Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - April 9, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Study Details ‘Transformational’ Tech in Plastics Recycling
Apr 9, 2019 | Resource Recycling
By Dan Leif
At least 60 organizations are working to scale up depolymerization, pyrolysis and other emerging plastic processing methods. The North American market for the resulting products could top $100 billion annually. Those statistics come... -
`Unmaking’ Plastics Spurs $120 Billion Potential Market in Trash
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey
Plastic recycling is evolving. The next step will be more like reincarnation. At least 60 chemical companies are racing to develop technology that can return trash to its original hydrocarbon ingredients, according to a report April 9. The... -
California Science Panel to Review Implementation of SCP Programme
Apr 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A science panel of California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control will hold a public meeting in Sacramento later this month to discuss implementation of the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme. The 23-24 April meeting of... -
EPA Releases 24 Study Reports Used to Develop the Draft Risk Evaluation for C.I. PV 29
Apr 9, 2019 | National Law Review
By Margaret R. Graham and Lynn L. Bergeson
On March 22, 2019, the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) issued a memorandum stating that it was releasing 24 studies in the Colour Index (C.I.) Pigment Violet (PV) 29 docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604) that were... -
EPA to List Nonstick Toxics as Hazardous Substances This Year
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA for the first time plans to list ubiquitous nonstick chemicals as hazardous substances under the nation’s Superfund law by year’s end, the agency’s top drinking water official said April 9. The agency will issue a proposal to... -
Despite Agency Pledges, Utilities Press EPA For Timeline On LCR Proposal
Apr 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
Municipal drinking water utilities are pressing EPA water chief David Ross on the agency's timeline for proposing revisions to the lead and copper rule (LCR), which agency officials have said is expected this summer, suggesting a... -
Banned Around the Globe – But Still Legal in California?
Apr 9, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
More than 40 nations have banned or restricted more than 1,400 chemicals in cosmetics and other personal care products. So why are chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive harm still turning up in cosmetics sold in California? -
States Brace for Battle With EPA Over Pesticide Label Rules
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
State pesticide regulators are concerned the Environmental Protection Agency is angling to reduce their ability to impose additional restrictions on pesticides in their states. The issue was front and center during a committee... -
New Jersey Using Contingency Fee Lawyers to Take Lead in PFAs Litigation
Apr 9, 2019 | Legal Newsline
By Karen Kidd
New Jersey is ahead of the rest of the country in using private lawyers to sue manufacturing companies over chemicals known as PFAS, whose toxicity levels are still being determined by federal regulators while lawsuits stack... -
Should You Be Concerned About PFAS Chemicals?
Apr 8, 2019 | Consumer Reports
By Kevin Loria
A group of substances known as PFAS chemicals are behind a variety of everyday conveniences that make our lives a little bit easier. They line pizza boxes and fast-food packaging so grease doesn’t seep through, form the nonstick... -
(ACC Mentioned) Insight: First-Quarter Price and Margin Falls Hit Petrochemical/Polymer Producers Hard
Apr 9, 2019 | ICIS
By Nigel Davis
Petrochemicals and polymer producers faced difficult headwinds in the first quarter of the year, with demand growth slow and overcapacities influencing prices and margins. The much tougher business environment – a persistent... -
Trump Said to Seek Limits on State Power in Pipeline Approvals
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Developers have been trying for six years to build a 124-mile natural gas pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York. Despite winning a federal approval in 2014, the project is still no closer to reality. Enter President Donald Trump, who... -
API-AOPL: Number of Pipeline Incidents Declining, Report Shows
Apr 9, 2019 | Oil & Gas Journal
By Nick Snow
The number of incidents affecting people has decreased 20% as the total of US mileage and deliveries has increased more than 10% in the last 5 years, the American Petroleum Institute and the Association for Oil Pipelines jointly said in... -
Purdue Researchers Develop Patents to Convert Unconventional Gas to Liquid Fuels
Apr 9, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Researchers at Purdue University have developed a series of patents designed to convert natural gas from shale/tight formations to liquid fuels including gasoline and diesel using a two-step process. -
BNSF Not Liable for Contamination From Decades-Old Spill
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
BNSF Railway Co. won’t face claims that a fuel spill from a 1993 train wreck contaminated a nearby property with petroleum. Indian Creek Development Co. failed to show that the train accident caused the petroleum... -
Contractors: KMCO Knew of Valve Leak Before Texas Plant Fire
Apr 9, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire
Three contractors who worked at a Houston-area chemical plant say in a lawsuit that the company knew a flammable gas was leaking before a deadly fire erupted but did not order an evacuation. The Houston Chronicle reports the... -
Ewire: Agencies Slow to Help White House Climate Panel
Apr 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA and several other federal agencies have yet to offer any help to stand up a planned White House panel that would challenge mainstream climate change science, according to one report, though some top officials are still pursuing the -
U.S. In ‘Dangerous Moment’ With Climate Change, Kerry Says
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
President Donald Trump’s repeated characterizations of climate change as a “hoax” is placing the U.S. in peril, former Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional panel April 9. The former Cabinet member, Massachusetts Senator...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Study Details ‘Transformational’ Tech in Plastics Recycling
Apr 9, 2019 | Resource Recycling
By Dan Leif
At least 60 organizations are working to scale up depolymerization, pyrolysis and other emerging plastic processing methods. The North American market for the resulting products could top $100 billion annually.
Those statistics come from “Accelerating Circular Supply Chains for Plastics,” a market-landscape report released today by Closed Loop Partners. It is the first comprehensive analysis of the range of approaches to plastics processing that are sometimes referred to as chemical recycling.
Such technologies have grabbed headlines over the past year, often framed as pathways to cut down on plastic pollution and offer solutions for the large quantities of material that are not making their way into established mechanical recycling systems.
The 88-page report from Closed Loop Partners divides the emerging-technology sector into several distinct categories, and it strives to deliver a relatively non-technical explanation of the market. By clearly outlining the landscape, the group hopes to help bring critical investment to the business.
“While these processes are not new, technology providers are applying them in innovative and exciting ways,” the study notes. “Investors and brands have an opportunity to influence and accelerate solutions that repurpose plastics waste and keep materials in play.”
Different stages of commercialization
The analysis comes from the Center for the Circular Economy, a newer division of Closed Loop Partners, which is a corporate-backed group focusing on investment and research to improve recycling.
The year-long research effort identified 60 separate technology providers pushing forward processes the report calls “transformational technologies.”
That terminology adds to a trend among some plastics recycling stakeholders to move away from the “chemical recycling” nomenclature (many of the technologies do not technically alter the chemistry of the material in question). A report issued last month by the American Chemistry Council, for instance, referred to the approaches as “advanced plastics recycling.”
Some of the entities identified in the Closed Loop report are much-discussed companies such as Oregon-based Agilyx, which has a commercial facility in place to break down post-consumer polystyrene to a monomer that can be used in the production of new plastics. The operation has offtake agreements in place with several resin makers.
But other operators included in the rundown are far less developed. One example is California-based BioCellection, a firm that at present is handling just a few pounds of plastics per day in a lab setting to test an “oxidation process to decompose post-consumer plastics into shorter chain molecules.”
Of the 60 approaches being developed, Closed Loop notes, more than 40 providers are currently running commercial-scale facilities in the U.S. or Canada, or have plans to do so in the next two years.
According to the report, the revenue potential for those businesses is enormous. The study states that in 2018, 2.5 million metric tons of recycled plastics were available to buyers, accounting for just 6% of the 38 million metric tons of plastic used in the U.S. and Canada.
If operators were able to find a way to fulfill the entire market demand through recovered and re-processed materials, the total value of the material would be around $120 billion.
“For example, 6.6 million metric tons of polypropylene were produced in the U.S. and Canada in 2018,” the report notes. “Mechanical processing yielded just 150,000 metric tons (2%) of recycled PP returned to the supply chain at a value of $1,100/per ton. If all production was replaced with recycled PP, this differential would translate into $4.2 billion in revenues.”
Three sector categories
The report puts each technological method into one of three categories: purification, decomposition and conversion.
Purification methods, as defined by Closed Loop, do not change the material on a molecular level. Instead, they use a solvent to remove additives and dyes. PureCycle, a Procter & Gamble-backed venture that decontaminates recovered polypropylene, falls into this category.
Decomposition (also known as depolymerization), on the other hand, “involves breaking molecular bonds of the plastic to recover the simple molecules (monomers) from which the plastic is made.” Agilyx and Loop Industries are two of the more developed businesses in this realm.
Conversion also breaks molecular bonds, but it results in liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons that can become fuels or the building blocks for new plastics. GreenMantra Technologies, Renewlogy, RES Polyflow and Vadxx are some of the larger operators under this classification.
The Closed Loop research determined 14 of the existing technologies fell into the purification bucket, 21 could be considered decomposition and 27 are conversion processes.
The report notes that while many scientists and entrepreneurs have been working in the space, the pace of development has remained slow. On average, it’s taken the identified entities 17 years to hit “growth scale.”
“These technologies all have the potential to scale,” the analysis indicates, “but their growth and commercialization needs to be accelerated in order to meet growing demand. With better access to investment capital and increasing demand from brands and supply chain partners, technology providers may soon be able to accelerate the pace of growth.”
https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2019/04/09/study-details-transformational-tech-in-plastics-recycling/
-
`Unmaking’ Plastics Spurs $120 Billion Potential Market in Trash
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey
Plastic recycling is evolving. The next step will be more like reincarnation.
At least 60 chemical companies are racing to develop technology that can return trash to its original hydrocarbon ingredients, according to a report April 9. The process—call it the unmaking of plastic—creates clean, virgin resin that can be used for new products, avoiding the need to pump oil for endless fresh batches.
The stakes couldn’t be higher for an industry under attack for producing a ubiquitous material essential to modern life that’s grown notorious for choking the world’s oceans and killing its animals. Resin makers and consumer brands are trying to head off a global backlash that’s already eroding demand for their products.
“If they don’t play an active role in this, they’re going to see brands and customers de-select plastics,” said Ellen Martin, a vice president for Closed Loop Partners, an investment firm focused on creating a circular economy. “It’s a threat to their overall business.”
A $120 billion market opportunity for recycled materials awaits successful technologies, according to a Closed Loop report.
Traditional ShortcomingsOld-fashioned recycling, sometimes called “chop and wash,” is a relatively crude, mechanical system that can’t handle most varieties of resin and can’t get rid of all the contaminants, resulting in dirty plastic with limited uses. So, yogurt tubs are sent to the landfill and milk jugs are made into plastic lumber.
Less than 10 percent of plastic in North America gets recycled, generating one pound of recycled plastic for every 15 pounds of demand, Closed Loop found in its study. That falls woefully short at a time when manufacturers like Coca-Cola Co. are committing to using more recycled plastic.
Pressure is rising on plastic makers to come up with new solutions.
“We won’t be able to get there unless we’re able to do something that goes beyond the traditional mechanical recycling systems we have today,” said Tim Dell, vice president of corporate innovation at Eastman Chemical Co.
Eastman is joining a parade of companies large and small aiming to develop ways to take old plastic, break it down into its chemical components and then use that to regenerate raw materials. Eastman last week announced it will begin a commercial-scale operation to reclaim mixed plastic waste that otherwise would end up in landfills, with a second plant targeting polyester waste to follow.
Building Blocks“We have completely broken down these plastic feedstocks to their original molecular building blocks,” Dell said. The output is “indistinguishable from what’s produced by fossil sources.”
Eastman’s initiatives join a diverse field of technologies that break down polymers using everything from microwaves, in the case of Ontario’s Pyrowave Inc., to enzymes, as pioneered at Carbios, a publicly traded French company, according to Closed Loop. Polystyvert Inc., a Montreal startup, uses an essential oil to dissolve polystyrene, the plastic used in yogurt cups and packaging foam, creating purified plastic pellets.
Quadrupling RecyclablesChemical recycling could quadruple global plastics recycling rates to 50 percent by 2030, up from 12 percent now, according to a December report from consultant McKinsey & Co.
The shift could drive the bulk of future profits for plastic makers, but it won’t come cheap, McKinsey said.
McKinsey estimates as much as $20 billion a year will be needed to improve waste-recovery systems, about one-fifth of the chemical industry’s average capital spending. As awareness grows, major investors such as Blackrock Inc., Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and the Royal Bank of Canada are already stepping up, said Closed Loop’s Martin.
“The challenge is we need to make sure there is a clear pathway for the technologies to grow in scale, otherwise we’ve missed an opportunity,” she said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/unmaking-plastics-spurs-120-billion-potential-market-in-trash
-
California Science Panel to Review Implementation of SCP Programme
Apr 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A science panel of California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control will hold a public meeting in Sacramento later this month to discuss implementation of the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
The 23-24 April meeting of the Green Ribbon Science Panel will include discussion on: the SCP programme’s alternatives analysis threshold (AAT) provision; chemical mixture evaluations; the alternatives analysis review process; and metrics for measuring the successes and challenges of the programme.
The meeting comes amid an uptick in focus on the success of the green chemistry programme, ten years after it became law. After a February hearing in the state’s legislature examined weaknesses in the scheme that have hindered its effectiveness, lawmakers introduced a bill to increase its regulatory authorities.
The measure (SB 392) passed the Senate Environmental Quality Committee earlier this month on a 5-1 margin. The Judiciary Committee will be convening a hearing to consider it on 9 April.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76116/california-science-panel-to-review-implementation-of-scp-programme
-
EPA Releases 24 Study Reports Used to Develop the Draft Risk Evaluation for C.I. PV 29
Apr 9, 2019 | National Law Review
By Margaret R. Graham and Lynn L. Bergeson
On March 22, 2019, the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) issued a memorandum stating that it was releasing 24 studies in the Colour Index (C.I.) Pigment Violet (PV) 29 docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604) that were reviewed by EPA to develop its Draft Risk Evaluation for C.I. PV 29. EPA states that these studies are being made available to the public prior to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) expert panel peer review of the draft risk evaluation. That entirety of the reports was originally erroneously claimed to be confidential business information (CBI), therefore, the reports were not included in the public docket previously.
Fifteen of the study reports have been released without any redactions while nine reports were partially redacted. EPA provides a full list of the studies and their confidential status in the memorandum. The 24 study reports represent the following disciplines: #1-17 Human Health; #18-20 Environmental Hazard; #21-22 Environmental Fate, and #23-24 Physical Chemical properties. Twenty of the 29 studies made available in the dockets were summarized in the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) registration dossier for C.I. PV 29; EPA refers to them as “robust summaries” and states that it has compared the information contained in the robust summaries against the information contained in the study reports for accuracy. They were posted to the docket in November 2018.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-releases-24-study-reports-used-to-develop-draft-risk-evaluation-ci-pv-29
-
EPA to List Nonstick Toxics as Hazardous Substances This Year
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA for the first time plans to list ubiquitous nonstick chemicals as hazardous substances under the nation’s Superfund law by year’s end, the agency’s top drinking water official said April 9.
The agency will issue a proposal to list perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), on the agency’s list of hazardous substances, Jennifer McLain, acting director for the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, told participants gathered at the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) spring meeting April 9.
The EPA’s move leapfrogs possible congressional action, as dozens of lawmakers have sought to compel the agency to list the chemicals. A listing would give the agency power to force companies to clean up any sites where the chemicals are found.
The PFAS family includes thousands of chemicals, including PFOA (perfluorooctanoate) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate). They have been used to manufacture nonstick and stain-resistant coatings in clothing, fast-food wrappers, carpets, and other consumer and industrial products.
State RecoveryU.S. companies stopped making the two compounds several years ago, but multiple sites still contain the chemicals and some imports continue.
Should the proposal be finalized—a move backed by states and several members of Congress—states would also be able to recover cleanup costs from companies that manufactured the chemicals or spilled them at sites.
Congress already has companion bills in both chambers (H.R. 535 and S. 638) that direct the EPA to complete the hazardous substance listing within one year.
The EPA is also looking to set drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, but that process is still in the early stages.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-to-list-nonstick-toxics-as-hazardous-substances-this-year
-
Despite Agency Pledges, Utilities Press EPA For Timeline On LCR Proposal
Apr 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
Municipal drinking water utilities are pressing EPA water chief David Ross on the agency's timeline for proposing revisions to the lead and copper rule (LCR), which agency officials have said is expected this summer, suggesting a cautiousness after the agency has repeatedly missed previous internal deadlines.
“What is the likelihood we see a lead and copper rule this summer?” Diane VanDe Hei, executive director of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), asked Ross April 8 at the group's 2019 Water Policy Conference in Washington, D.C.
“It's very, very, very high,” Ross responded. But he also acknowledged the rule has been difficult to write and that agency staff are concurrently working on several other high-profile drinking water actions, including its work to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said last month the rule is a White House priority and would be proposed in the summer. Wheeler said the rule will have a three-step structure that aims to map the country’s remaining lead drinking water pipes and model their levels of corrosion before prioritizing the “most corrosive” lines for replacement.
During his prepared remarks at the conference, Ross said the agency is “wrapping up the economic and technical work” on the proposed revisions, which could put it on track to complete White House interagency review and propose the rule by the end of the summer.
But Ross also noted other high-profile Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) projects that drinking water officials are working on with similar timelines and said the LCR has been “a hard rule to do.”
EPA has been working on a new LCR under SDWA for years; the agency’s National Drinking Water Advisory Council crafted detailed recommendations in 2015 on how the agency should revise the rule, including a call for any new policy to strongly encourage full replacements of lead pipes rather than partial ones that leave lead lines on private property. But the Obama administration never acted publicly on that input.
“It's time to modernize that regulation,” Ross said of the LCR, adding that the agency has listened to numerous stakeholders and the proposal “balances multiple perspectives.”
In his response to VanDe Hei, Ross said drinking water staff “is really working hard” to meet the summer deadline.
He noted the drinking water team led by acting drinking water chief Jennifer McLain has been working on finishing up some tasks related to the agency's multi-media action plan for addressing PFAS and proposing a drinking water standard for the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate.
State environment officials have criticized the PFAS action plan citing weaknesses across many program areas and calling for the agency to go farther such as by setting binding standards for contaminants across multiple media.
EPA is also under a judicial deadline to propose this spring a health-based maximum contaminant level goal and related enforceable drinking water standard for the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate that takes into account technical feasibility and cost. McLain said at the conference that the agency will propose the rule by May 28.
Water Office Priorities
While noting that Wheeler has made drinking water and other water issues, such as water scarcity and water availability a priority, Ross highlighted his personal top three priorities for addressing water issues for the future. These are water reuse, nutrients and utility workforce development.
On water reuse, Ross said the “federal government has to be thinking 10, 20, 30 years down the road.” While there has been a greater interest in the issue in recent years, “I don't think we've made enough progress.”
EPA announced in February that it was developing a water reuse plan. Ross said the plan will help guide agency policy, looking at the regulatory and financial impediments to water reuse. EPA plans to post on its website in the next few weeks a framework for the plan and put out a proposed plan for public comment in September, he said.
Ross said nutrients are the “hardest surface water challenge” the agency is dealing with and noted the agency's updated guidance on water quality trading and other actions the agency is taking to encourage market solutions to nutrient pollution.
“We need more progress” on nutrients, he said. While the temporary shutdown of the drinking water system in Toledo, OH, in 2014 due to cyanotoxins from a harmful algal bloom in Lake Erie caused by excess nutrients drew national attention, other cities have also faced drinking water problems for harmful algal blooms, including Salem, OR, last year.
Ross also cited the need for EPA to address workforce development to deal with a large number of expected retirements at utilities in the next few years as well as ensuring that education for utility workers keeps pace with technology developments, although he said, “I'm not sure what the federal role will be.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/despite-agency-pledges-utilities-press-epa-timeline-lcr-proposal
-
Banned Around the Globe – But Still Legal in California?
Apr 9, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
More than 40 nations have banned or restricted more than 1,400 chemicals in cosmetics and other personal care products. So why are chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive harm still turning up in cosmetics sold in California?
Using EWG’s Skin Deep® database, EWG found products sold in the U.S. in the past three years than contain isopropylparaben and isobutylparaben – two endocrine-disrupting chemicals that have been banned in Europe and Asia. EWG also found nearly 2,000 products made with chemicals that release formaldehyde – a known carcinogen.
Since 2009, cosmetics companies have reported using 88 chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm in products sold in California.
Why are chemicals banned or restricted around the world still legal in California?
Because the federal cosmetics law is badly broken. Congress has not updated the cosmetics law in 80 years, and the Food and Drug Administration has little authority to ban dangerous chemicals from these everyday products.
Today, a key California Assembly Committee can do something about it.
The Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials will consider whether to approve the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, or A.B. 495. The bill would ban 20 of the worst chemicals and contaminants from cosmetics sold in California. Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan of District 16 in the East Bay, an environmental lawyer serving her first term, could turn out to be the deciding vote.
There’s still good reason to think Congress will finally update federal cosmetics law. But consumers should not have to wait another 80 years for safe cosmetics. California should join more than 40 nations – and some of our biggest retailers – and ban 20 of the worst chemicals in these everyday products.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/04/banned-around-globe-still-legal-california
-
States Brace for Battle With EPA Over Pesticide Label Rules
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
State pesticide regulators are concerned the Environmental Protection Agency is angling to reduce their ability to impose additional restrictions on pesticides in their states.
The issue was front and center during a committee meeting of the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) on April 8.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) gives states the power to set so-called “local need requirements” for pesticides, including adding rules besides those printed on the EPA-approved federal labels.
In recent years, states have used this provision, known as 24(c), to impose additional restrictions on the use of dicamba herbicides, which can drift and damage off-target crops—including some 3.6 million acres of soybeans across the Midwest in 2017, according to thousands of reports.
But the EPA announced March 19 that it is re-evaluating its approach to such requests and “the circumstances under which it will exercise its authority to disapprove those requests.”
While states have the right to regulate pesticides by passing laws in their state, EPA highlighted the growing use of 24(c) to “implement more restrictive cut-off dates, or to add training and certification requirements, or to restrict the use directions by limiting the number of treatments permitted by the federal label.”
The EPA said it would take public comment on any potential new approaches, and any changes wouldn’t affect this year’s growing season.
The agency said it currently receives about 300 such requests a year.
Letters to WheelerIn addition to changing the pesticide labels, FIFRA also gives states the right to pass laws to regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide.
But state regulators say the 24(c) provision allows them to address local issues more quickly, and with better nuance, than going through the legislature.
“It could take several years for many of these states to go through the rulemaking process,” AAPCO President Rose Kachadoorian told fellow regulators at the April 8 meeting, causing unacceptable damage to crops and plants in the meantime.
“States are constantly collecting new data,” she said, “and that’s not the type of thing that you go to rulemaking with, when it’s kind of this moving target as far as what cutoff date is going to work, what kind of training should you have, what kind of nozzle should you have.”
AAPCO sent a letter on April 4 to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler raising these concerns. Using these requests “allows State Lead Agencies to be nimble, timely, practical and appropriately responsive,” AAPCO said.
The letter was followed by a similar statement on April 5 from the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA).
“We are concerned that a different interpretation could significantly impact the way states meet their local needs,” wrote Barbara Glenn, CEO of NASDA.
When asked to respond to state regulators’ concerns, an EPA spokesman declined to address specifics.
“We look forward to a robust public dialogue on this matter,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/states-brace-for-battle-with-epa-over-pesticide-label-rules
-
New Jersey Using Contingency Fee Lawyers to Take Lead in PFAs Litigation
Apr 9, 2019 | Legal Newsline
By Karen Kidd
New Jersey is ahead of the rest of the country in using private lawyers to sue manufacturing companies over chemicals known as PFAS, whose toxicity levels are still being determined by federal regulators while lawsuits stack up.
In March, the state's Department of Environmental Protection filed four lawsuits, hiring the firm Kelley Drye & Warren to pursue the cases on contingency fees. The state has already enacted its own PFAS standards while the federal government contemplates doing the same, according to Robert P. Frank, a partner in Holland & Knight's Philadelphia office.
Could this lead to more alliances between private lawyers and state governments? Maybe, Frank says, but New Jersey is leading the way because it is the only state with those PFAS regulations.
"It's possible but I don't think it's going to happen as quickly as it may seem it might, based on the New Jersey actions," said Frank, an environmental and real estate attorney who recently wrote on the subject.
"New Jersey was, I believe, the first state in the country to adopt an actual drinking water quality standard for particular PFAS. They did that last year. No other state has actually adopted a standard yet for any of these substances."
That hasn't stopped trial lawyers from filing suit over the presence of PFAS, which can be found on nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing and firefighting foam, among other items. One recent class action attempts to represent everyone in the country exposed to PFAS but does not allege anyone has been made sick.
DuPont faced dozens of cases from the alleged release of PFOA around its western West Virginia plant, leading to an agreement that created a so-called "science panel." The residents around the plant won medical monitoring damages, and their health was analyzed by the science panel.
The panel believed there were links to six health issues, and litigation has continued. Other research projects on the effects of PFAS have been debated.
“My general feeling is this whole PFAS scare is way overblown,” Steve Milloy, a biostatistician who served on President Trump’s transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency and has made a career of resisting what he feels is “junk science," previously told Legal Newsline.
“It’s all basically running on the notion that detection is toxicity and if you can find it someplace and find people who were exposed to it, that’s bad.”
Others are far more concerned, including New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal.
"They decided to put profit above the safety of New Jersey’s residents, and we won't stand for it," Grewal said during a news conference the day the lawsuits were announced. "We’re holding polluters accountable for decades of misconduct."
The four lawsuits target DuPont, its affiliated company Chemours and Minnesota-based 3M.
In addition to Kelley Drye's Houston office, New Jersey hired Cohn Lifland of Saddle Brook, N.J., and John Dema of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Their contract sets up a tier system for payment. If the case is resolved before trial, they would make 10% of any amount recovered more than $300 million.
From $100 million to $300 million, they'd make 15%. From $3 million to $100 million, they'd make 20%.
Now, those percentages increase slightly if the case is concluded after a trial begins. Lawyers would make $12.5% on recovery more than $300 million and 17.5% on recovery between $100 million and $300 million.
For a recovery from $3 million to $100 million, they'd make 22.5%.
Some PFAS standards have been proposed in other states but none have been adopted, Frank said.
"Most states are not necessarily even at that point," he said. "Most states are still looking to see about the extent of the problem in their states."
The lawsuits claim pollution to New Jersey's soil and groundwater by PFAS and seeks to force the defendants to pay to clean it up. The state used its own standards of PFAS toxicity, about which the federal government has not yet officially created "a floor" of minimum levels, Frank said.
"There's no need for them to wait for the federal government," he said. "As a matter of law, that's true. They have the ability to protect their residents without the federal government having necessarily acted in that particular area.
"Once the federal government acts, they'll establish, arguably, a floor, a minimum, but there's no maxim in the sense that if the state wanted to act in an area that a federal government had not acted in, that they would be barred. They're not."
Last June, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a draft toxicolocal profile for PFAS that would have dropped PFAS safety limits into single digits.
In February, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would this year begin setting limits on PFAS chemicals and kicked into motion a process that eventually will supposedly lead to adding listing perfluorinated chemicals, or PFOA, and perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, as hazardous substances under the federal Superfund law.
PFOA and PFOS are part of the larger class of PFAS chemicals.
PFAS in general, and PFOA and PFOS in particular, have been mostly unregulated in the U.S. to this point.
PFAS don't readily break down but do pass through soil and drinking water. Some say they threaten the health of humans and wildlife alike.
Aside from the draft profile and the EPA's promises that there will be established limits, there remains no federal determination about what levels of PFAS are actually toxic.
New Jersey didn't wait.
In late March, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued a Statewide PFAS Directive, Information Request and Notice to Insurers to eight chemical companies, including two corporations long active in the state, Dupont and Chemours. The directive referred to PFAS chemicals as "ubiquitous in New Jersey" and called them "a statewide public nuisance" that have contaminated the state's drinking water.
The directive ordered the companies to spend what potentially could be hundreds of millions to determine how extensive any contamination is in New Jersey and prepare to clean it up.
The directive also included "particular levels" of PFAS that the state NJDEP would consider safe under the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act and for the purposes of the state's pollutant discharge elimination systems permits, Frank said.
"Those levels are very low but they have actually proposed those particular levels," he said, adding that the directive handed down those particular levels only for three types of PFAS.
"There's thousands of these substances but there's only three particular ones for which New Jersey has proposed ground water quality standards and Safe Drinking Water Act levels and the permit level," Frank said. "Again, they are extremely low, double digits part per trillion levels, but they have proposed those and I'm assuming they would tell you, if you asked them why, that they are looking at available toxicology on those levels."
On April 1, New Jersey also proposed "stringent" new drinking water limits to step up monitoring for PFOA and PFOS during the first quarter of 2021.
What will happen next in PFAS litigation in the U.S. could depend largely on how quickly state and federal governments move to develop environmental standards with regards to PFAS, Frank said.
"With a state like New Jersey, which actually has come up with one promulgated standard and proposed other standards, there's probably going to be more litigation, not less," he said.
"But until the federal government or the states actually come up with specific numerical standards and list these substances as hazardous substances under state or federal laws - the federal Superfund law or state safe drinking water laws - until that happens, there may not be a lot of environmental litigation."
But it will eventually come, Frank said. New Mexico already sued the federal government over PFAS at an Air Force base on March 5.
"There will be PFAS lawsuits in the other 49 states, don't get me wrong," he said. "I just don't think they’re going to develop along the same lines as they have in New Jersey."
https://legalnewsline.com/stories/512412994-new-jersey-using-contingency-fee-lawyers-to-take-lead-in-pfas-litigation
-
Should You Be Concerned About PFAS Chemicals?
Apr 8, 2019 | Consumer Reports
By Kevin Loria
A group of substances known as PFAS chemicals are behind a variety of everyday conveniences that make our lives a little bit easier.
They line pizza boxes and fast-food packaging so grease doesn’t seep through, form the nonstick coating on many pans, make fabrics and carpets stain-resistant, and help outdoor gear and clothing repel water.
If you live near industrial facilities where these products are produced or near places where PFAS-loaded fire-fighting foams are used, like airfields or military bases, these chemicals may also be in your water supply. And they can travel far from the original site of contamination. Once PFAS chemicals make their way into water, they can also be found in plants and animals, including humans.
PFAS chemicals have been in wide use since at least the 1950s, and federal studies of the U.S. population have found them in nearly all people tested. At high enough levels, some of these chemicals can have serious health effects, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including decreased fertility, hormonal changes, increased cholesterol, weakened immune system response, increased cancer risk, and growth and learning delays in infants and children.
“PFAS are materials of which the average person should be aware,” says James Dickerson, Ph.D., CR’s chief scientific officer. “CR has investigated the issue of chemical exposure for 80 plus years. PFAS and similar compounds have emerged as significant potential risks that should be mitigated.”
Recently, federal and state regulators have raised concerns about how many people are exposed to these chemicals and whether or not current levels of exposure are safe.
In February the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an Action Plan to better understand and address PFAS contamination. Soon after, CDC officials announced plans to expand a program studying the PFAS levels in people near military bases, who may have absorbed high levels of these chemicals in drinking water. In March a bipartisan group in Congress introduced legislation declaring PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances eligible for cleanup funds under the Superfund law. Later that month, another bipartisan group of senators and congresspeople introduced a bill that would provide the U.S. Geological Survey with funding to develop new ways to detect PFAS and to conduct testing. And states around the country, including Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington, have all begun to take measures to limit or clean up PFAS contamination.
But there are still a lot of unknowns, including whether the PFAS chemicals most in use today are more or less harmful than those used in the past. Consumer Reports spoke with a number of experts to understand what exactly these chemicals are, where most of us are exposed to them, why they may be risky, and what you can do to limit your exposure.
What Are PFAS Chemicals?
There are more than 4,700 different PFAS chemicals, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
While there is a very specific chemical definition of PFAS, what’s important to know is that these substances have unique properties that make them heat-resistant, able to repel water, and close to indestructible. They have these properties because of the extremely strong and stable chemical bond formed between carbon and fluorine atoms, which is what makes them useful for a wide variety of industrial and commercial products.
“Within this really big family of chemicals, we have quite a bit of information about just a handful, two in particular—PFOS and PFOA,” says Laurel Schaider, Ph.D., a research scientist at the Silent Spring Institute, a nonprofit that conducts research on the health effects of environmental chemicals.
Those two chemicals, which were used for a wide variety of purposes ranging from fire-fighting foam to creating consumer goods like nonstick pans and stain resistant textiles, are no longer produced in the U.S., in part because we’ve learned quite a bit about the negative health effects of exposure to them. But Americans are still absorbing these chemicals today because they continue to be produced in other countries and because PFOS and PFOA produced decades ago linger in our soil and water.
While we don’t know as much about other PFAS chemicals, they all have this feature in common: The chemical bonds that hold them together “don’t break down” under normal circumstances, says Jamie DeWitt, Ph.D., an adjunct associate professor of biological sciences at North Carolina State University. Because of that, she says, some people call these substances “forever chemicals.”
That’s why it’s especially important to be cautious about using them, says Arlene Blum, Ph.D., the founder and executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute and a research associate in chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley.
In addition to lining packaging and coating furniture and clothing, PFAS chemicals are used in electronics, wires, and cables used to send data, and in the production of computer chips, among other things. The FluoroCouncil, an industry group that represents companies that produce and use PFAS chemicals, describes them as “integral to modern life.”
But while the chemicals may be necessary for some of these technological uses, experts and advocates are concerned that we don’t know whether or not present levels of human exposure are safe, especially for people in communities with drinking water or food sources that contain high levels of PFAS.
Is Exposure to PFAS Chemicals Dangerous?
There’s clear evidence that being exposed to high enough levels of PFOS and PFOA is linked to an elevated risk for a number of diseases, and experts say it’s possible that other PFAS chemicals could have similar health effects. But more research is needed—and it is unclear exactly what the threshold is for exposure that causes harm.
Because continuous exposure to high levels is what increases risk the most, however, people exposed through their drinking water are a particular source of concern, experts say. (See below for information about water filters and other means of limiting exposure.)
These substances can build up in the human body over time. It takes three to five years for concentrations of older PFAS chemicals like PFOS and PFOA to drop by half in the human body, according to the CDC. Newer replacement chemicals leave the human body much more quickly—sometimes in days or even hours—but like older chemicals, they don’t break down in the environment and can travel great distances.
The EPA doesn't regulate the presence of PFAS chemicals in public water systems, but that’s something that may change, according to the Action Plan announced earlier this year. Though the agency doesn’t take any regulatory action, it has publicly flagged water tests that show levels of certain PFAS chemicals exceeding 70 parts per trillion. But many experts think that level is far too high—something supported by the publicly released draft of a new CDC toxicology analysis of PFAS. For example, New Jersey, one of the states leading the way toward protecting residents, has set far lower maximum contaminant levels of 13 or 14 parts per trillion for various PFAS chemicals.
Much of the research that revealed the harm of elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA comes from an environmental study of more than 69,000 people that was created in 2005 as part of a settlement agreement. That was sparked by a series of lawsuits in 2001 and 2002 that accused the DuPont chemical company of contaminating drinking water in the Ohio River Valley.
That research found that people who’d been exposed to higher than normal levels of PFOA had an elevated risk of high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. Other studies in people and animals have shown that high enough doses of PFAS chemicals like PFOA can affect the immune system and have toxic effects on the liver and other organs.
Are Newer PFAS Chemicals Safer?
In 2006 the EPA asked eight leading companies in the PFAS industry to reduce their use of PFOA by 95 percent by 2010, which helped spur the development of some newer PFAS chemicals.
But the health effects of the PFAS chemicals used instead of PFOS and PFOA are less known. As these newer chemicals accumulate in the drinking water in some areas of the U.S., scientists and state officials are trying to determine how they affect humans. At least some of them can be eliminated from the body more quickly than PFOS and PFOA and may be less toxic, according to DeWitt—but they still might cause problems, she cautions.
“Can we accept something that’s less toxic?” she asks, or “do we want something that’s safe?”
A FluoroCouncil representative told CR that the chemical alternatives that companies have developed to replace PFOS and PFOA are indeed well-studied and safe.
The group says that these substances have been adequately reviewed by regulatory agencies and that consumers should not be concerned. New chemicals introduced after the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act have been reviewed by the EPA based on reports submitted by manufacturers. The agency has reviewed hundreds of new PFAS substances since the PFOA phaseout began, but the experts we consulted call for tighter regulation from the EPA on these chemicals because they say the current review process doesn't guarantee safety.
“New FluoroTechnology products are based on different chemistry, and this new chemistry has a favorable health and safety profile,” Rob Simon, a spokesman for the FluoroCouncil, said in a statement. “It is critical to consider actual exposure to a chemical when assessing its safety. Any chemical—even water and oxygen—can be toxic if too much is ingested or absorbed into the body … Unfortunately, the current public discussion about PFAS, and about chemicals in general, has defaulted to a conversation about the mere presence of a chemical—even at extremely low, barely detectable levels—rather than the safety of these chemicals.”
Some experts, however, say there’s simply not enough data to assert that people exposed to these chemicals—at existing levels—are not at any risk of harm. “Because they have similar chemical properties [to PFOS and PFOA], there’s concern that [the newer PFAS chemicals] may raise similar health concerns,” Schaider says.
They also may be even more difficult to remove from drinking water, she says. Filters that efficiently remove PFOA and PFOS from water (see below) don’t work as well for new chemicals.
Plus, even if the new alternatives are safer than PFOA and PFOS, that doesn't mean that chronic exposure to them is safe, Dickerson says. It takes time for agencies like the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration to evaluate chemicals thoroughly. And some chemicals in use for decades are only later found to be dangerous, he says—after we have enough long-term data to assess them properly.
With thousands of different PFAS chemicals—hundreds of them in use—regulating or evaluating all of them individually is basically impossible, says Schaider, who adds that many scientists think we should regulate them as a broad class instead.
How Can Consumers Limit Exposure?
You can't avoid all exposure to PFAS, and in many cases, you may not necessarily need to, Dickerson says. But he says it's worth being aware of your exposure, especially for people who live in places with particularly high levels of PFAS chemicals, such as in the communities near military bases that the CDC is now studying.
We still don’t know all potential sources of exposure, says Schaider, and it can be particularly hard to know how much your food sources have been contaminated by these chemicals. But there are certain forms of common exposure that experts say you can avoid.
Check your drinking water. “The most dangerous way that people are exposed to PFAS is through drinking water,” says Don Huber, director of product safety at Consumer Reports.
Between 2013 and 2015, the EPA required that water systems test for six PFAS chemicals. If you have a public water system, you can check your annual water quality report from those years and see whether your levels of certain PFAS chemicals exceeded the EPA's advisory level. You can also check data from the EPA testing results or look at this map created by researchers from the Environmental Working Group and Northeastern University based on that data. The EPA doesn't currently require routine monitoring for PFAS, but some states do. Contact your local water utility to see whether there's ongoing testing for PFAS chemicals, which can also be called PFCs.
If your home is not on a public water system, you can have your water tested. To find a certified lab, contact your local health department or the EPA.
Consumers who learn that their water has high levels of PFAS chemicals in it should consider installing reverse-osmosis filters, says Huber, which are the most effective at filtering them out. Carbon filters that can be connected to faucets or installed where water enters your home are also effective, especially for PFOA and PFOS, says Schaider, though they may not work as well for some of the newer alternative chemicals. At times states have advised residents to drink bottled water until treatment is available.
Minimize use of stain-resistant fabric. It may be worth choosing carpet and furniture brands that don't use stain-resistant or water-resistant coating on fabric, according to Schaider.
Beware of certain food packaging. Fast-food packaging and microwave popcorn bags often contain PFAS chemicals, according to DeWitt. “From a precautionary point of view, I think it makes sense to minimize our use [of these products],” says Schaider.
Think big picture. Consider how you can reduce your overall exposure in ways that will have the most significant impact, Dickerson suggests.
Certain products are easy to replace, DeWitt says, such as a type of dental floss that was recently discovered to be a source of PFAS. But she says that for her, the water-resistance in outdoor gear, for example, is worth some potential exposure.
Dickerson says that products like nonstick pans shouldn't shed PFAS chemicals when they're used according to manufacturer specifications, but don't overheat them, scrape them excessively, or put them in a dishwasher if they're not meant to be cleaned that way. (CR’s cookware ratings indicate when nonstick cookware is PFOA-free, but these nonstick items—unlike stainless steel or cast iron cookware—probably contain other PFAS chemicals.)
While it may not be possible to remove PFAS from all consumer products, some companies have taken steps in that direction. Ikea started to phase out stain-resistant PFAS chemicals in 2009 and says that all of its textiles were PFAS-free by 2016. H&M says that since 2013 it has had a ban on PFAS within apparel, shoe, and household goods departments. And Schaider says that in many cases, alternatives are available—such as PFAS-free food wrappers—and consumers can push companies to use them.
There are still plenty of unknowns, she says, including how much we absorb PFAS from food sources. Making some of those unknowns public would be a key step.
“I’d like for people to know what types of products contain PFASs and that there are alternatives that are out there,” she says. “Consumers can be vocal and shift manufacturing practices.”
https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/pfas-chemicals-should-you-be-concerned/
-
Apr 9, 2019 | ICIS
By Nigel Davis
Petrochemicals and polymer producers faced difficult headwinds in the first quarter of the year, with demand growth slow and overcapacities influencing prices and margins.
The much tougher business environment – a persistent hangover from a surprisingly poor fourth-quarter 2018 – will be reflected in upcoming quarterly earnings reports across much of the sector.
Petrochemical and polymer prices fell dramatically in the fourth quarter of 2018 and the steep downward trend continued through Q1 2019.
Looked at on a quarterly basis, the ICIS Petrochemical Index charts the fall in prices (the index is based on the price movements of a basket of 12 of the most important petrochemicals and polymers) from the fourth quarter of 2019.
The drop in the global IPEX sequentially from the third quarter was 10% with the northwest Europe IPEX down 7% and the US IPEX 6% lower.
On a year-on year basis, the global IPEX was down 2%, signalling that all was not well, while the northwest Europe IPEX was up 3% and the US IPEX up 2% at the time.
The IPEX tends to follow crude oil prices in the different regions with a time lag of a few weeks and it is based largely on contract prices (in northwest Europe and the US) and on spot prices (averages) in northeast Asia, an inherently more volatile petrochemical and polymer price environment.
It is a moot point as to whether northeast Asia prices lead the rest of the world. But there is a strong link between prices globally and those in the world’s largest and most dynamic petrochemical and polymer market.
Trade tension with the US and the environmental clampdown in China last year hit growth as industrial output was curtailed. The knock-on impact has been felt this year with stocks petrochemical stocks rising in major China markets and not depleting as might be expected following the Lunar New year holiday in February.
There are some encouraging signs, however, that a trade agreement with the US may be nearing.
Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council’s chemicals production index for China has shown some growth month to month in January and February this year. The output index for China fell 2.2% in 2018. (see interactive data here)
The ICIS petrochemical Index data show the extent to which lower prices will feed through company financial results for the quarter. The Global IPEX was down 15% year on year in the first quarter reflecting a 15% fall in index values in the three major producing and consuming regions.
Lower product prices have an impact on everyone while a weaker oil price environment also benefits olefins and polyolefins producers using predominantly naphtha as a cracker feedstock.
The difference is clear in ICIS margin analysis, with the quarterly values regionally and globally shown on the graphic.
The chart throws a spotlight on weakening margins for producers in Asia from the fourth quarter of 2017 and in Europe from the first quarter of the following year. Taking high density polyethylene (HDPE) margins as an example, the trend has been steadily downwards in northeast Asia while it has fluctuated somewhat in northwest Europe. Sequentially rom the fourth quarter, however, the direction is clearly downward.
Enjoying very healthy variable HDPE margins until the fourth quarter of 2017, ethane-based integrated producers in the US have suffered a considerable decline, reflecting largely the shale-based capacity build up. Declines of this magnitude will weigh heavily on US-based producers which saw the operating environment worsening further in the quarter than had been expected.
It becomes a question then, of how quickly demand growth, driven by global economic and industrial expansion, can absorb the new production volumes.
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/04/09/10346732/insight-first-quarter-price-and-margin-falls-hit-petrochemicalpolymer-producers-hard/
-
Trump Said to Seek Limits on State Power in Pipeline Approvals
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Developers have been trying for six years to build a 124-mile natural gas pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York. Despite winning a federal approval in 2014, the project is still no closer to reality.
Enter President Donald Trump, who on Wednesday is poised to issue an executive order to promote projects like the long-stalled Constitution Pipeline, according to people familiar with the matter who asked for anonymity to discuss it before a formal announcement.
The move seeks to short-circuit regulators in New York who have denied the planned pipeline a crucial permit, invoking their powers under the Clean Water Act to reject projects they deem a threat to water supplies and the environment. Other states and tribes have wielded the power to restrict a coal export terminal and hydropower project on the U.S. West Coast.
The Clean Water Act wasn’t “intended to give a state veto power,” said Dena Wiggins, president of the Natural Gas Supply Association. “The actions New York is taking not only impact New York, they are impacting the entire Northeast, because we can’t get a pipeline through the state in order to provide gas service to the Northeast.”
But New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said, “No corporation should be allowed to endanger our natural resources,” and vowed the state “will not relent in our fight to protect our environment.”
Trump’s order, slated to be unveiled during a visit to the International Union of Operating Engineers International Training & Education Center in Crosby, Texas, comes as the president continues to chafe at regulatory barriers he said throttle the full potential of American “energy dominance,” while keeping the nation hooked on foreign gas imports.
Trump also is set to issue a second executive order aimed at spurring private investment in energy infrastructure.
His order on pipelines is unlikely to jump-start widespread construction, since it is up to Congress—not the president—to restrict states’ authority under the Clean Water Act. And the initiative isn’t expected to solve legal problems thwarting several pipelines in the mid-Atlantic U.S., which hinge on inadequate Interior Department reviews, not formal objections from states.
Still it marks a formal push by Trump to rein in states that have emerged as a major barrier to constructing pipelines.
Even if it isn’t a “silver bullet,” the pipeline order “will be construed as opening the door to overcoming these hurdles that states are throwing up,” said Christi Tezak, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners.
Trump’s pipeline order is set to direct the Environmental Protection Agency to revise its handbook for how states can use their certification power to vet projects that cross wetlands, rivers and other bodies of water.
Those Section 401 certifications, which is named for a provision in the Clean Water Act, are supposed to be approved, denied, or waived by states and tribes within a year of a project application. Yet federal regulators said the one-year clock can be restarted whenever developers submit new or revised applications for state review.
Fights over state permits have led to years-long delays and protracted federal court battles, with some analysts urging investors to consider “ elevated risk premiums” in making decisions about projects designed to cross some particularly challenging states.
Prime Location
In addition to the Constitution pipeline, a joint venture between Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., Williams Cos., Duke Energy Corp., and AltaGas Ltd., New York also denied water quality certifications for Millennium Pipeline Co. LLC’s CPV Valley lateral project in the state’s Orange County and National Fuel Gas Co.’s Northern Access project.
The denials have drawn scrutiny because of the state’s prime location, standing between a prolific shale gas formation and consumers throughout the Northeast U.S. that are hungry for it. Limited pipeline capacity and other legal constraints prompted the region to import natural gas from Russia last year.
“New York will continue to use all available means to vigorously oppose any efforts to reduce states’ ability to protect our water resources,” the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation said in an emailed statement.
Trump’s order can’t override provisions in the Clean Water Act that give states a powerful role vetting such projects, Tezak said.
“An executive order cannot take off the table the ability of a state to say no for reasons it believes are appropriate, and the venue for adjudicating that is not the White House”; it is the courts, Tezak said. But “what states will be constrained from doing is meaningfully extending the process.”
Federal courts and regulators are moving in the same direction. Even without Trump’s order, analysts said they expect the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to soon overrule New York’s denial on the grounds it came too late.
Environmentalists have blasted the plan.
“This executive order is nothing but an attempt to trample people’s rights to protect their air, water, and climate from polluting oil and gas pipelines,” said Greenpeace USA Climate Campaigner Rachel Rye Butler.
The president’s effort also has rankled some Republicans, including governors in the Western U.S., who said his initiative threatens to infringe states’ rights.
The Western Governors Association warned Trump in a Jan. 31 letter that curtailing “the vital role of states in maintaining water quality within their boundaries would inflict serious harm to the division of state and federal authorities established by Congress.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-said-to-seek-limits-on-state-power-in-pipeline-approvals
-
API-AOPL: Number of Pipeline Incidents Declining, Report Shows
Apr 9, 2019 | Oil & Gas Journal
By Nick Snow
The number of incidents affecting people has decreased 20% as the total of US mileage and deliveries has increased more than 10% in the last 5 years, the American Petroleum Institute and the Association for Oil Pipelines jointly said in their 2019 Liquids Pipeline Performance Report on Apr. 8.
API and AOPL issued the report nearly a week after Democrats and Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee called on the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to implement mandates in the 2011 and 2016 federal pipeline safety law reauthorizations more quickly (OGJ Online, Apr. 8, 2019).
Each year, the two associations download data PHMSA collects and analyze the numbers to see where pipeline operators are making progress, and determine where to focus upcoming industry-wide improvement efforts.
Their latest report found that in the last 5 years:
• Total liquids incidents affecting people or the environment decreased by 20%.
• Pipeline incidents caused by incorrect operation fell by 38%.
• Incidents caused by corrosion, cracking, or weld failure dropped by 35%.
• Total liquids pipeline mileage increased by 12%, including 30% growth in crude oil pipelines, as the number of barrels delivered grew by 44%.
https://www.ogj.com/articles/2019/04/api-aopl-number-of-pipeline-incidents-declining-report-shows.html
-
Purdue Researchers Develop Patents to Convert Unconventional Gas to Liquid Fuels
Apr 9, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Researchers at Purdue University have developed a series of patents designed to convert natural gas from shale/tight formations to liquid fuels including gasoline and diesel using a two-step process.
Subscription required for full article.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117966-purdue-researchers-develop-patents-to-convert-unconventional-gas-to-liquid-fuels
-
BNSF Not Liable for Contamination From Decades-Old Spill
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
BNSF Railway Co. won’t face claims that a fuel spill from a 1993 train wreck contaminated a nearby property with petroleum.
Indian Creek Development Co. failed to show that the train accident caused the petroleum contamination on its property, the Illinois Court of Appeals ruled April 8. It affirmed a trial court ruling.
The train spilled a large quantity of diesel fuel. But a forensic chemist testified that there was no diesel fuel in samples from Indian Creek property, other than a small amount that was chemically distinct from that found on BNSF property, the court said.
And the trial court appropriately considered evidence that the Indian Creek property was historically used for industrial and manufacturing operations, and that petroleum products were stored and used on the property in petroleum fuel tanks that predated the train crash.
It was reasonable for the court to consider that the contamination stems from the “long history of industrial activity” on the Indian Creek site, the court said.
On Jan. 20, 1993, a locomotive wreck occurred on BNSF’s property, causing fuel tanks from three locomotives to rupture, and releasing an estimated 5,800 to 6,800 gallons of fuel.
Indian Creek brought claims including trespass, nuisance and negligence.
Judge Ann B. Jorgensen wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Susan F. Hutchinson and Mary S. Schostok.
Mahoney Silverman & Cross LLC represented Indian Creek.
Daley Mohan Groble PC represented BNSF.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/bnsf-not-liable-for-contamination-from-decades-old-spill
-
Contractors: KMCO Knew of Valve Leak Before Texas Plant Fire
Apr 9, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire
Three contractors who worked at a Houston-area chemical plant say in a lawsuit that the company knew a flammable gas was leaking before a deadly fire erupted but did not order an evacuation.
The Houston Chronicle reports the lawsuit was filed yesterday by the contractors, who were injured when the fire began April 2 at the plant operated by KMCO LLC in Crosby.
They contend that KMCO officials were aware of a leaking valve on a high-pressure line that allowed the gas to escape and set off the fire at the chemical storage facility. One worker was killed, and several others were hurt (E&E News PM, April 2).
Yesterday's lawsuit is at least the third filed against KMCO.
KMCO President and CEO John Foley said in a statement that the fire remains under investigation and any legal complaints at this point should be considered "unverified."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/04/09/stories/1060150885
-
Ewire: Agencies Slow to Help White House Climate Panel
Apr 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA and several other federal agencies have yet to offer any help to stand up a planned White House panel that would challenge mainstream climate change science, according to one report, though some top officials are still pursuing the effort.
The Washington Post reports that EPA, the State Department, the Defense Department and the Director of National Intelligence have not offered experts to the planned climate group, which is being spearheaded by the National Security Council (NSC) in an attempt to challenge the notion that greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of climate change, and that the phenomenon poses a major national security threat.
In addition, NASA and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration “say that no one has contacted them about it.”
Yet, the Post notes that the NSC could press forward with a federal advisory panel that includes non-government representatives to question climate science. The planned panel is championed by NSC adviser William Happer, a retired physics professor from Princeton University who dismisses climate risks.
Democrats have blasted the “secret” committee, saying it runs counter “to the overwhelming scientific consensus on the causes and impacts of climate change.” Additionally, Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL), who has urged his GOP colleagues to take a stronger stance on climate, earlier told reporters that the NSC plan and Happer's involvement are “not a good start.” He urged the White House to follow federal advisory committee laws with any climate group.
The plan likely will receive pushback during an April 9 hearing by the House oversight committee, which will feature testimony by two Obama Cabinet officials -- former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
Kerry and Hagel plan to stress the longstanding consensus that climate change intensifies a range of threats to the military -- arguments that even sitting military officials are making in the Trump era.
“Most don’t remember what caused the Syria conflict to start,” said Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force chief of staff, during an April 4 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. “It started because of a 10-year drought.” Citing recent comments by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford, he said “we have to respond militarily very often to the effects of, globally, of climate change.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-agencies-slow-help-white-house-climate-panel
-
U.S. In ‘Dangerous Moment’ With Climate Change, Kerry Says
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
President Donald Trump’s repeated characterizations of climate change as a “hoax” is placing the U.S. in peril, former Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional panel April 9.
The former Cabinet member, Massachusetts Senator, and Democratic presidential candidate spoke at the House Committee on Oversight and Reform for the first time since he left the Obama administration, to denounce the National Security Council’s plans to revisit whether climate change threatens national security.
“This is a dangerous moment for us,” Kerry said. “We’re on a merry-go-round of acceptance of non-science that is preventing us from doing what every other nation in the world is currently trying to do.”
News reports two months ago said the White House was convening a panel led by William Happer, a National Security Council adviser who rejects mainstream climate science, that would question question how rising sea levels, extreme weather, and other climate change consequences affect national security, as found by previous administrations.
‘Not a Scintilla’
“There is not a scintilla of accepted science or bipartisan military expert analysis that four consecutive administrations were wrong,” Kerry said in his opening statement, adding that the recognition of the threat was first made in the George H.W. Bush administration.
Kerry drew examples from the ongoing Syrian conflict, where a prolonged drought pushed migrants to Damascus and escalated violence in cities, and in Nigeria, where the militant group Boko Haram seized on the government’s focus in addressing drought to kidnap hundreds of girls.
Kerry was repeatedly asked to testify before the same committee in 2014 when Republicans led it, over the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, but he never appeared.
Chuck Hagel, one of former President Barack Obama’s defense secretaries and a former Republican senator from Nebraska, also testified in support of previous administrations linking climate change and security.
He said if Happer’s panel were created ‘in good faith,’ "I am confident that the weight of scientific evidence and present day realities would confirm what I and other national security leaders have found: climate change is a real and present threat to our national security which most likely will get worse.”
The event marked the first of a series of hearings on climate change in the Oversight panel and its environment subcommittee.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/u-s-in-dangerous-moment-with-climate-change-kerry-says
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested