with expectations to begin transport to South Texas by 3Q2019, at least three months sooner than originally anticipated. -
Planned Anhydrous Ammonia Unit in Texas City Draws Attention
Oct 8, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Times)
By Nick Powell
Roy Lee Cannon stands on the deck of his shrimp boat docked at Eagle Point Fishing Camp during the golden hour of a summer evening, his whippet-thin, sun-tanned frame slouched against the boat’s fish hold. -
GAO: Passenger Railroads Lag on PTC Testing
Oct 5, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
Although many passenger railroads are close to completing equipment installation of positive train control (PTC) systems, less progress has been made on testing those systems, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) announced earlier this week in its latest PTC report. -
As Canadian Pipeline Plans Falter, More Oil is Moving by Rail — Prompting Familiar Fears
Oct 8, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Selena Ross
For years, Canadians have heard a common refrain: If a new pipeline doesn’t materialize to get their oil to market, the oil will just travel a different way — by rail. -
The World Has Just over a Decade to Get Climate Change Under Control, U.N. Scientists Say
Oct 7, 2018 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis
The world stands on the brink of failure when it comes to holding global warming to moderate levels, and nations will need to take “unprecedented” actions to cut their carbon emissions over the next decade, according to a landmark report by the top scientific body studying climate change.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Full Committee Hearing to Examine Blackstart
Oct 11, 2018 | Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee
· Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
· Sen. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Witness Panel 1
· Dr. David S. Ortiz
Acting Director, Office of Electric Reliability
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· Mr. Juan J. Torres
Associate Laboratory Director, Energy Systems Integration
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
· Ms. Joy Ditto
President and CEO
Utilities Technology Council
· Mr. Thomas J. Galloway Sr.
President and CEO
North American Transmission Forum
· Mr. Andrew Ott
President and CEO
PJM Interconnection LLC
· Mr. Timothy M. Yardley
Senior Associate Director of Technology and Workforce Development
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
-
Oct 10, 2018 | U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee
Witnesses· The Honorable Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
· The Honorable Christopher A. Wray
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice
· Russell Travers
Acting Director, National Counterterrorism Center
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
-
(ACC Mentioned) As Plastic Waste Chokes the Planet, Can Petrochemical Industry Respond?
Oct 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Katherine Blunt
Jim Becker arrived in Asia in 2010 to market plastics for Chevron Phillips Chemical only to be confronted by a problem that the petrochemicals industry had for years done little to address: plastic waste.
It littered streets. It clogged rivers that swelled during storms and emptied into the ocean. It washed up on beaches and rode out with the tide.
“I got to see it first hand, and it really solidified in my mind,” Becker said. “We’ve got to get this out of the environment.” Plastic bottles and other plastics including a mop, lie washed up on shore.
Eight years later, some of the world’s largest petrochemicals companies have begun to take that responsibility more seriously as billions of tons of plastic waste imperil both the environment and future of their industry. No longer able to discount their role in creating the problem, chemical makers have turned their attention to waste management and recycling as plastics pile up in landfills and chokes the world’s oceans.
The Ocean Conservancy, a Washington environmental advocacy group, has estimated that the world’s oceans now contain more than 150 million metric tons of plastic waste -- roughly the weight of a million blue whales, the world's largest animals. That amount is expected to increase by an estimated 8 million metric tons a year, putting plastic waste on track to outweigh all the fish in the ocean by 2050.
“Plastics in the environment has reached crisis levels,” said Carroll Muffett, CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law an environmental law firm with offices in Washington and Geneva. “We can’t solve that problem by only beginning to deal with plastic once it’s in the ocean.”
Much as climate change threatens the long-term future of the oil and gas industry, plastic waste is becoming an existential issue for the petrochemicals industry that has become a key driver of the Gulf Coast economy, employing tens of thousands of workers and attracting billions of dollars in investments in new production plants. Cities, states and countries around the world are restricting the use of straws, shopping bags and other disposable items that account for a substantial amount of plastic debris.
Large corporations, including Starbucks and McDonald’s, have made similar moves, testing alternatives to plastic straws and intensifying the focus on reducing plastic waste at a time when environmental groups are leveraging social media and other platforms to draw widespread attention to pollution problems.
Jonas Oxgaard, a chemicals analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., a New York investment management and research arm, said such measures have yet to curtail growth in plastics demand, driven largely by emerging economies in Asia and elsewhere. But, he noted, that petrochemical companies are examining the money-making potential of investments in recycling and other reuse strategies as investors question how they’re preparing for the future.
“The industry, for the first time in years, is beginning to see sustainability as an opportunity, not just a threat,” Oxgaard said. “You can either take control and lead the industry to best the solutions, or leave it to the politicians.”
This attitude marks something of a reversal for the petrochemicals industry, which supplies the base chemicals and resins needed to manufacture a wide range of plastic products from bags and bottles to car parts and construction materials. Producers for years took a hands-off approach to waste management, arguing that consumers bore the greatest responsibility in ensuring proper disposal of the plastics they used.
No longer. At Chevron Phillips Chemical, for example, Becker was recently named to lead The Woodlands company’s strategy to reduce plastic waste by assuming a greater role in recycling initiatives, even as petrochemical makers churn out record amounts of plastic. In the coming years, Becker expects Chevron Phillips, a joint venture of the giant oil company and Houston refiner Phillips 66, to invest in research to develop materials that are easier to recycle and help its customers design products and packaging using greater amounts of repurposed plastic.
“When we have meetings with customers, 65 percent of the conversation revolves around sustainability,” Becker said. “Five years ago, that didn’t happen.”
Earlier this year, the Houston chemicals maker LyondellBasell formed a joint venture with French waste handler Suez to purchase Quality Circular Polymers, a recycling company in The Netherlands. The goal: To establish a more profitable recycling model as Europe emerges as a leader in reducing its use of plastics.
LyondellBasell also has partnered with a German research university to develop technology to revert plastic waste to its base chemical components for use in manufacturing new plastics, a circular system that would ultimately reduce the amount of feedstock needed to make and re-make the sorts of single-use items that face mounting scrutiny.
“This is actually unzipping the molecule and taking it back to its original form,” CEO Bob Patel said in an interview. “That (research) will take a long time, but we think that could be the ultimate solution.”
Other companies have turned their attention to bioplastics, which are either produced from renewable sources such as vegetable oils and food waste, or designed to break down more quickly in the environment. French oil company Total, for example, last year partnered with Dutch food and biochemicals company Corbion to produce biodegradable plastics derived from sugar or starch. Production at a plant in Thailand is expected to begin this year.
The focus on reducing plastic waste comes, ironically, amid a boom in U.S. petrochemicals production centered on the Gulf Coast, which has attracted some $60 billion in investment to build and expand manufacturing plants. Dozens are coming online with an eye toward India, China, the Philippines and other countries where population growth and economic development have boosted demand for packaging, consumer goods and construction materials.
That growth presents a paradox for plastics producers in the U.S. and elsewhere. Though pollution is a global problem, many Asian countries in particular lack the necessary collection and processing systems to dispose of that waste. It’s estimated that China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam together account for half of the plastics that find their way into the ocean.
The issue has become so pressing that Cal Dooley, who for 10 years has headed the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, decided in June to delay his retirement plans until the end of next year to lead the organization in developing strategies to reduce plastic waste, particularly in Asia. He has worked to unite the major petrochemicals companies, manufacturers, brand owners and plastics consumers in pursuit of that goal.
This summer, for example, the trade group helped launch Circulate Capital, an investment firm formed to finance waste management initiatives in Southeast Asia. The firm, backed by a range of plastics manufacturers and environmental groups, expects to begin investing in projects early next year.
“The petrochemicals industry has really had a step change in the last year or so,” said Rob Kaplan, firm’s founder and CEO. “Everybody wants to end plastic waste.”
Environmental experts, however, caution that such efforts account for only a fraction of the work necessary to clean up the oceans, stem the ow of debris and build systems to repurpose discarded plastics. The solution, they say, must involve consumer education, government regulation, corporate involvement and billions of dollars in waste management investments, as well as a substantial reduction in the use of disposable plastics.
“We’re not going to be able to recycle our way out of the problem, just as we can’t reduce our way out of problem,” Kaplan said, adding that the ultimate solution will require a combination of those two approaches.
The challenge is substantial. Surging supplies of inexpensive feedstocks have made plastics cheaper to produce at a time when recycling remains costly and challenging by comparison. Effective recycling requires the sorting and cleaning of vast amounts of mixed plastics, endeavor that becomes more complicated when consumers improperly combine trash and recyclables in curbside bins and other collection deposits.
Recycling costs have risen this year after China, long a major consumer of scrap plastics, restricted its imports of those materials as part of a wider environmental crackdown. That shift has forced recyclers, including Houston-based Waste Management, to and new markets for the scrap or otherwise send it to the landfill.
A recent report by the International Energy Agency concluded that the future of the global petrochemicals industry could take two distinct paths, depending on whether governments, corporations and consumers effectively transform their waste management practices and reduce or eliminate the use of materials that are difficult to dispose or reuse.
If the status quo holds, the agency forecasts a 70 percent increase in plastics production by 2050, largely to feed demand for packaging and construction materials. At that point, less than 20 percent of recyclable plastic would be collected worldwide, and the quantity of plastic in the ocean would exceed 500 million metric tons.
A divergent scenario, however, emerges if the petrochemicals industry and its many customers take steps to meet sustainability goals recently set forth by the United Nations to address issues with poverty, pollution and climate change. Plastic production from recycled resins would more than double by 2050, reducing chemical demand by some 70 million metric tons. The amount of plastic owing into the ocean each year would drop by half by 2030 and continue to fall in subsequent years.
The report concluded that there is “no single prescription” for solving mounting problem of plastic waste.
“It is no understatement to say we live in a world dependent on chemicals,” the IEA said. “As with most dependencies, there is an accompanying burden.”
This article has been updated to clarify the weight of a blue whale.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/As-plastic-waste-chokes-the-planet-can-13284715.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) Demilec Spray Foam Insulation Technology Wins 2018 Polyurethane Innovation Award
Oct 8, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, DC) announced Demilec (USA) Inc. (Arlington, TX) as the winner of the 2018 Polyurethane Innovation Award. Demilec’s winning entry, one of three finalists, was announced during the closing session of the 2018 Polyurethanes Technical Conference in Atlanta.
Demilec’s winning entry is Heatlok HFO, which the company describes as a zero ozone depletion potential, ultra-low global warming potential and high renewable/recyclable closed-cell foam for the insulation industry. Heatlok HFO High Lift, with its R-7.5/inch, provides a breakthrough alternative for the residential builder and Heatlok HFO Pro, at R-7.4/inch, creates an air barrier, vapor retarder, water barrier and thermal insulation at 1 inch, ideal for commercial buildings, according to the company.
“Demilec is honored to receive CPI’s Innovation Award for 2018, and we are excited Heatlok HFO has continued to redefine the standard of excellence in the closed-cell spray foam industry,” said Doug Brady, Vice President of Strategic Marketing.
“Each year, the CPI Innovation Award finalists shine a spotlight on our industry-wide goal of creating new products and technologies that benefit consumers around the world,” said Lee Salamone, Senior Director of CPI. “CPI’s Innovation Award is a top honor in the polyurethanes industry, and Demilec embodies the spirit of innovation and pioneering that will help our industry flourish for years to come.”
https://www.plasticstoday.com/building-construction/demilec-spray-foam-insulation-technology-wins-2018-polyurethane-innovation-award/108266138759591
-
Yes, Radiation is Bad for You. The EPA’s ‘Transparency Rule’ Would be Even Worse.
Oct 8, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Audra J. Wolfe
Last Tuesday, a headline from the Associated Press sparked outrage in the ordinarily quiet world of science policy. The Environmental Protection Agency, the story suggested, was considering relaxing guidelines for low-dose ionizing radiation, on the theory that “a bit of radiation may be good for you.” Within hours, the AP had issued a correction. As it turned out, the EPA was not, after all, endorsing hormesis, the theory that small doses of toxic chemicals might help the body, much like sunlight triggers the production of vitamin D.
Instead, the EPA was doing something much scarier: It was holding hearings on the “Transparency Rule,” which would restrict the agency to using studies that make a complete set of their underlying data and models publicly available. The rule is similar to an “Open Science” order issued by the Interior Department last month, and incorporates language from the HONEST Act, a bill that passed in the House in 2017 but later stalled in the Senate. The HONEST Act originally required that scientific studies provide enough data that an independent party could replicate the experiment — which is simply not realistic for large-scale longitudinal studies.
Although these rules cite the need to base regulatory policy on the “best available science,” make no mistake: They aim to strangle access to reputable studies.
The Transparency Rule continues the Trump administration’s pattern of anti-science policies. The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy is a ghost town, with most of the major positions, including the director’s post, vacant since January 2017. Agencies and departments across the board, including the State Department and the Agriculture Department, are dropping their science advisers and bleeding scientific staff. It’s getting harder and harder for federal rulemakers to access expertise.
Understanding what’s wrong with “transparency,” at least as defined by these policies, requires a closer look at how scientists work. Let’s say you’re trying to understand the health effects of a one-time, accidental release of a toxic chemical. This incident might be epidemiologists’ only chance to investigate how this particular chemical interacts with both the air and the humans who breathe it, at varying doses, over a period of time. No matter how careful your approach, your study would fall short of the replicability standard. You wouldn’t have baseline health information for the specific people who happened to be in the area. You might not have information on which residents had air filtration systems installed in their homes, or which residents were working outside when the incident took place. Your early results would, by definition, reflect only short-term health outcomes, rather than long-term effects. And you couldn’t replicate the study (with better controls) without endangering the health of thousands of people. In such cases, scientists have to extrapolate from existing, sometimes imperfect, data to protect the public.
Epidemiologists have community standards, including peer review, to evaluate these kinds of studies. A careful, peer-reviewed study of this hypothetical incident might well represent the “best available science” on this particular chemical. Regulators might rely on this study to establish the permissible levels of this chemical in the air we breathe. But now, let’s also say that this study took place 30 years ago. The leading scientists involved are dead, and no one kept their files. The raw data are, effectively, lost. Should scientists at the EPA be blocked from using the study?
Despite what made last week’s headlines, the EPA’s Oct. 3 hearing went beyond radiation. In fact, its lead witness, University of Massachusetts toxicologist Edward Calabrese, barely mentioned his theory of radiation hormesis. Instead, his testimony argued that the EPA should no longer rely on linear no-threshold (LNT) models for any number of hazards, including toxic chemicals and soil pollutants. In toxicology, LNT models assume that the biological effects of a given substance are directly connected to the amount of the exposure, with no minimum dose required. Radiation protections standards are based on LNT models; so are basic regulations involving ozone, particulate pollution, and chemical exposure.
The original studies asserting a LNT model for low-dose ionizing radiation were conducted in the 1950s. Like our hypothetical epidemiologist investigating a toxic chemical release, the geneticists who tried to understand the biological effects of atomic radiation were working with imperfect data, much of which is no longer available. The concept of a “comprehensive data management policy” simply did not exist in 1955. These particular studies were primarily based on survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Japan. The scientists also extrapolated from high-dose exposure data in fruit flies and mice and from unethical high-dose experimentsconducted on humans.
These studies are imperfect, but focusing on their limitations misses the broader scandal. These studies took place during the heyday of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, an era when both the United States and the Soviet Union were pumping the atmosphere full of radioactive nucleotides. Some of the areas near the testing zones received so much radiation that they are still uninhabitable today. The tests coated the entire planet with a scrim of radiation. The Atomic Energy Commission, the agency in charge of the United States’ nuclear weapons program, didn’t even attempt to investigate the potential health effects of this constant, low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation on the world’s population. Studies of low-dose radiation were expensive, inconvenient, and politically risky, potentially jeopardizing the weapons testing program and therefore the United States’ ability to fight the Soviet Union. From the government’s perspective, it was better not to know.
This week, a sensational headline distracted us from a broader crisis. Without government support for research of environmental hazards, the public’s health is left to either the whims of industry researchers, who have a strong incentive to play down their dangers, or to public advocacy groups, which are too easily smeared with charges of anti-industry bias. The “transparency” movement supposedly resolves this crisis of authority by giving the public access to the underlying data on which science is based, but it ignores the power dynamics that determine which research questions get asked, and why and how they’re answered.
In the past, Americans looked to their federal science agencies and science advisers to resolve these sorts of disputes. But a few weeks ago, the EPA announced that it, too, would be eliminating its Office of the Science Adviser. With the science offices empty, who will decide?
There is one bright spot in all of this: On Sept. 28, bipartisan legislation authorized the Energy Department to restart its low-dose radiation research program. But what about the other pollutants that the EPA supposedly regulates? Who will produce the kinds of science deemed acceptable under the “transparency” rule?
“Transparency” has become another way to cultivate institutional ignorance. Americans deserve better from the agencies that are supposed to protect them. In the case of environmental hazards, what you don’t know can hurt you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/08/yes-radiation-is-bad-you-epas-transparency-rule-would-be-even-worse/?utm_term=.83b67db30b3c
-
OIG's 2019-2023 Plan Targets EPA Goals For Audit, Vows Efficiency Boosts
Oct 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) in its newly unveiled strategic plan for 2019-23 is vowing to quickly open audits of the agency’s progress toward six goals that former Administrator Scott Pruitt set for the same time period, while also offering steps for how the OIG plans to improve its own efficiency and effectiveness.
“We plan our work with the goals of influencing resolution of the EPA’s major management challenges, reducing risk, improving program operations, and saving taxpayer dollars, leading to positive human health and environmental impacts. Our strategic plan provides a unified direction with clear expectations,” says the OIG, currently headed by outgoing Inspector General (IG) Arthur Elkins, Jr., who leaves for the private sector on Oct. 12.
The strategic plan released Oct. 5 outlines how the OIG plans to conduct its work over the coming years, when it will be headed by Deputy IG Charles Sheehan who will serve as acting IG.
OIG in the plan says it will audit EPA’s progress toward six of the goals the agency imposed on itself in the current agency-wide strategic plan that Pruitt finalized on Feb. 12, such as improving air quality or cleaning up Superfund sites. Pruitt resigned in July following a series of ethics scandals, and former Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler is now acting as administrator.
The IG audits, the plan continues, are part of an overall boost to the office’s “agility” that OIG expects will allow it to more efficiently review work underway by both EPA and the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) to address their top environmental priorities.
“Over the next 5 years, the OIG will significantly increase its agility to assess emerging environmental threats. The EPA and the CSB have made air, water, land and chemicals their priority programs for the same period. As such, the OIG will focus its audits and evaluations to ensure positive progress” in the agencies’ efforts, OIG says.
Specifically, the watchdog office says it will audit EPA’s progress toward six goals it vowed to achieve by Sept. 30, 2019 that have measurable targets for pollution reductions, statutory compliance or agency efficiency.
The six goals OIG will track are: decreasing the number of areas in nonattainment for national ambient air quality standards from 166 to 138; increasing the amount of non-federal money leveraged in EPA’s water infrastructure financing programs by $16 billion; certifying 102 Superfund sites and 1,368 brownfields sites for new use; achieving statutory deadlines in the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act for all mandatory and EPA-initiated risk evaluations, and 80 percent of determinations on pre-manufacture notices; reducing the proportion of facilities in significant noncompliance with their Clean Water Act discharge permits from 24 percent to 21 percent; and reducing by 50 percent the number of “permitting-related decisions” that take longer than six months.
Each of those targets is set out in EPA’s strategic plan as an early step toward a more aggressive long-term goal for cleanups or internal agency reforms, such as Pruitt’s pledge to have the agency complete all permit decisions within six months from receiving a final application -- which Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler has vowed to carry forward.
OIG Efficiency
Beyond its agenda for oversight of EPA and CSB, the watchdog office is also laying out a series of targets aimed at boosting its own efficiency, with goals for measurable increases in economic benefits and environmental and health outcomes based on OIG work.
Most prominent among those goals is the effort to raise OIG’s return on investment -- the monetary benefits, in terms of cost savings at EPA or improved outcomes for the public, from each dollar spent on the office’s budget. OIG is pledging to raise that ratio by about 17 percent to 20-to-1 by Sept. 30, 2023.
Elkins -- who is set to leave OIG for the private sector on Oct. 12 -- has long pointed to the office’s return on investment as a justification for raising its budget, on the grounds that a boost in funding will pay for itself many times over.
In an interview with Inside EPA earlier this year, Elkins pointed to the 17-to-1 figure as a victory for the office after budget cuts reduced its staff from 289 full-time employees to 253, and as a reason for Congress to reject any further reductions in FY19.
“For 2017, for every dollar invested [in the IG], we returned 17 dollars to the Treasury,” Elkins said. “As always, I think that's a big deal and big accomplishment in light of our downsizing.”
In addition to boosting OIG’s return on investment, the new strategic plan also sets more specific milestones for the office to raise its efficiency before mid-2023.
Office-wide goals under that banner include instituting “at least 10 best practices that will increase efficiency by at least 30 percent” and implementing an “enterprise risk management system” that will “ensure the reduction of loss.”
Similarly, OIG is planning to boost its capacity for auditing EPA and CSB programs, and the effectiveness of those audits. Those goals include a 10 percent increase in improvements to EPA’s implementation of “laws and regulations regarding human health, the environment and safety” thanks to OIG-led audits and studies; reducing “environmental risks and challenges” by 15 percent and an overall increase of at least 20 percent in the effectiveness of OIG’s internal reviews and external audits, “using quantifiable impact as our measure.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/oigs-2019-2023-plan-targets-epa-goals-audit-vows-efficiency-boosts
-
Senate Democrats Query EPA Placing Children's Office Head on Leave
Oct 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
Democratic members of the Senate Appropriations committee are urging Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler to explain the recent decision to place the head of EPA's children's health office on leave, and asking about his plans for the office's future, arguing that it plays an important role in EPA decision-making.
“We write to express our strong support of the EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection [OCHP], and remain concerned regarding the protection of children’s health by the EPA,” the five senators write in their Oct. 4 letter. “Many stakeholders are concerned about the future of this office and EPA’s mission regarding children’s health, after EPA’s recent decision” to place the director of OCHP on administrative leave.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), ranking member of the appropriations interior subcommittee overseeing EPA's budget, signed the letter along with Democratic Appropriations Committee colleagues Sens. Dick Durbin (IL), Jeff Merkley (OR), Patty Murray (WA) and Jack Reed (RI). The senators pose a series of questions about Wheeler's plans for OCHP's future, are seeking responses by Oct. 18.
EPA late last month removed Ruth Etzel, a pediatrician and epidemiologist who joined EPA in 2015 after a long career as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Public Health Service, from OCHP leadership. The move elicited a firestorm of protest from environmentalists and children's health advocates.
The agency initially declined to comment on personnel matters, though a former EPA source told Inside EPA that Etzel's removal “is not a disciplinary action.”
At a press conference Oct. 1 to celebrate Children's Health Day, Wheeler sought to affirm his commitment to children's health, calling it “a top priority at EPA, and we have made tremendous progress improving air and water quality and helping kids and families lead healthier lives.”
Under questioning from reporters, Wheeler said that while “we don't typically comment on personnel issues, we did put out a short statement [last] Friday saying she's suspended while we investigate some allegations.” Wheeler declined to comment further.
Wheeler also sought to clarify OCHP's future. The ongoing investigation “has nothing to do with the good work of [OCHP],” he told reporters. “The reason we put that statement out is because of some misinformation saying we were doing away with the office . . . nothing could be further from the truth. . . . I appreciate the dedication of the employees who have been performing outstandingly.”
The senators, however, do not appear appeased, and are seeking personal reassurance from Wheeler in their letter. They also remind him that any changes to EPA structure, such as disbanding OCHP, require consultation with Senate appropriators per language attached to EPA's 2018 appropriations bill.
“We are concerned about the future of this office and ensuring that all EPA actions and programs continue to address the unique vulnerabilities of children,” they write. “We expect that any proposed changes to the OCHP would not be initiated or implemented without the required approval from the Appropriations Committee.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/senate-democrats-query-epa-placing-childrens-office-head-leave
-
The Chemical Industry is Bracing for a Nylon 6,6 Shortage
Oct 7, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
On Aug. 22, 2015, a brand-new adiponitrile plant in the burgeoning Chinese chemical town of Yantai exploded, killing one person. Coming 10 days after an enormous chemical blast in Tianjin, China, that killed more than 170 people, the event was largely overlooked.
But for the nylon 6,6 market, the accident was quite consequential. It took a plant making a key raw material out of commission, marking the start of a period of supply tightness that has been getting worse. Other, more established producers of nylon 6,6 and its raw materials have since suffered their own outages. Prices have spiked. Now some observers see an outright shortage ahead.
Nylon 6,6 users may resort to switching to competing engineering polymers to make automotive and industrial parts. Makers of such polymers—nylon 6 and high-end plastics like polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) and polyphthalamide—see an opportunity to poach business. Meanwhile, nylon 6,6 makers are trying to soothe concerns and head off customer defections by promising new capacity.
When it was introduced in 1940 as an alternative to silk, nylon 6,6 was considered a fiber material. Today, fibers represent only about a third of its use. Most nylon 6,6 is injection molded into tough plastic parts. The majority goes into auto applications such as air intake manifolds, electrical components, and oil pans.
Sign up for C&EN's must-read weekly newsletterSubscribe »
Contact us to opt out anytime
“Nylon 6,6 is particularly well suited for these kinds of applications because it is resistant to heat and also to oil and grease,” says Brendan Dooley, director of engineering plastics in North Americaat the consulting firm IHS Markit. Other markets for nylon 6,6 include industrial applications, power tools, and cable ties.
Nylon 6,6 is made via the polycondensation of adipic acid and hexamethylenediamine (HMD). Adipic acid is synthesized in a two-step process that begins with cyclohexane. HMD is obtained by hydrogenating adiponitrile.
A half-dozen or so companies across the globe make nylon 6,6 polymer and adipic acid. Adiponitrile has always been a bottleneck for the nylon 6,6 business because only three firms—Ascend Performance Materials, Invista, and Butachimie—make the chemical at large scale. And Butachimie is itself a French joint venture between Invista and Solvay.
The barriers to entering the adiponitrile business are high, Ascend CEO Phil McDivitt says. “Adiponitrile is very technologically challenging to make” and requires significant capital investment, he says.
Related: Invista building $1 billion Chinese adiponitrile plant
Invista and Butachimie produce adiponitrile by reacting butadiene with hydrogen cyanide, a process developed by Invista’s forerunner, DuPont. Ascend uses a Monsanto-invented electrochemical process that starts with acrylonitrile.
With the world economy recession-free for a decade now and car production booming, demand for nylon 6,6 has been strong. Dooley expects the market—2.1 million metric tons per year today—to grow by 2.7% annually over the next five years.
The trouble for the nylon industry is that production hasn’t been keeping up. “Demand is growing at the same time there is a structural shortage in feedstocks that are used to produce nylon 6,6, most notably adiponitrile,” Dooley says.
The facility that exploded in 2015 was built by Shandong Runxing New Material to become a fourth major producer of adiponitrile. At the time of the incident, the plant had 100,000 metric tons per year of annual capacity, less than its rivals. Shandong Runxing planned to gradually expand it to 300,000 metric tons, about 18% of global capacity. But now, “There is no evidence that plant is going to be rebuilt,” Dooley says.
In addition to the hole in China, the big existing nylon 6,6 players have been hit with one interruption after another—for every reason imaginable—over the last year.
Invista had to declare force majeure for adiponitrile, HMD, adipic acid, and nylon 6,6 last year because Tropical Storm Harvey interrupted operations at its Texas plants.
At Butachimie, a labor dispute hit production earlier this year. Around the same time, Ineos, which makes HMD on BASF’s behalf in Seal Sands, England, suffered a failure in a steam generation unit. Solvay warned customers in August that low water on the Rhine River, due to a heat wave, crimped its nylon 6,6 activities.
And Ascend lost capacity for several chemicals produced at multiple sites. Harvey affected its acrylonitrile plant in Chocolate Bayou, Texas. In January, freezing weather interrupted adiponitrile and HMD production in Decatur, Ala.
Then in July, a fire took out some of Ascend’s nylon 6,6 polymer capacity in Pensacola, Fla., forcing the company to declare force majeure. “Under normal conditions, this likely would have been a situation that we would have been able to handle,” McDivitt says. But because of the tight market, the company didn’t have the inventory to cushion the blow. “We had a full order book,” he notes.Ascend Performance Materials and Invista operate the two most widely used routes to adiponitrile, a critical precursor to nylon 6,6. Both firms make precursor adipic acid from cyclohexane.
Prices have been rising all this time. According to IHS Markit’s Dooley, spot prices are now $5.00 per kilogram, $2.00 more than they were a year ago. “Buyers need their material, and they are searching the world for sufficient supplies,” he says.
Customers might be willing to switch to other polymers—at least temporarily. Cliff Watkins, director of applications development at the engineering polymer distributor PolySource, has been sounding the alarm about nylon 6,6. He organized a webinar on the topic in July in which he projected that a 200,000-metric-ton shortfall of nylon 6,6 output today could grow to 800,000 metric tons by 2021.
Related: China Stresses Industrial Safety
Watkins outlined possible substitutes. The most obvious candidate is nylon 6, which is normally less expensive than nylon 6,6 and is much cheaper now. Boasting of the potential for new business, Erin Kane, CEO of nylon 6 maker AdvanSix, told analysts in August that 15–20% of nylon 6,6 applications are attainable with nylon 6.
That estimate sounds reasonable to Watkins. For some applications, users might have known they could switch but didn’t because of the time and investment required to reengineer parts and get customers to approve them, he says. Higher nylon 6,6 prices and lower availability are making them reconsider. “This is the time to go back to your customer and ask them if they really need nylon 6,6,” he says.
The answer isn’t simple, because nylon 6 won’t work for everything. Nylon 6,6 starts to deform at 260 °C; nylon 6, at 220 °C. Nylon 6,6 also has better chemical resistance as well as less of a tendency to absorb moisture and expand. For instance, nylon 6 might not work in cable ties, which have to secure wires tightly in environments like damp basements.
Nevertheless, “There are a lot of applications where people are ready to look at nylon 6,” says Sanjay Jain, business director for polyamides and PBT at nylon 6 maker DSM. For auto parts such as brackets and frames, which might not need nylon 6,6’s most exclusive properties, he expects to see conversion start over the next few months.
Where nylon 6 might not cut it, Jain says, nylon 6,6 customers can opt for higher-end polymers. DSM makes nylon 4,6 and 4,10 and polyphthalamide, which match nylon 6,6 in heat and chemical resistance.
Another potential substitute, Watkins says, is PBT, which beats nylon 6,6 in resisting water absorptionbut falls short in toughness. Another alternative that might outperform nylon 6,6 is aliphatic polyketones, which PolySource has been distributing for the South Korean chemical maker Hyosung.
“But there is a cost penalty,” Watkins admits, adding that exotic nylons such as 4,6; 4,10; or 6,10are also more expensive than nylon 6,6. But parts makers “may not have a choice” if they can’t get material at all, he says.
The big nylon 6,6 producers say switching might be rash. “I wouldn’t advise market participants to make long-term decisions based on short-term supply tightness,” says Bill Greenfield, president of Invista Intermediates.
Ascend’s McDivitt says he’s seen churn in the engineering polymer business for many years: Nylon 6 takes business away from nylon 6,6, and nylon 6,6 filches applications from metals and more expensive polymers. But he hasn’t seen a rush to other materials specifically because of the supply situation. “So far, from our experience, we haven’t seen any substitution in our 6,6 business with 6,” he says.
And suppliers promise the cavalry is charging in with capacity. “I think it’s valuable to note that those of us who know the nylon 6,6 market most closely are willing to invest,” Greenfield says.
Invista has projects to upgrade technology at two adiponitrile plants—a $250 million investment at its plant in Victoria, Texas, coming on-line in 2020 and another investment at its joint venture in France for 2019. Invista’s Orange, Texas, adiponitrile plant already has the new technology, which promises to improve yields and lower energy consumption. The new technology is adding more than 200,000 metric tons per year of capacity.
Additionally, Invista says it will spend $1 billion to build a new 300,000-metric-ton adiponitrile plant in China by 2023. Nearer term, the company is adding 40,000 metric tons per year of nylon 6,6 capacity at its plant in Shanghai by 2020.
Ascend is also expanding capacity by 10–15% across the board for adiponitrile, HMD, adipic acid, and nylon 6,6. In May, amid growing market worry, the company announced it had expanded adiponitrile capacity by 50,000 metric tons in 2017, is adding 40,000 metric tons by the end of this year, and will expand by another 180,000 metric tons by 2022.ADVERTISEMENT
IHS Markit’s Dooley thinks the investments will make a difference. “It’s a little bit late, but on the other hand, it’s coming,” he says. “If we can make our way through 2019, by 2020 we will begin to see the edge come off the market.”
https://cen.acs.org/materials/polymers/chemical-industry-bracing-nylon-66/96/i40
-
Chemicals Legally on Market List Coming By Year’s End: EPA
Oct 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA will release by year’s end its list of chemicals that companies can legally make and use, the agency said Oct. 5.
It will be illegal for companies to manufacture, import, or mix chemicals not on the “active in commerce” list 90 days after the Environmental Protection Agency publishes that list, according to a regulation (RIN:2070-AK24) the agency published in August 2017.
As of Sept. 30, chemical manufacturers and processors—companies that mix chemicals into products such as paints, glues, and detergents—submitted an additional 8,333 notices of chemicals active in commerce, the EPA told Bloomberg Environment by email.
Oct. 5 was the deadline for companies to submit such notices.
The chemicals that companies recently identified—combined with the list of 42,037 compounds active in commerce that the EPA released in April—could mean the agency’s final list will top 50,000.
Industry RequirementThe 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments required the EPA and industry to determine how many chemicals have been made and used in the U.S. since 2006.
The goal is to distinguish chemicals that are or recently have been made and used from those that once were but aren’t.
The original TSCA inventory, which lists chemicals that are being or have been made in the U.S., was at more than 85,000 when the amended statute became law in 2016. The updated law divides that inventory into those chemicals that are active in commerce and inactive ones.
Chemical manufacturers and processors can transfer inactive compounds to the active list by filing a notice with the agency.
Figuring out which chemicals are being made and used will help the agency as it decides which compounds could have the potential to harm people or the environment. The amended statute requires the agency to evaluate these chemicals to decide whether those risks are sufficient to warrant regulatory or other controls.
Before the EPA can release its active in commerce list, it must review additional notices it received by Oct. 5, identify duplicates, and remove chemicals that companies said they aren’t making or using, the agency said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemicals-legally-on-market-list-coming-by-years-end-epa
-
EPA Releases Final Rule on TSCA User Fees
Oct 5, 2018 | National Law Review
On September 27, 2018, EPA (the Agency) released a pre-publication copy of the final rule establishing “user fees” for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.). This rulemaking is one of the four “framework” rules promulgated by EPA as part of the implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21stCentury Act (LCSA). The rule became effective October 1, 2018.Purpose of User Fees
Section 26(b) of TSCA authorizes EPA to collect fees for certain TSCA activities from chemical manufacturers, importers, and processors, and establishes provisions for auditing, fee adjustments and refunds, and considerations for fee allocation and small businesses. The purpose of such fees is to defray a portion of the costs associated with:
The Agency’s administration of sections 4, 5, and 6;
The Agency’s collection, processing, review, and protection of confidential business information (CBI) claims under section 14.
These fees defray both intramural (EPA staff) and extramural costs (i.e., contractor costs). In the rule, EPA established user fees for manufacturers and importers that:
Submit information to EPA under section 4 (testing);
Submit a notice, exemption application, or other information under section 5 (new chemicals);
Manufacture or import a chemical subject to a risk evaluation or request a risk evaluation under section 6(b).
The rule allows EPA to collect fees from processors in limited scenarios, such as when a processor submits a significant new use notice (SNUN), when a fee-triggering section 4 activity is tied to a SNUN submission by a processor, or when a processor joins a consortium.
As EPA indicated in the proposed rule, EPA expects to collect approximately $20 million in average annual fees (excluding fees for manufacturer-requested risk evaluation). For manufacturer-initiated risk evaluations, EPA expects to collect $1.3 million annually for chemicals in the TSCA Work Plan, and $3.9 million for chemicals not included in the Work Plan.Summary of Fees
In the final rule, apart from manufacturer-initiated risk evaluations, EPA established the same fee amounts as originally proposed:
FEE CATEGORY
FEE AMOUNT (NOT APPLICABLE TO SMALL BUSINESSES)
FEE AMOUNT (SMALL BUSINESSES)
Timing of Payments
TSCA Section 4
Test order
$9,800
$1,950
Within 120 days of issuance of test order.
Test rule
$29,500
$5,900
Within 120 days of publication of final test rule.
Enforceable consent agreement (ECA)
$22,800
$4,600
Within 120 days of signing ECA.
TSCA Section 5
PMN and consolidated PMN
$16,000
$2,800
Upfront
SNUN
MCAN and consolidated MCAN
*LoREX
$4,700 (fee for each exemption request and modifications to previous exemption requests)
$940
Upfront
LVE
*TME
Tier II exemption
TERA
Film Articles
TSCA Section 6
EPA-initiated risk evaluation
$1,350,000
$270,000
Within 120 days of publishing the final scope of risk evaluation
Manufacturer-initiated risk evaluation on a chemical included in the TSCA Work Plan
Initial payment of $1.25M, with final invoice to recover 50% of actual costs
Initial payment of $1.25M, with final invoice to recover $50% of actual costs
Initial payment- within 30 days of EPA granting request, followed by a final invoice at the end of the risk evaluation.
Manufacturer-initiated risk evaluation on a chemical not included in the TSCA Work Plan
Initial payment of $2.5M, with final invoice to recover 100% of actual costs
Initial payment of $2.5M, with final invoice to recover 100% of actual costs
Initial payment- within 30 days of EPA granting request, followed by a final invoice at the end of the risk evaluation.
* EPA will waive the TME fee for submissions from companies that have graduated from EPA’s Sustainable Futures program.
*EPA is imposing fees for all exemption submissions except Tier 1 exemption submissions and polymer exemption reports. There is also no fee for bona fide submissions.
EPA had proposed a fee of $1.3M for a manufacturer-requested risk evaluation of a chemical included in the Work Plan, and $2.6M for a manufacturer-requested risk evaluation of a chemical not included in the Work Plan. However, in the final rule, EPA decided to structure the payments so that the manufacturer makes an initial payment ($1.25M for Work Plan Chemicals and $2.5M for non-Work Plan chemicals) and then EPA submits an invoice to the manufacturer once the risk evaluation is completed to defray the costs (50% of actual costs for Work Plan chemicals and 100% of the actual costs for non-Work Plan chemicals).
For submissions under section 5, EPA retained its proposal to assess the same fee for individual pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) as consolidated PMNs to keep a “practical, implementable TSCA fee structure”, and for simplicity. However, consolidated PMNs are still limited to up to six chemical substances. Refunds
The Agency also finalized its proposed provisions for refunds and stated that it plans to issue full refunds for:
PMN submissions for substances that are determined not to be “new chemical substances,”
MCAN submissions when the microorganism is determined not to be a new microorganism or significant new use,
SNUN submissions if the use is determined not to be a “significant new use,”
The Agency’s failure to make a determination on a notice by the end of the applicable notice review period, unless the submitter unduly delayed the process (note that a voluntary suspension simply “pauses” the review period), and
The Agency’s failure to approve or deny an exemption within the applicable review period, unless the submitter unduly delayed the process. EPA clarified that “undue delay” by the submitter “might occur” if the submitter submits an amended submission or new information late in the review process and that in this case, the Agency will not suspend the review period.
EPA will issue partial refunds, or 75% of the fee amount, if a TSCA section 5 submission is withdrawn during the first 10 business days after the beginning of the applicable review period.Identifying Manufacturers Subject to Fees for Test Rules and EPA-Initiated Risk Evaluations
EPA finalized several provisions from the proposed rule, including the methodology for calculating fees (other than manufacturer-requested risk evaluations), program cost estimates, fee categories, payment through consortia, small business provisions, and the provision for refunds. However, EPA also made some changes from the proposed rule. One of the major changes is that EPA established a new process for identifying manufacturers subject to fee rules under TSCA section 4 (test rules), as well as EPA-initiated risk evaluations under section 6. EPA originally proposed to rely on Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) information and self-identification from manufacturers not subject to CDR reporting. However, in the final Fee Rule, EPA establishes a new process for identifying the universe of manufacturers, which includes:
Publication of a preliminary list (based on CDR reporting, information submitted under TSCA section 5, Toxic Release Inventory data, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol data, and other publicly available sources like Panjiva);
A public comment period to allow for self-identification and correction of errors, and/or certification of no manufacture for the next five years; and
Publication of final list defining the universe of manufacturers obligated to pay.
If EPA receives a certification statement that a manufacturer has ceased manufacturing the substance in question, prior to the date the prioritization process is initiated for the chemical, and will not manufacture for 5 years into the future, or they have not manufactured the chemical in the five years preceding publication of the preliminary list, then the manufacturer will not be obligated to pay the fee.
Importantly, the obligation to pay for EPA-initiated risk evaluations attaches to manufacturers and importers when EPAinitiates prioritization (i.e., before publication of the preliminary list), which means that companies cannot avoid paying for a risk evaluation by dropping out of the market after prioritization is underway. Rather, companies must cease manufacture or import before prioritization begins. Thus, companies that manufacture or import a substance that was on the TSCA Work Plan should be prepared to cease manufacture and import before the first round of substances are identified for prioritization (which may be as early as December 2018), if they wish to avoid fees for risk evaluation.Industry Consortia and Allocation of Fees
EPA also provided additional guidance on the allocation of fees for industry consortia. The Agency explained that manufacturers subject to test orders, test rules, enforceable consent agreements, and EPA-initiated risk evaluations can form a consortium and work out the allocation of fees within the consortium. Manufacturers will have 60 days to notify EPA of their intent to form a consortium (rather than only 30 days as proposed) and 120 days from the triggering event for payment. As for the allocation of fees, EPA explains in the final rule that the “ideal scenario” is that a single consortium forms and agrees on the allocation of fees, and EPA would send a single invoice to the consortium. However, if multiple consortia form, EPA will allocate fees by:
Counting the total number of manufacturers, including the number of manufacturers within any consortia.
Dividing the total fee amount by the total number of manufacturers and allocating equally on a per capita basis to generate a base fee.
Providing all small businesses that are either (a) not associated with a consortium, or (b) associated with an all-small business consortium with an 80% discount from the base fee.
Calculating the remaining fee and number of remaining manufacturers by subtracting out the discounted fees and the number of small businesses identified.
Reallocating the remaining fee across those remaining individuals and groups in equal amounts, counting each manufacturer in a consortium as one person.
It is critical for companies impacted by this Fee Rule—including manufacturers, importers and processors—to carefully review the new fee requirements, as they apply to activities and submissions on or after Oct. 1, 2018.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-releases-final-rule-tsca-user-fees
-
(ACC Mentioned) Canada, U.S. to Bolster Cooperation on Chemical Assessments
Oct 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By James Munson
A plan by Canadian and U.S. agencies to examine how they can jointly assess the environmental and health risks of a widely used industrial solvent and paint remover could open the door to further close cooperation.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environment and Climate Change Canada, and Health Canada plan to work together on a risk assessment of 1-Bromopropane, or 1-BP, which is used as a heavy-duty cleaner and adhesive in manufacturing.
The joint assessment will bring about more efficient studies and better science, Christina Franz, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council in Washington, said Oct. 5.
“Eventually, creating a common foundation in the scientific approach taken by the two governments could lead to opportunities for exploring joint assessments in the future,” Franz said in an email to Bloomberg Environment.
The work on a risk assessment of 1-BP, which is scheduled to take place this December, will be the first under the “assessment collaboration framework” that the agencies approved this summer. The framework puts into motion the chemical risk assessment part of a 2011 regulatory cooperation agreement between Canada and the U.S.
The chemical regulators will move onto N-Methylpyrrolidone, known as NMP, another solvent mostly used in paint removal, in December 2019, the framework said.
‘Makes Sense’The American Chemistry Council, which said the the country’s chemicals industry is worth $768 billion (C$994 billion), strongly supports closer cooperation between the North American neighbors, spokesman Jonathan Corley said.
“It makes great sense for the governments to share information, scientific approaches, and collaborate with one another and/or rely on one another’s work on those assessments,” Corley said in an Oct. 2 email to Bloomberg Environment.
NMP and 1-BP are both priorities for risk evaluation in the U.S. and Canada, and their use and exposure in each country is similar, Corley wrote.
The Chemistry Industry Association of Canada declined to comment. Canada’s chemical industry is C$52 billion ($40.1 billion), according to the association’s website.
Close collaboration between Canada and the U.S. is essential because it will allow more effective approaches to regulations that protect public safety, Health Canada spokeswoman Maryse Durette said.
“Through ongoing cooperation, we have access to international scientific expertise, assessment tools, and standards and risk assessment material,” Durette wrote in an email to Bloomberg Environment Oct. 4.
The agreement will allow the agencies to build on each other’s work and peer review each other’s research, she wrote.
The final risk assessments in Canada for 1-BP and NMP should be published in 2020, she wrote.
An ongoing review of Canada’s main legislation for chemical regulation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, will not impact the collaboration, according to Durette.
Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is considering dozens of changes to the law as part of the review, including increasing public participation, expanding the types of chemicals that would be assessed, and changing how each substance is evaluated.
The EPA, Environment and Climate Change Canada, and Health Canada have common policy objectives and share similar principles, namely reducing the risks posed by chemicals to humans and the environment, the collaboration framework said.
The framework allows for alignment on risk assessments, including identifying priority substances, information sharing, risk assessment methodologies, work sharing and joint assessments.
Industrial Applications1-BP is a colorless liquid with a sweet odor that has a range of uses, including in degreasing optics, electronics, and metals, the EPA’s website said. The substance also is applied in aerosol form as an adhesive during foam cushion manufacturing and toward agricultural uses.
Short-term exposure to 1-BP can cause adverse developmental and reproductive effects in women of childbearing age, according to the EPA. Workers with repeated and chronic exposure to it are at risk of experiencing kidney, liver, and reproductive toxicity, as well as neurotoxicity and lung cancer.
NMP also is used across industrial applications.
The chemical is used in paint and coating removal, petrochemical processing, engineering plastics coatings, agricultural chemicals, electronic cleaning, and during industrial and domestic cleaning, according to the EPA.
Around 184 million pounds of NMP are used in the U.S. annually, it added.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/canada-us-to-bolster-cooperation-on-chemical-assessments
-
(ACC Mentioned) BPA Safety Confirmed, Once Again, by Final Report from National Toxicology Program
Oct 6, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
If I told you that the final report on bisphenol A (BPA) has been issued, would you believe me? After nearly two decades of studies from various groups attempting to prove that BPA either causes—or does not cause—problems in humans, the results released last week once again confirm that BPA is safe in the minute levels found in plastic consumer products.
The results of the landmark CLARITY Core Study from the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) is the final part of a multi-year, in-depth research program strongly supporting “recent statements from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that BPA is safe at the very low levels to which people are typically exposed,” commented Steven G. Hentges, PhD, Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, DC). “The scope and magnitude of this study are unprecedented for BPA, and the results clearly show that BPA has very little potential to cause health effects, even when people are exposed to it throughout their lives.”
The report provides the complete results of a five-plus year, multi-million dollar study that was conducted by scientists at FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research. As stated by FDA’s principal investigator, “In the study authors’ judgment of the results . . . BPA did not elicit clear, biologically plausible, adverse effects . . .” at levels even remotely close to typical consumer exposure. The draft report was peer-reviewed by a panel of independent scientists, who endorsed the design and execution of the study as well as FDA’s interpretation of the results. It is expected that the study will also be published in scientific literature early next year.
The ACC noted that earlier studies from FDA’s research program demonstrated that BPA is rapidly eliminated from the body after exposure and, thus, is unlikely to cause health effects. “The CLARITY Core Study resoundingly confirms the absence of health effects at typical human exposure levels. In this study, laboratory animals were exposed to various doses of BPA from pregnancy, through early-life development, and continuing through their entire lifetime. The results confirm the findings of earlier safety assessments and validate FDA’s response to the question, ‘Is BPA safe?’ ‘Yes!’”
But don’t expect this to really be the final word on this decades-long debate over the safety of BPA. Those who disbelieve this study as well as all the previous studies will continue to produce “evidence” that BPA is harmful to humans. It really just depends on the researchers’ biases, i.e., if the researchers are looking for proof that BPA is harmful, their research will find evidence to support that.
The plastics industry should believe that the U.S. National Toxicology Program of the FDA is unbiased, objective and does not benefit in any way from the outcome of its research.
I will say that while the CLARITY Core Study might not be the final word on the BPA issue, this will be my final blog on this topic!
https://www.plasticstoday.com/medical/bpa-safety-confirmed-once-again-final-report-national-toxicology-program/62705049359592
-
(ACC Mentioned) What’s In LaCroix Water And Is It As Scary As One Lawsuit Claims It To Be?
Oct 5, 2018 | BuzzFeed
By Venessa Wong
The trendy sparkling water brand LaCroix claims it is all natural, but a new class-action lawsuit says the “water is neither all natural or 100% natural” and seeks to “obtain redress for all persons injured” by the claim.
“LaCroix contains, among other things: ethyl butanoate, limonene, linalool
and linalool propionate,” the complaint states. “The above chemical compounds are synthetically created and added to consumable goods to make those goods taste or smell a certain way.” Perhaps most disturbingly, it describes linalool as an ingredient in cockroach insecticide.Despite the lawsuit’s scary implications, it’s not alleging that LaCroix sodas are causing people harm. Instead, it hinges on the question of whether these particular ingredients are synthetic or natural.
ADVERTISEMENT
Those four chemicals can be synthetic or come from natural sources. Here’s a bit more information about each one:
· Ethyl butanoate is a chemical that is used to simulate the flavor of pineapple and can come from natural sources or be synthesized.
· Limonene is a “major component of the oil extracted from citrus peels.”
· Linalool is produced by many flowers and spice plants, including mint, herbs, and citrus fruits, and has a floral, spicy scent.
· Linalool propionate is found in ginger, as well as lavender and sage oils.
LaCroix’s ingredients labels all say, simply, “Carbonated water, natural flavor.” If these compounds indeed are in LaCroix, the question becomes whether they are the natural or synthetic form.
The agency that oversees such claims about food, the US Food and Drug Administration, says it considers the term “natural” “to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food.”
The law firm that filed the lawsuit, Beaumont Costales, declined to provide information to BuzzFeed News about how it tested for these chemicals and how it knows they are synthetic.
BuzzFeed News asked the American Chemistry Council whether these are natural flavors, but the group referred us back to the manufacturer.
The maker of LaCroix, National Beverage, fully denied the allegations in a statement, saying, “Natural flavors in LaCroix are derived from the natural essence oils from the named fruit used in each of the flavors. There are no sugars or artificial ingredients contained in, nor added to, those extracted flavors. All essences contained in LaCroix are certified by our suppliers to be 100% natural.”
National Beverage said the claims were made “without basis in fact or law regarding the natural composition of its LaCroix sparkling waters.” The company did not immediately respond to an inquiry from BuzzFeed News.
Whether a food is legitimately “natural” has been the subject of a number of lawsuits. Most recently, General Mills dropped the “100% natural” label from Nature Valley bars to settle a lawsuit claiming the use of an herbicide in the oats meant the product could not make such a claim. Monster Beverage also settled a lawsuit this summer over natural claims made on its Hansen’s juices and Hubert’s lemonade.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/venessawong/lacroix-natural-lawsuit
-
Six Cancer-Causing Food Additives Banned by FDA
Oct 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Six synthetic flavoring substances are being banned by the federal government over cancer concerns at the urging of environmental advocacy groups.
The substances and flavor enhancers that the Food and Drug Administration announced Oct. 5 it is removing from its approved food additives list include synthetically derived benzophenone, ethyl acrylate, eugenyl methyl ether (methyl eugenol), myrcene, pulegone, and pyridine.
A seventh additive, styrene, is being delisted because industry no longer uses it as a food additive, the FDA said. However, it is still used in a wide range of other products.
The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the industry group representing flavor and ingredient makers, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The group has said some of the chemicals can be used in foods, including baked goods, ice cream, candy, and beverages.
“If you’ve ever read the label on the back of a box of food, and it says, ‘contains artificial flavors,’ these are those artificial flavors,” Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg Environment.
The FDA’s decision is effective immediately, but the agency said it won’t enforce the ban until October 2020, allowing industry time to reformulate products.
Industry groups haven’t provided any information on how extensively these additives are used, but many of them were originally approved by the FDA as far back as the 1960s, Neltner said.
According to the FDA, the decision doesn’t imply that all consumers are at higher risk of cancer, but does move the agency into compliance with the letter of the law.
“The synthetic flavoring substances that are the subject of this petition are typically used in foods available in the U.S. marketplace in very small amounts and their use results in very low levels of exposures and low risk,” the FDA said in a news release.
Response to PetitionThe move comes in response to a petition filed by advocacy groups including EDF, the National Resources Defense Council, and Earthjustice.
The FDA had a statutory deadline to make a decision in August 2016, which it failed to meet. In May, Earthjustice filed a legal case on behalf of petitioners asking a court to order the agency to act. In response, the FDA agreed to make a decision this month.
Each of the seven synthetic flavorings has been found by the National Institutes of Health’s National Toxicology Program to induce cancer in humans or animals.
Under the 1958 Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, Congress prohibits the use of any food additive found to induce cancer in humans or animals.
Despite the long phaseout time, public-safety groups said the decision indicates that manufacturers shouldn’t be using ingredients proven to cause cancer.
“Carcinogens have no place in the food we feed our families,” said Erik Olson, the NRDC’s senior director of health and food.
“This is welcome news for millions of Americans who have been unknowingly snacking on cancer-causing chemicals for far too long,” he said.
Question Mark for StyreneWhile no longer on the list of approved food additives, styrene wasn’t labeled by the FDA as a carcinogen.
The Styrene Information and Research Center, an industry group, submitted a petition in May 2016 to the FDA to have styrene declared “permanently abandoned” as a food additive.
Advocacy groups said the move was a move to head off a ruling from the FDA labeling styrene as a carcinogen. Styrene is still widely used in a number of other products, including Styrofoam containers used to hold food and beverages.
In 2014, the National Toxicology Program listed styrene as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” in its biennial report to Congress on carcinogens.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/six-cancer-causing-food-additives-banned-by-fda
-
Angry Mich. Residents Demand Answers from EPA
Oct 5, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Frustrated residents and local officials grappling with the widespread contamination of drinking water from nonstick chemicals gathered here today to call for faster action — and answers — from state and federal regulators.
At a packed EPA roundtable at an expo center on the outskirts of this city in southwest Michigan, local officials said they're receiving a flood of calls and questions about blood and water tests from residents worried about harmful chemicals known as PFAS that have been found in drinking water across the state. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, have been used since the 1940s.
"We're the ones fielding these calls day in and day out," said Jim Rutherford, health officer of Kalamazoo County Health and Community Services Department, noting it costs $700 to have one child's blood tested. "I don't have answers for these residents."
EPA held the listening session at the behest of the Michigan congressional delegation, including Republican Rep. Fred Upton, who was present at the event. Discussion focused on three areas: identifying the chemicals, communicating about them and solving the problems they pose.
The agency did not include a public comment period, frustrating some of the attendees who hoped to speak. More than 100 members of the public attended the event.
Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan criticized the roundtable as a "scripted, invite-only format" that "lacks any meaningful opportunity for Michigan residents who have been exposed to toxic chemicals to make their voices heard."
"It's stunning to me that this meeting — billed as public outreach and held in Michigan — fails to provide the public with the opportunity to speak and to be heard," Peters wrote in a statement.
EPA spokeswoman Molly Block said the roundtable was separate from an outreach effort this summer. She added that the short public notice of two days was not uncommon for a media availability advisory.
Upton said during an interview before the roundtable that EPA officials had been in the state for the past two days, including in Oscoda, one of the first communities in Michigan to discover PFAS at a nearby military base from the use of firefighting foam. Upton thanked EPA for making the visit. He also questioned the Department of Defense for not allowing a closer inspection at the decommissioned Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda.
"For me, too, I am very interested in how it relates to our military installations," Upton said.
The congressman said he had wanted to go to the base and see where water samples were taken, to view the water source and learn about its designation as municipal, whether there are houses nearby and whether a plume of substances is moving at the site. DOD officials were invited to the event but did not attend.
"We wanted to go on base and ... they said no," Upton said.
'They are here forever'
There's currently no enforceable federal standard for PFAS chemicals in drinking water.
Upton noted EPA issued a health advisory guidance in November 2016 on acceptable lifetime levels in drinking water of 70 parts per trillion or 70 ppt for two types of PFAS, called PFOA and PFOS, and asked whether that threshold should be maintained.
The Trump administration in June released a politically charged toxicology report showing PFAS can endanger human health at significantly lower levels than EPA has previously called safe.
The draft report from the Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry found "minimum risk levels" for some of those chemicals should be lower than the standards EPA set (Greenwire, June 20).
Heidi Grether, director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, said the state is looking at potential emitters of PFAS and ways to protect citizens, including filter systems.
State officials are in the process of testing 1,600 different water supplies — including at homes and schools — and said the state has completed 75 percent of those samples and hopes to complete the process by the year's end.
But Grether cautioned it could take time to get the results and noted that PFAS don't fade and only one location to date — the city of Parchment, Mich. — was found to have above 70 ppt in its drinking water supply. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality this summer told 3,100 people using Parchment's municipal water supply to stop drinking the water after high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances were detected, according to MLive.
"They are here forever, so it's challenging to understand what we can do about it," she said.
But James Clift, policy director of the Michigan Environmental Council, called for the immediate creation of an interim standard for PFAS substances under the Safe Drinking Water Act that better reflects the best available technology.
Clift said the public shouldn't have to wait two to three years for new maximum levels to be established.
Local officials at the roundtable expressed frustration with the time it's taking to identify hot spots, even though the problem of PFAS has been known about for years. They also expressed concern that blood tests are costly and limited, as is public information as questions around the threats of PFAS continue to surface.
EPA is in the process of crafting a national management plan for PFAS chemicals, which it plans to release by the year's end, said Peter Grevatt, director of the agency's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. The plan will consider the creation of a national standard, which would require a regulation, he said.
"We're going to address this process in the management plan," he said.
Tammy Cooper, a resident from Parchment, said she's only been able to attend one town hall meeting on the issue and accused state officials and toxicologists of downplaying potential health effects.
Cooper, who said she's drinking only bottled water, said that while the sources of PFAS haven't been identified, there are suspicious sites that need to be investigated and remediated, including a paper mill near her house that's been identified as "high risk for contamination."
"I think that remediating those sites is somewhat of a magic bullet solution," she said.
Others blamed EPA for dragging its feet.
Arnie Leriche, the community co-chair of the Wurtsmith Restoration Advisory Board and a former engineer at the EPA, said the agency needs to make the PFAS chemicals federally recognized hazardous substances, a designation that would allow DOD to use appropriated funds for cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA.
"I don't know if people in the EPA know they're holding that up," Leriche said.
Reporter Courtney Columbus contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/10/05/stories/1060100695
-
United States is Undergoing a Chemical Weapons Attack
Oct 7, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By John M. DeMaggio
Is the United States under attack from Chemical Weapons in the form of dangerous and toxic chemicals, as defined by the Chemical Weapons Convention, camouflaged as narcotics for illicit distribution resulting in death tolls rivaling those levels from the Chemical Warfare of WW I?
I only see the “body count” increasing, from 13,000 deaths in 2015 to over 19,000 in 2016 and 27,000 in 2017 according to the Centers for Disease Control and NBC. That represents a 40 percent increase in each of the last few years or a doubling in two years – with no end in sight.
According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), 124,000 tons of chemical munitions of all types, including toxic industrial chemicals, were used in three and a half years during WW I. This resulted in approximately 90,000 deaths and over 1 million casualties, or about 25,700 deaths per year. That is on average more than the 2017 domestic death toll from the drug epidemic of 27,000 and overall about 50 percent more than the 59,000 opioid deaths in the last there years.
These numbers certainly portend the domestic threat brought on United States with these chemical agents, numbers that are not just statistics to their loved ones.
The definition of chemical weapons as outlined by the OPCW is independent of the delivery system: “any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action.”
Fentanyl and carfentanil are just two of the chemicals in recent years responsible for an increase in the illicit traffic resulting in the escalating death rate. Although there are legitimate uses for fentanyl and carfentanil the quantities manufactured and distributed through the illegal networks far exceed and are not “consistent with such purposes.”
According to the World Health Organization, carfentanil has been illegally manufactured in foreign countries and shipped via the mail services into the United States. Carfentanil can also be used by the military as a chemical warfare agent. Evidence exists that the Russian Special Forces used carfentanil against the Chechen terrorists in their rescue of the hostages in the Dubrovka Theater in 2002.
Sean O’Connor, in his staff report “Fentanyl: China’s Deadly Export to the United States” on illegal fentanyl trafficking discusses how the United States should review “banning and controlling dangerous chemicals.”
So hazardous are these toxic chemicals that in September 2016 the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a nationwide warning to law enforcementabout the threat to life posed by synthetic opioids, warning law enforcement and first responders to “Exercise extreme caution.”
The professionals outfitted with full body personal protection suits to deal with such crime scenes sport considerably more than the simple gas masks used for protection from chemical weapons in WW I.
18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 11B—CHEMICAL WEAPONS section 229 echoes other definitions of a Chemical Weapon: “A toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter as long as the type and quantity is consistent with such a purpose.”
There should be no question that dangerously toxic chemicals such as carfentanyl and their precursors fall into the definition for chemical weapons.
The US Government should prosecute the illegal traffickers accordingly.
John M. DeMaggio is a retired Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Postal Service Inspector General. He is also a retired Captain in the U.S. Navy, where he served in Naval Intelligence. The above is the opinion of the author and is not meant to reflect the opinion of the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Government.
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/410251-united-states-is-undergoing-a-chemical-weapons-attack
-
Toxins From Recycled Items Could Find Their Way Into Commonly Used Goods, Experts Warn
Oct 5, 2018 | CBS New York
By Dana Tyler
Most of us recycle, and that’s a good thing since those items are then used in the manufacturing of new products.
But as CBS2’s Dana Tyler found out, some toxic chemicals are also getting a second life in the process.ADVERTISINGinRead invented by Teads
Other than the feel and maybe the thickness, you probably wouldn’t give your toilet paper too much thought. But maybe you should, says Mike Schade from the organization Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
“As companies and government agencies promote recycling, it can be a double-edged sword that we’re beginning to see really dangerous chemicals ending up in products that they were never meant to be used in the first place,” he said.
Chemicals like Bisphenol A, which doctors have been warning about for years.
“BPA is an environmental toxin, it’s referred to as an endocrine disruptor,” researcher Dr. Katherine Rakowski said. “In other words, your hormonal system in your body.”
Several studies have linked BPA to a growing number of health concerns, prompting manufacturers to remove it from certain products like baby bottles, toys, and some food containers.
It is, however, still widely used in the production of thermal paper products like retail receipts and lottery tickets.
“You put it in your wallet, it ends up in a recycling plant,” Schade said.
Now, it’s being reintroduced in a handful of new personal care products such as recycled toilet paper, facial tissue, paper towels, and napkins.
“There are also other chemicals that are intentionally added that are of concern,” Schade said.
Chemicals like formaldehyde, used to prevent paper from degrading, and chlorine dioxide, used as a bleaching agent.
It’s not just limited to paper products. Studies show when electronics are recycled, dangerous chemicals like flame retardants can unintentionally end up in items like food spatulas.
The Environmental Protection Agency says concentrations of these chemicals are so small, consumers shouldn’t worry.
“We’re not saying that using any one of these products in a single instance is going to cause a problem,” Schade said.
The bigger concern, Schade says, is prolonged exposure over time.
So what can you do to keep your family safe?
Schade suggests reading product labels and researching how your favorite brand is made on the company’s website.
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/10/05/toxic-chemicals-from-recycled-items/
-
Forget Cars, Plastics Could Soon Become the 'Single Most Important Driver' of Oil Demand
Oct 8, 2018 | CNBC
By Sam Meredith
Petrochemical products like plastics will become the most prominent driver of oil demand over the coming years, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) told CNBC Monday.
"When we discuss oil demand, peak oil demand (and) oil market dynamics, the focus is solely on cars — which is completely wrong," Fatih Birol, executive director at the IEA, told CNBC's "Street Signs" Monday.
"When we look at the next 10 to 15 years, the single most important driver of global oil demand growth is petrochemicals," Birol said.
In a report published late last week, the IEA said it expects robust growth in emerging economies — such as India and China — to propel demand for plastics and other petrochemical products.
Meanwhile, oil demand for transport is projected to slow by 2050 because of the meteoric rise of electric vehicles and more efficient combustion engines, the IEA said.
The Paris-based agency added this would then be offset by rising demand in petrochemicals.Explosive demand
Petrochemicals that are derived from oil and gas feed-stocks form the building blocks for products that range from plastic bottles and beauty products to fertilizers and explosives.
Oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell both plan to invest in new petrochemical plants over the coming decades, betting on the explosive demand for plastics in emerging economies.
"Of course the measures to make (petrochemicals) sustainable can dent this growth but we have no doubt whatsoever that petrochemicals will be the single most important driver of oil demand for many years to come," Birol added.
The IEA's forecast comes despite government efforts to dramatically reduce pollution and carbon emissions from oil and gas in recent years.
The mass use of plastics in countries across the world has come under intense scrutiny in recent years, as waste makes its way into the oceans where it harms marine life. Several nations have since acted to ban, partly ban or tax single-use plastic bags.
— Reuters contributed to this report.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/08/iea-oil-demand-could-soon-be-driven-by-upswing-in-demand-for-plastics.html
-
Insight: Us Natural Gas, Coal Markets Calm About Low Inventories … for Now
Oct 5, 2018 | Platts
By J. Robinson and Andrew Moore
The growth of low-priced natural gas supply from Appalachia and Texas appears to be changing the market calculus on winter heating demand this year.
With pre-winter gas inventories sitting at their lowest levels in over a decade, prices remain near historic lows. In the coal market, inventories are also at their lowest level in more than a decade, but prices have shown little reaction.
For both commodities, an early or colder than normal winter could have a significant impact on pricing. Winter gas prices in some parts of the US suggest squeezes lie ahead. But until demand shows up, the markets for both fuels seem to believe supply will be available when it is needed.
In general, the market seems to be saying, “what’s the rush?”
Despite low inventory levels in the gas market, recent supply growth has led traders to believe that flexible production should be sufficient to meet residential-commercial heating demand this winter in most areas.
Through late September, US gas production has averaged more than 83.3 Bcf/d for the month, according to a modeled estimate from S&P Global Platts Analytics. In the past 12 months, production is up 13%, or about 9.7 Bcf/d, with more than half of that growth coming from Appalachia and one-quarter from Texas.
In late September, the US Energy Information Administration reported total gas stocks at 2.77 Tcf, down 18.3% from the five-year average. Gas in storage should end the injection season in early November at less than 3.3 Tcf, which would be the lowest level since 2005.
Meanwhile, gas demand is expected to rise. Demand is forecast to average 79.6 Bcf/d in 2018, according to EIA data. That would be a 5.4 Bcf/d, or 7.3%, increase from 2017.
So far, strong production growth has kept a tight lid on benchmark US gas prices this year. At the Henry Hub, the cash market has traded at an average $2.91/MMBtu from January 1 to date. The prompt futures market has been even weaker, with NYMEX Henry Hub natural gas futures averaging just $2.84/MMBtu over that same period, S&P Global Platts data shows.
The forwards market appears to reflect a similar price outlook. As of late September, the 12-month forward curve at the Henry Hub was priced at an average of just $2.87/MMBtu.
Coal stockpiles
Coal prices also remain subdued despite low inventory levels, but could rally quickly if winter weather and rising gas prices lead to a shortage.
Powder River Basin coal, largely mined in Wyoming, makes up roughly half the market for thermal coal in the US. Stockpiles have shrunk in the last two years, and are now at levels not seen since 2006, when rail issues in the Powder River Basin led to a precipitous decline in inventories.
According to the most recent EIA data, utility coal stockpiles at the end of July stood at 110.5 million st, down 27.1% from the five-year average. S&P Global Platts Analytics estimates stockpiles stood at 107 million st as of last week.
The price for physical CSX coal has shot up in recent months to more than $70/st, but that has largely been due to export demand fueled by higher pricing in Europe.
For PRB 8,800 Btu/lb coal, however, which is not subject to export demand due to its relatively low heat content and distance from port, the price has remained stable. Since May, the price for PRB 8,800 for prompt-month delivery has averaged $12.44/st.
This stability despite low stockpiles is the result of a lack of demand, driven by both low gas prices and fears of over-contracting for coal. Coal buyers believe that if coal demand increases due to cold weather, there will be plenty of supply.
Coal producers, however, are warning that should gas prices rise this autumn or winter due to cold weather, utilities may find themselves with too little inventory, sparking a rally in prices.
In contrast to the broader US gas market, elevated winter prices in the Midwest suggest that traders are concerned that the recent growth in aggregate US gas supply may not be enough to meet demand there — especially on the coldest winter days.
In recent trading, the January-2019 and February-2019 forwards contracts at Chicago city-gates have climbed to nearly a 30 cent/MMBtu premium to Henry Hub. As recently as June, those same forward contracts were trading at a discount to the benchmark price.
Other regional hubs have seen a similar price trajectory.
At the Northern Ventura hub in Iowa, the two winter forwards contracts were trading recently at nearly a 70 cent/MMBtu premium to the benchmark. At Dawn Hub in Ontario, January and February forwards were recently priced at an average 24 cent/MMBtu premium.
Midwest forwards markets’ premium to Henry Hub could provide an opportunity for coal to regain some share of the generation mix, at least this winter. If prices remain stable, PRB 8,800 coal should stay competitive throughout the fall and winter and could even add some market share due to relatively low delivered costs.
Nationwide, the average delivered cost year to date for PRB 8,800 coal was $1.92/MMBtu through June of this year, according to EIA data.
Even with new pipelines bringing more gas from Appalachia to the Midwest, the risk of regional supply shortages seems to be driving prices in some locations.
Established supply arteries like Rockies Express Pipeline will move much of this gas west. But increasing volumes on Rover Pipeline and later this fall, Nexus Gas Transmission, will provide additional volumes, most notably to the Michigan and Dawn markets.
Aggregate flows from Appalachia to the Midwest should average about 5.3 Bcf/d from December 2018 to February 2019, according to S&P Global Platts Analytics.
On the coldest winter days, though, high utilization of the region’s supply pipelines means that certain Midwest hubs may be more dependent on gas in storage to meet demand. Midwest gas storage is currently sitting at 800 Bcf, about a 15% deficit to the prior five-year average.
http://blogs.platts.com/2018/10/05/us-natural-gas-coal-markets-calm-low-inventories/
-
Army Corps Pulls Mountain Valley Pipeline Permits
Oct 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Ben LeFebvre
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers today suspended the permits given to the Mountain Valley pipeline project, forcing the company to halt construction of the natural gas line.
The suspension is the latest major setback for the Mountain Valley developers, who have been building a 300-mile natural gas pipeline connecting southern Virginia and West Virginia. The Army Corps said in a letter to the company that its decision was based on a West Virginia court earlier this week vacating the nationwide permit the Corps had given for construction in that state.
“Because of that order, it is uncertain whether [the permit] will ultimately be available to authorize work for MVP in West Virginia,” William Walker, the Corps’ regulatory branch chief in Virginia, wrote in a letter to Mountain Valley.
“Effective immediately you must stop all activities being done in reliance upon the authorization under the [permit],” Walker added.
A spokesperson for Mountain Valley was not immediately available. The company is a joint venture of EQT Midstream Partners, NextEra US Gas Assets, Con Edison Transmission, WGL Midstream and RGC Midstream.
Environmental groups protesting the pipeline cheered the Corps’ order.
“It’s no surprise that this troubled pipeline has run up against another roadblock, this time in Virginia,” Anne Havemann, general counsel for Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said in a statement.“MVP has rushed this pipeline through federal and state regulatory processes without allowing time for the proper review."
WHAT'S NEXT: Mountain Valley has 10 days to respond to the Corps’ decision.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EPA Rejects Call To End Oil & Gas MOU Ahead Of Wastewater Public Meeting
Oct 8, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
EPA is rejecting environmentalists' calls to end an agreement with New Mexico to explore possibilities for reuse of wastewater from oil and gas extraction, ahead of an Oct. 9 meeting where the agency will offer an update on its national study of ways to manage wastewater from conventional and unconventional oil and gas extraction at onshore facilities.
Last month, the agency notified the environmental group WildEarth Guardians that it has no intention of agreeing with environmentalists' request for it to withdraw from a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with New Mexico and rescind the commitments therein.
EPA and New Mexico signed the agreement in July to clarify the existing regulatory and permitting frameworks related to the way produced water from oil and gas extraction activities can be reused, recycled, and renewed for other purposes, EPA's website says. The MOU outlines plans to develop later this year a draft white paper on the governance of produced water.
The MOU is an example of the type of partnership with states EPA says it wants to develop more of because states are at the forefront of the changing industry, and often manage complex water allocation programs under state law.
But a coalition of environmental groups, led by WildEarth Guardians, asked the agency to withdraw from the agreement, claiming in an Aug. 21 letter that the MOU violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Among other things, the letter says that by entering into the MOU, the agency in effect has created an advisory committee without making a formal determination that the advisory committee is in the public interest, filing a charter for the committee or providing proper notice in relation to the agreement's signatories.
WildEarth Guardians said in a press release announcing its letter that it is concerned EPA “is moving forward too quickly and assessing options for reuse without first assessing risks, requiring full disclosure of what’s in wastewater, and without conducting long-term health and environmental studies.”
The dispute comes as EPA and states are wrestling with how to handle produced water from oil and gas extraction. Produced water includes naturally occurring water that is trapped in rock formations and brought to the surface as a byproduct of oil and gas production as well as the intentional injection of water into a reservoir to aid in the energy recovery process.
During the Environmental Council of the States Fall Meeting in August, Martha Rudolph, director of environmental programs at the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, said regulators face significant uncertainties in assessing the contents of water produced at oil and gas sites and determining where and how it can be safely reused.
“We don't know what's in the produced water,” she said, noting that recent testing has not reached definitive results.
“This is an issue that the states are trying to grapple with particularly as their citizens know more and more and become more and more concerned” about produced water potentially being applied to roadways for deicing, among other uses, she said.
EPA Evaluation
EPA announced in its final 2016 effluent limitation guidelines plan, released in May, that it intends to engage with stakeholders to evaluate approaches to manage both conventional and unconventional oil and gas extraction wastewater from onshore facilities including, but not limited to, an assessment of technologies for facilities that treat and discharge oil and gas extraction wastewater.
The agency explains on its website that large volumes of wastewater are generated in the oil and gas industry and that these volumes are expected to increase.
“Currently the majority of this wastewater is managed by disposing of it using a practice known as underground injection, where that water can no longer be accessed or used. The limits of injection are evident in some areas, and new approaches are becoming necessary,” the agency says.
Some states and stakeholders are asking whether reuse of this water makes more sense in water-scarce areas of the country and what steps would be necessary to treat and renew it for other purposes, EPA says.
At the public meeting on Oct. 9, EPA plans to provide an update on the study begun earlier this year to address questions such as how existing federal approaches to produced water can interact more effectively with state and tribal regulations, requirements or policy needs, and whether potential federal regulations that may allow for broader discharge of treated produced water to surface waters are supported.
The meeting will also provide opportunity for additional public input.
Once EPA completes the study, it plans to prepare a white paper that can be used to inform next steps, including determining if future agency actions are appropriate.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-rejects-call-end-oil-gas-mou-ahead-wastewater-public-meeting
-
New Sage Grouse Plans Could Allow More Drilling, Other Development
Oct 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
More commercial activity and infrastructure projects may be allowed in habitat of the greater sage grouse under proposed changes to land use plans protecting the bird released by the U.S. Forest Service Oct. 5.
The proposals would eliminate the strictest barriers put in place in 2015 by the Obama administration to protect the bird so that it doesn’t have to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Those barriers blocked much new development in “focal areas"—habitat that is most valuable to the bird’s survival.
The changes would apply to 19 land use plans covering 5.2 million acres of terrain in federal forest and grassland areas in five states—Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. That includes land in Wyoming’s Thunder Basin National Grassland and Idaho’s Boise National Forest.
The greater sage grouse is a chicken-sized bird with a distinctive mating ritual, in which males puff up their chests and spread spiky tail feathers. The bird is considered a species whose health acts as an indicator for other animals who live on sagebrush lands.
Oil and gas exploration, mining, wind farms, and electric transmission lines and other development can degrade the bird’s habitat. The proposed changes would still require protections in prime habitat, but some development could be allowed with restrictions to minimize impacts.
The Forest Service is following similar action by the Bureau of Land Management, although the BLM plans cover far more area, about 53 million acres. BLM has more extensive responsibilities for sagebrush habitat.
The latest proposals are in the form of a draft environmental impact statement with three alternatives, including an option preferred by the Forest Service.
The preferred alternative was developed “to promote continued collaboration with the BLM, states, and stakeholders to improve management, compatibility, and consistency between federal management plans and other plans and programs at the state level,” the draft EIS said.
Claims of Coordination
Supporters of the 2015 land use plans touted it as a grand achievement of cooperation, although there was fairly strong disagreement. Lawsuits by the governors of Utah and Idaho and the attorney general of Nevada challenged the plans, mainly saying the Federal Land Policy and Management Act required greater coordination with states.
Environmental activists, worried about reduced protections under the Trump administration, have warned that changes to the 2015 plans could necessitate the greater sage grouse being listed as a threatened species. Their warnings may at some point be reinforced with litigation seeking a listing.
The Trump administration has approached its revisions cautiously, with an insistence that it is providing closer coordination with state regulations. The administration has stressed flexibility in the ways commercial activity can impinge on sage grouse habitat.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-sage-grouse-plans-could-allow-more-drilling-other-development
-
Epic Eyeing Early Start to Move Permian Crude to South Texas
Oct 8, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Because of “high customer demand” from Permian Basin producers, Epic Crude Oil Pipeline is expanding the size of its system and moving up the start date, with expectations to begin transport to South Texas by 3Q2019, at least three months sooner than originally anticipated.
The Epic Midstream Holdings LP subsidiary, through a lease agreement, would use a portion of a parallel natural gas liquids (NGL) system now underway by Epic NGL Pipeline.
Epic made the decision to utilize the “third and final phase” of the NGL pipeline while the crude system and Epic NGL fractionator remain under construction. The NGL pipeline would convert back to liquids service once the crude oil system is completed, now anticipated in early 2020.
“Given our recent commercial success and subsequent upsizing of the pipeline, we remain responsive to growing demand for crude oil transportation from the Permian Basin.” said Epic CEO Phillip Mezey. “We are proud to be able to offer an interim solution for our customers, while we continue to build out the EPIC Crude Oil Pipeline to service this region.”
The portion of the NGL line being placed into crude service would originate in Crane, with an additional injection point in Wink. The crude line would have “multiple terminal and refinery connections” in South Texas near Corpus Christi and Ingleside.
The 24-inch diameter NGL line would carry 400,000 b/d for interim crude service. Because of commercial demand, Epic plans to upsize the diameter of the crude line to 30 inches from 24 inches, which would expand Permian capacity to about 600,000 b/d.
By installing additional pumps and storage, Epic said it could increase the 30-inch oil capacity to around 900,000 b/d.
“The 30-inch pipe has been ordered from two steel mills and is expected to start arriving in early 2019,” Epic said. “The same construction crews from the Epic NGL Pipeline will be utilized enabling significant synergies to the construction timeline. All major equipment and pumps are currently on hand.”
Construction of the final phase of the Epic NGL line “is progressing on time with three contractors working on the project over five spreads of the pipeline path.”
Subject to approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the oil system would offer early service through contracts executed with some shippers following completion of open seasons.
Committed shippers for oil service now include Apache Corp., Diamondback Energy Inc. and Noble Energy Inc., Epic said. In addition to offering early crude service to its shippers, Epic has completed a second open season for additional oil transport.
Epic’s earlier-than-expected oil takeaway from the Permian would join Plains All American Pipeline LP’s Cactus II, also designed to move West Texas crude to Corpus Christi. Plains now expects to ramp up service on Cactus next September.
“Together with the 400,000 b/d of takeaway from the Cactus II line in September 2019, we see Midland differentials contracting to pipeline economics for at least the last four months of 2019, if not earlier,” said Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. analysts.
Based on the two systems starting up next fall, “Our previous $8/bbl Midland-Cushing crude differential in 4Q2019 is too wide, and we revise it down to $2.50/bbl…”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116021-epic-eyeing-early-start-to-move-permian-crude-to-south-texas
-
Planned Anhydrous Ammonia Unit in Texas City Draws Attention
Oct 8, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Times)
By Nick Powell
Roy Lee Cannon stands on the deck of his shrimp boat docked at Eagle Point Fishing Camp during the golden hour of a summer evening, his whippet-thin, sun-tanned frame slouched against the boat’s fish hold. He looks out on Galveston Bay, his office for the last 44 years.
The Houston Chronicle reports it’s the end of a long work day for Cannon, a shift that began before sunrise. The early-morning hours are harder for Cannon, who has a titanium plate in his arm from an accident and a pig valve in his chest, but this time of day is undoubtedly the most productive. On a good day, Cannon will haul in 600 pounds of shrimp, though his yield steadily has decreased as the bay and ship channel have become a highway of commerce for the oil and chemical industries.
“The ship channel is kind of a strange place because shrimp fall into it, but it’s not the same,” Cannon said. “It’s nice on those days when you can just run out there, throw (the net) over and just do good.”
As the ship channel has been widened to allow for more boat traffic and chemical plants have been constructed, which in turn have discharged millions of pounds of toxic runoff, Cannon has watched over four decades as the Galveston Bay has been transformed from a jewel of recreation and commerce into what one Texas environmental group calls “a potion of pollution.”
So, when Cannon heard an $800 million anhydrous ammonia plant was in the works for the shores of Texas City, he decided that another potential bay polluter should not proceed without protest.
The proposed plant has drawn widespread objections, including navigational, environmental and public health concerns, according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public-comment records obtained by the Houston Chronicle. The concerns have produced strange bedfellows, uniting government agencies, the chemical industry and environmentalists in raising serious questions about the facility.SPONSORED CONTENTFacebook Partners With Manufacturers For Better ConnectivityFacebook Engineering Blogעל התממשות תחזיות ותרחישים- רכישת בנק דקסיהwww.profound-ih.comThis Game brings the Fantasy World to LifeElvenar25 Facts about Texas | Cowboy LifestyleCowboy Lifestyle | Cowboy Culture & Western LifestyleRecommended by
Texas City residents know all too well the risks of an industrial disaster. In April 1947, the French-owned SS Grandcamp was loading ammonium nitrate fertilizer when a fire broke out, triggering a massive explosion that could be heard as far as 150 miles away. This led to a series of fires, including on nearby ships and at the nearby Monsanto Chemical Co. plant; a mushroom cloud that rose 2,000 feet into the air, destroying two small planes that passed overhead; and a 15-foot tidal wave that leveled buildings, leaving hundreds homeless. The disaster caused the deaths of more than 575 people and left another 4,000 people injured.
The proposed plant, which will receive a 10-year tax abatement from Texas City and create between 25 and 50 full-time jobs, includes planned dredging for an offshore dock and pipeline tower; a piping system that will include ammonia lines, potable water, sanitary sewer, electrical, and communication pipelines; and a permit to discharge 2.2 million gallons of utility wastewater and storm water runoff daily into the bay, directly into the vicinity of a shrimp nursery that Cannon and other shrimpers rely on.
“I don’t see how they can say nothing’s going to be affected or there will be little effect on the environmental situation for the oysters, fish, shrimp, etc. because they have no way of knowing that,” Cannon said. “All they can say is, ‘No, no it won’t hurt it.’”
The plant operators, Gulf Coast Ammonia LLC, a partnership between Miami-based Agrifos and Borealis AG, Europe’s second-largest producer of polyethylene and polypropylene, declined to comment about how it would address the myriad of concerns.
Nancy Sims, a public relations executive representing Gulf Coast Ammonia, said in a written statement to the Houston Chronicle that the proposal “has enjoyed broad support” and will bring “quality jobs and economic benefits to the region.” The statement noted that the plant will produce “liquid ammonia,” not the more controversial ammonium nitrate, the chemical that caused the 1947 explosion in Texas City.
“We have heard and addressed all of the comments submitted during the permitting process and we will continue to place safety as the highest priority of our company,” Sims wrote.
Texas City Mayor Matthew Doyle told The Galveston Daily News that the $800 million project was a “nice deal” for the city.
Indeed, the city has rolled out the red carpet for Gulf Coast Ammonia with the decade-long tax abatement, the maximum number of years that state law allows for cities to abate taxes for new development.
The city would forgo 100 percent of the plant’s property taxes while the company would pay a lump sum of between $750,000 and $1 million each year for the 10 years to the city in lieu of property taxes, depending on the property values and as long as that value is at least $450 million. The abatement is set to begin in 2021.
Property tax abatements for corporations are nothing new in Texas - a University of Texas study found that companies received more than $1.4 billion in property tax breaks from the state between 2005 and 2015.
Still, residents of Texas City, which has nearly 50,000 residents, are leery of yet another potentially hazardous facility. Galveston Bay sits to the east, and the Texas City industrial chemical and refining complex sits to the south. The “fenceline community” where the plant would be built bears the brunt of any toxic releases, as well as shelter-in-place and evacuation orders.
Bryan French, an attorney with the Lone Star Legal Aid’s Environmental Justice Team, submitted comment to the Army Corps of Engineers on Cannon’s behalf. He said Texas City qualifies as an Environmental Justice Community by federal standards encompassing sites with a risk management plan, hazardous waste and wastewater discharge, as well as exposure to air pollutants.
“This bay belongs to all of us. It’s a public resource, a lot of people benefit from it,” French said. “The people who work in refineries are on the bay or at the beach every week. They have a vested interest in this.”
A catastrophic event at the future Gulf Coast Ammonia facility or dock could put thousands of people at risk. Texas City High School, with 1,894 students, is located less than 2 miles from the site. Several other schools are even closer, including Roosevelt Wilson Elementary, Woodrow Wilson Alternative, Coastal Alternative and Blocker Middle schools.
Doyle, who did not respond to requests for comment, explained in a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers in March that the city “does not take lightly the placement, construction, docking, processing, transport or handling of chemicals within its community.”
Gulf Coast Ammonia “plans on employing a number of precautions in the construction of the facility,” Doyle added, and the city has concluded that the “dock location and loading of vessels at this location poses no more risk than multiple vessels navigating the Texas City, Houston and Galveston Ship channels.”
The Port of Texas City and the Galveston Texas City Pilots are among those worried about a potential risk to navigation created by the proposed 140-foot long, 89-foot wide barge and dock facility that would border the Texas City Ship Channel and sit about 3,800 feet away from shore, connected via pipeline to the actual plant on the mainland.
Karol Chapman, the president of the Port of Texas City noted that the dock would be located at the “Texas City Y,” a high-traffic waterfront juncture where big ships and tankers typically make the turn toward the Port of Houston or the Port of Texas City.
“Our concern is in various weather circumstances or navigational circumstances, about 12,000 vessels a year go sailing past this point,” Chapman said. “You’ll have a barge or a ship tied up alongside that dock, and we have prevailing southerly winds out there, let’s say they get up to 20 mph, what impact would that have on (ships’) ability to pass?”
The Galveston Texas City Pilots largely agreed with Chapman’s concerns, stating in public comments that “the proposal currently lacks sufficient study and detail to receive the support of the Galveston Texas City Pilots.”
Industry competitors also submitted comments in support of the Port of Texas City’s position.
“It’s one of the busiest traffic intersections in the Western hemisphere, we wouldn’t want anything to ever slow that process down,” said Greg DeLong, a senior manager and marine liaison for Enterprise Products.
Alternative sites may be less cumbersome on the ship channel, including building a dock alongside the facility on the mainland, rather than offshore, Chapman said. She said Gulf Coast Ammonia executives seemed wary of spending money on the dredging that some of the alternatives would require.
“Their concerns are mainly for their own interests,” she said. “Our desire would be for them to locate their dock at not the most economical spot, but the safest.”
Another primary concern is the potentially hazardous health effects that anhydrous ammonia could have in the event of an accident.
The toxic gas typically is used to manufacture agricultural fertilizer and as an industrial refrigerant. If heated, the gas can explode. The use of fertilizers such as anhydrous ammonia dates back to the end of World War II, when the government built plants that produced ammonia to make bombs.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, anhydrous ammonia is a “pungent gas with suffocating fumes” stored at high pressures, and exposure can cause breathing difficulties, chemical burns, blindness and, at high concentrations, death.
“The thing with ammonia is, it’s both toxic and very explosive,” said the late M. Sam Mannan, a professor of chemical engineering at Texas A&M; University, who died last month. “Acidity when it gets out can cause breathing problems, things like that. If concentration is high enough, it could be a problem.”
The U.S. Coast Guard designates anhydrous ammonia as “especially hazardous cargo” that has “the potential for catastrophic consequences if discharged or released,” according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
While Gulf Coast Ammonia was quick to distinguish anhydrous ammonia from ammonium nitrate, the two compounds are considered “chemical cousins.” Anhydrous ammonia, while not as explosive, has caused its share of accidents.
Most recently, improper storage of anhydrous ammonia was found to have exacerbated a 2013 explosion of fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate at the West Fertilizer Co. in West, Texas, that killed 15 people, injured 180 and damaged more than 150 buildings in a five-block radius.
The West facility stored more than 50,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia, more than five times the threshold quantity standard set by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
A database compiled by the Center for Effective Government, a nonpartisan watchdog, found that from 1996 to 2011, there were 939 accidents at plants that stored large amounts of anhydrous ammonia, an average of one accident per week. These accidents killed 19, injured 1,651 and damaged almost $350 million in property.
Galveston Bay, Texas’ largest estuary, also is one of the state’s most polluted bodies of water.
Gulf Coast Ammonia, if built, would add 2.2 million gallons of industrial wastewater to the estimated 4 trillion gallons of wastewater that flow into Galveston Bay each year from sewers, industrial facilities and roads, according to advocacy group Environment Texas.
The company had a pending industrial wastewater permit application that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality recently referred to the State Office of Administrative Hearings for additional review.
David Galindo, director of TCEQ’s water quality division, urged the Army Corps of Engineers to have Gulf Coast Ammonia “explain how leaks from the pipelines will be prevented or minimized, considering that contents such as ammonia can be highly toxic to aquatic life.”
In his public comment to the Army Corps, Scott Jones, the director of advocacy for the Galveston Bay Foundation, urged Gulf Coast Ammonia to find a more suitable location for the plant.
“One of the reasons we said that location has all sorts of red flags is that it has all sorts of impacts to wildlife and to people,” Jones said.
The Galveston Bay Foundation is concerned that the discharge of wastewater into the bay could seriously harm wildlife, including shrimp and oysters, which would directly affect fishermen like Cannon.
“The biggest question to me personally is what’s this (wastewater) flow going to do?” Cannon said. “How can they possibly say that 2.2 million gallons will be absorbed quickly?”
Kenneth Teague, a Dallas-based ecologist who recently retired from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, noted that unlike some states, Texas does not have an ammonia water quality standard.
Teague noted that ammonia is highly toxic to aquatic life, and that the facility should be designed to minimize the risk of ammonia spills.
Cannon is a realist. He has seen too many chemical plants pop up along the shores of the bay to expect much from due process.
Cannon does have a list of requests for Gulf Coast Ammonia: conduct an environmental impact study; test the sediment quality before dredging, complete a Hazardous Toxic Radioactive Waste evaluation; ensure that the project will not lead to the loss of oyster reefs or any habitats for endangered species; and most importantly, address risk that their product poses to public health and the surrounding environment.
Cannon is well aware that any long-term impact from the plant may not affect him in his lifetime. He is the only member of the shrimping or commercial fishing industry to submit a public comment to the Corps of Engineers, a step he is glad to have taken it means future generations are spared the possible toxic effects of the ammonia plant in Galveston Bay.
“You’re not going to know a thing until it’s actually in the works. And guess what? That may be too late,” he said. “All of this is part of the life that I’ve been in now for 44 years. You just hate to see things destroyed.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/8/planned-anhydrous-ammonia-unit-in-texas-city-draws/
-
GAO: Passenger Railroads Lag on PTC Testing
Oct 5, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
Although many passenger railroads are close to completing equipment installation of positive train control (PTC) systems, less progress has been made on testing those systems, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) announced earlier this week in its latest PTC report.
Of the 28 commuter railroads required to implement PTC, 19 have initiated field testing. Only eight have started revenue-service demonstration, the GAO reported.
In comparison, two-thirds of passenger railroads are more than 90 percent complete with equipment installation.
Field testing involves several tests of individual components, such as of each locomotive to verify if it meets functional requirements and field-integration. Revenue service demonstrations, on the other hand, are an advanced form of field testing in which a railroad operates PTC-equipped trains in regular service under specific conditions, according to the GAO report.
Amtrak and 21 commuter railroads anticipate applying for an extension to the Dec. 31 federally mandated deadline for PTC implementation. More than half of those railroads plan to apply for an extension using substitute criteria.
To receive an extension, railroads are required to meet six statutory criteria, including initiating a revenue service demonstration on at least one track segment. However, the latter requirement can be substituted with other criteria approved by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
As of Sept. 21, only one passenger railroad — the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority — has filed for a PTC extension.
Passenger railroads have "expressed concern that FRA's workload will markedly increase as railroads submit requests for extension approvals," the GAO's report stated.
"FRA has acknowledged concerns about the pending surge of submissions and agency officials said they have taken recent steps to help manage the forthcoming influx of documentation, such as reallocating resources," according to the report.https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/GAO-Passenger-railroads-lag-on-PTC-testing--55796
-
As Canadian Pipeline Plans Falter, More Oil is Moving by Rail — Prompting Familiar Fears
Oct 8, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Selena Ross
For years, Canadians have heard a common refrain: If a new pipeline doesn’t materialize to get their oil to market, the oil will just travel a different way — by rail.
It’s a trade-off that can inspire fear in a country where an oil-by-rail disaster killed 47 people just five years ago. Environmentalists have sometimes described the rail option as a threat or “boogeyman” looming over Canada’s pipeline debate.
But now the prediction appears to be coming true, as the volume of oil traveling by rail out of Canada — to the United States — has surged in the past few months as the country’s latest pipeline project foundered.
The problems around the Trans Mountain pipeline project have led to increasing pessimism among oil producers and an increasing willingness to invest in rail capacity. That means Canadians are preparing for even higher oil-by-rail volumes over the next few years, while sorting out how their fears stack up against reality.
“It’s a storm that’s been brewing for a while,” said Kent Fellows, an economist at the University of Calgary, in the heart of Canada’s oil country.
“The risks of spills are higher [by rail], but the fact that this stuff needs to get to market because people are buying it means it’ll search out the lowest-cost pathway,” he said.
The spike is dramatic. Before 2012, very little oil was shipped by rail out of Canada. This past June, the country’s energy regulator announced a record-breaking average of 200,000 barrels per day exported that way. The Paris-based International Energy Agency estimates that the 2019 annual average will reach 390,000 barrels per day.
But the oil world had been preparing long before this summer. Imperial Oil decided to build a new rail terminal in Edmonton in 2013.
“At the time, we said it would be a bit of an insurance policy if market access — i.e. new pipelines — did not come about in the needed time frame,” Imperial Oil CEO Rich Kruger said during a public conference call in late July. “Like any insurance policy, our hope was that we did not have to use it too much. Over time . . . we have increased volumes at it.”
Reuters reported in September that another company, Cenovus Energy, signed a new railway infrastructure deal, though the company declined to comment.
Rail tanker cars carry crude oil and molten sulfur on a Great Western Railway train near Shaunavon, Saskatchewan, in August 2016. (Larry MacDougal/AP)Several Canadian pipeline projects have failed in recent years, with each defeat bringing more interest in rail transport.
Then, this past spring, Kinder Morgan pulled out of an expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, slated to send crude overseas via Vancouver. The Trudeau government bought the project, only to see it halted by an Aug. 30 court decision finding that indigenous communities hadn’t been adequately consulted. The government has said it will try again to get the pipeline approved.
[Two of Canada’s biggest provinces are feuding over an oil pipeline. Trudeau is caught in the middle.]
Despite much opposition to pipelines, polls have found that Canadians see oil-by-rail transport as relatively unsafe. But Fellows said that for those who strongly oppose pipelines, the rail numbers aren’t likely to change many minds; they are seen as necessary to avoid pipelines and guarantee lower transport costs.
Patrick DeRochie, of the Toronto-based organization Environmental Defence, has objected in the past to the “boogeyman” of oil by rail. He said in an interview that although he is concerned about the recent increases, rail transport is still “a drop in the bucket” of Canada’s total oil production, let alone its production capacity.
“I do think the tragedies that we’ve seen happen . . . have been used in the media and in the oil industry to fearmonger in communities,” he said.
The bigger danger is to the global climate if the bulk of Canada’s oil stores were extracted and burned, he said. Canada’s lack of pipelines keeps that extra production “nonviable.”
If they must be landlocked for now, Canadian producers are fortunate to be so next to a neighbor like the United States, said Kristine Petrosyan, an analyst with the International Energy Agency. The vast majority of Canadian oil travels south by pipeline rather than rail, most of it to refineries in the Midwest. The refineries get a good price but also have an unusual capacity to handle the heavy crude efficiently.
In some ways, Canada is lucky to have a neighbor with enough refining “capacity to deal with the crude that would otherwise be quite challenging to offer an international market,” Petrosyan said.
With rail volumes climbing, the Canadian government has hurried new safety measures into place. Last month, it announced that a certain kind of crude-carrying tank car will be phased out by November, moving up a previous deadline by 17 months.
“I think in general, the impression [Canadians] have is from the Lac Mégantic accident,” Petrosyan said. In 2013, a runaway oil-carrying train exploded in the Quebec town, leveling much of it.
In the years since, Canada has passed other regulations to lower the risk of a similar accident. Bitumen shipped out of Alberta, the consistency of peanut butter, is also far less flammable than the crude that exploded in Lac Mégantic, Petrosyan said. Still, other accidents have happened in recent years, with the rate of Canadian dangerous-substance rail spills increasing from 2016 to 2017.
The same year saw a spike in pipeline spills, too.
Research has generally found that transporting oil by rail, while safer than by truck, is riskier than carrying it by pipeline. But some experts say it can be hard to know exactly how to compare those risks, with rail and pipeline transport each coming with safety-related pros and cons.
In 2014, a Congressional Research Service report found that developing more pipelines “in general . . . could provide safer, less expensive transportation than railroads.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/as-canadian-pipeline-plans-falter-more-oil-is-moving-by-rail--prompting-familiar-fears/2018/10/07/6541980a-c0e3-11e8-9f4f-a1b7af255aa5_story.html?utm_term=.959942941197
-
The World Has Just over a Decade to Get Climate Change Under Control, U.N. Scientists Say
Oct 7, 2018 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis
The world stands on the brink of failure when it comes to holding global warming to moderate levels, and nations will need to take “unprecedented” actions to cut their carbon emissions over the next decade, according to a landmark report by the top scientific body studying climate change.
With global emissions showing few signs of slowing and the United States — the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide — rolling back a suite of Obama-era climate measures, the prospects for meeting the most ambitious goals of the 2015 Paris agreement look increasingly slim. To avoid racing past warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels would require a “rapid and far-reaching” transformation of human civilization at a magnitude that has never happened before, the group found.
“There is no documented historic precedent” for the sweeping change to energy, transportation and other systems required to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote in a report requested as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
At the same time, however, the report is being received with hope in some quarters because it affirms that 1.5 degrees Celsius is still possible — if emissions stopped today, for instance, the planet would not reach that temperature. It is also likely to galvanize even stronger climate action by focusing on 1.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 2 degrees, as a target that the world cannot afford to miss.
“Frankly, we’ve delivered a message to the governments,” said Jim Skea, a co-chair of the IPCC panel and professor at Imperial College London, at a press event following the document’s release. “It’s now their responsibility … to decide whether they can act on it.” He added, “What we’ve done is said what the world needs to do.”
The transformation described in the document is breathtaking, and the speed of change required raises inevitable questions about its feasibility.
Most strikingly, the document says the world’s annual carbon dioxide emissions, which amount to more than 40 billion tons per year, would have to be on an extremely steep downward path by 2030 to either hold the world entirely below 1.5 degrees Celsius, or allow only a brief “overshoot” in temperatures.
Overall reductions in emissions in the next decade would probably need to be more than 1 billion tons per year, larger than the current emissions of all but a few of the very largest emitting countries. By 2050, the report calls for a total or near-total phaseout of the burning of coal.
“It’s like a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen. We have to put out the fire,” said Erik Solheim, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that the need to either stop emissions entirely by 2050 or find some way to remove as much carbon dioxide from the air as humans put there “means net zero must be the new global mantra.”
The radical transformation also would mean that, in a world projected to have more than 2 billion additional people by 2050, large swaths of land currently used to produce food would instead have to be converted to growing trees that store carbon and crops designated for energy use. The latter would be used as part of a currently nonexistent program to get power from trees or plants and then bury the resulting carbon dioxide emissions in the ground, leading to a net subtraction of the gas from the air — bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS.
“Such large transitions pose profound challenges for sustainable management of the various demands on land for human settlements, food, livestock feed, fibre, bioenergy, carbon storage, biodiversity and other ecosystem services,” the report states.
The document in question was produced relatively rapidly for the cautious and deliberative IPCC, representing the work of nearly 100 scientists. It went through an elaborate peer-review process involving tens of thousands of comments. The final 34-page “summary for policymakers” was agreed to in a marathon session by scientists and government officials in Incheon, South Korea, over the past week.
The report says the world will need to develop large-scale “negative emissions” programs to remove significant volumes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Although the basic technologies exist, they have not caught on widely, and scientists have strongly questioned whether such a program can be scaled up in the brief period available.
The bottom line, Sunday’s report found, is that the world is woefully off target.
Current promises made by countries as part of the Paris climate agreement would lead to about 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by the end of the century, and the Trump administration recently released an analysis assuming about 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 if the world takes no action.
The IPCC is considered the definitive source on the state of climate science, but it also tends to be conservative in its conclusions. That’s because it is driven by a consensus-finding process, and its results are the product of not only science, but negotiation with governments over its precise language.
In Sunday’s report, the body detailed the magnitude and unprecedented nature of the changes that would be required to hold warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but it held back from taking a specific stand on the feasibility of meeting such an ambitious goal. (An early draft had cited a “very high risk” of warming exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius; that language is now gone, even if the basic message is still easily inferred.)
“If you’re expecting IPCC to jump up and down and wave red flags, you’re going to be disappointed,” said Phil Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “They’re going to do what they always do, which is to release very cautious reports in extremely dispassionate language.”
Some researchers, including Duffy, are skeptical of the scenarios that the IPCC presents that hold warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, particularly the reliance on negative-emissions technologies to keep the window open.
“Even if it is technically possible, without aligning the technical, political and social aspects of feasibility, it is not going to happen,” added Glen Peters, research director of the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo. “To limit warming below 1.5 C, or 2 C for that matter, requires all countries and all sectors to act.”
Underscoring the difficulty of interpreting what’s possible, the IPCC gave two separate numbers in the report for Earth’s remaining “carbon budget,” or how much carbon dioxide humans can emit and still have a reasonable chance of remaining below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The upshot is that humans are allowed either 10 or 14 years of current emissions, and no more, for a two-thirds or better chance of avoiding 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The already limited budget would shrink further if other greenhouse gases, such as methane, aren’t controlled or if and when Arctic permafrost becomes a major source of new emissions.
But either way — in a move that may be contested — researchers have somewhat increased the carbon budget in comparison with where the IPCC set it in 2013, giving another reason for hope.
The new approach buys some time and “resets the clock for 1.5 degrees Celsius to ‘five minutes to midnight,’ ” said Oliver Geden, head of the research division of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
The report is sure to be the central focus of attention this December in Poland when the next meeting of the parties to the Paris climate agreement is held, and countries begin to contemplate how they can up their ambition levels, as the agreement requires them to do over time.
Meanwhile, the report clearly documents that a warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius would be very damaging and that 2 degrees — which used to be considered a reasonable goal — could approach intolerable in parts of the world.
“1.5 degrees is the new 2 degrees,” said Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, who was in Incheon for the finalization of the report.
Specifically, the document finds that instabilities in Antarctica and Greenland, which could usher in sea-level rise measured in feet rather than inches, “could be triggered around 1.5°C to 2°C of global warming.” Moreover, the total loss of tropical coral reefs is at stake because 70 to 90 percent are expected to vanish at 1.5 degrees Celsius, the report finds. At 2 degrees, that number grows to more than 99 percent.
The report found that holding warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius could save an Alaska-size area of the Arctic from permafrost thaw, muting a feedback loop that could lead to still more global emissions. The occurrence of entirely ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean goes from one per century to one per decade between 1.5 and 2 degrees, it found — one of many ways in which the mere half a degree has large real-world consequences.
Risks of extreme heat and weather events just rise and rise as temperatures do, meaning these would be worse worldwide the more it warms.
To avoid that, in barely more than 10 years, the world’s percentage of electricity from renewables such as solar and wind power would have to jump from the current 24 percent to something more like 50 or 60 percent. Coal and gas plants that remain in operation would need to be equipped with technologies, collectively called carbon capture and storage (CCS), that prevent them from emitting carbon dioxide into the air and instead funnel it to be buried underground. By 2050, most coal plants would shut down.
Cars and other forms of transportation, meanwhile, would need to be shifting strongly toward being electrified, powered by these same renewable energy sources. At present, transportation is far behind the power sector in the shift to low-carbon fuel sources. Right now, according to the International Energy Agency, only 4 percent of road transportation is powered by renewable fuels, and the agency has projected only a 1 percent increase by 2022.
The report’s statements on the need to jettison coal were challenged by the World Coal Association.
“While we are still reviewing the draft, the World Coal Association believes that any credible pathway to meeting the 1.5 degree scenario must focus on emissions rather than fuel,” the group’s interim chief executive, Katie Warrick, said in a statement. “That is why CCS is so vital.”
That’s an approach largely embraced by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, which under President Trump has taken numerous steps to roll back regulations on the coal industry.
In an interview with The Post last week, the EPA’s acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler, said the United States will “continue to remain engaged in the U.N.'s effort,” despite the fact that Trump has said he intends to withdraw from the Paris climate accord as soon as legally possible.
But asked specifically about what it would take to keep the world below a dangerous level of climate change, Wheeler declined to identify a specific level. The agency’s regulatory approach is that it would allow the coal industry “to continue to innovate on clean coal technologies, and those technologies will be exported to other countries."
And turning off most coal plants may not be the most radical change required. For instance, the document also contemplates rapid changes to agriculture, where methane emissions, produced by livestock, rice cultivation and other sources, also would have to plummet even as the world will have to feed a growing population.
Meanwhile, instead of continuing to deforest large areas for livestock and other uses, humans would have to embark on a large-scale program of reforestation, planting or restoring trees over enormous areas.
In the end, “one thing is for sure,” Niklas Hohne, a scientist who heads the New Climate Institute, said in a statement.
“If we give up the goal and do not even try, we will certainly miss it a long way.”
Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/?utm_term=.8df727705b96
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested