ACC PM 17/7/17

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Chemical Appointee Pushes Back on 'Distractions'

   Jul 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

   By Cecilia Smith-Schoenwalder
   
   
   One of the biggest tasks facing U.S. EPA's chemicals office is the implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. It's a job that most people might find daunting, but not Nancy Beck.
2. (ACC Mentioned) 8 Ways to Cut Calories and Cost at the Grocery Store

   Jul 17, 2017 | Today

   By Jean Chatzky and Joy Bauer
   
   
   Do you feel like you spend your entire paycheck at the grocery store? You're not alone. Most of us walk in intending to buy just a handful of items — but leave with so much more stuff and so much less money.

LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.

3. (ACC Mentioned) NMP Producers Urge Withdrawal of TSCA Section 6 Rule

   Jul 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin
   
   
   Domestic manufacturers of n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) are urging the US EPA to withdraw its proposed rule to ban or restrict certain uses of the solvent.
4. GenX Pollution Questions Multiply

   Jul 17, 2017 | North Carolina Health News

   By Catharine Clabby
   
   
   Six weeks after his customers learned an industrial chemical called GenX had contaminated the Wilmington drinking water supply he manages, Jim Flechtner was still briefing his bosses on new questions related to the pollution.

Chemical Management News

5. Health Advocates Call on Albertsons to Ban Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Products

   Jul 17, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

   Today, the Mind the Store campaign, joined by health advocates across the country, launched a national “week of action” to urge the nation’s second largest grocery chain, Albertsons, and its subsidiaries like Safeway to stop selling products containing...
6. Cancer Data Being Suppressed by International Organization

   Jul 17, 2017 | Morning Consult

   By Dan Perrin
   
   
   Right now, there is a controversy that has called into question a finding by an international organization that a common chemical is a cancer-causing agent.
7. Echa Faces Resources Squeeze next Year

   Jul 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch

   By Geraint Roberts
   
   
   Echa has warned its Management Board that unless next year's REACH registration deadline generates more fee income than expected it will not be able to fully carry out the range of new tasks that it has been given.

Energy News

8. House Panel Continues Break With Trump, Passes $37.6B Energy, Water Bill

   Jul 17, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Charlie Passut
   
   
   The Republican-controlled House continued its break with President Trump on budget matters, after lawmakers on the Appropriations Committee agreed to a $37.6 billion spending bill that calls for smaller budget cuts to the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Army Corps of Engineers.
9. The D.C. Circuit v. Deregulation

   Jul 17, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal

   By Editorial Board
   
   
   Harry Reid may have left Washington, but the former Senate Majority Leader’s legacy abides in a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stacked with progressives ready to defend the Obama Administration’s agenda.
10. Companies Comply with EPA Rules amid Legal Pingpong

    Jul 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By Mike Soraghan
    
    
    Oil and gas companies say they're complying with U.S. EPA's methane rule for new wells as they watch the legal pingpong match about implementation of the rule.
11. Pipeline's Path Paved with High Hopes — and Broken Dreams

    Jul 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

    By Hannah Northey
    
    
    Promoters of the 255-mile Nexus pipeline say their project means "energy, jobs and a vibrant economy" as it pumps clean, cheap Appalachian gas to power plants in Ohio and Michigan that now burn coal.

Chemical Security News

12. (ACC Mentioned) The Reality of Risk Roundtable

    Jul 17, 2017 | EnergyGlobal Hydrocarbon Enineering

    By Angharad Lock
    
    
    In this roundtable, led by Petrotechnics, senior industry executives discuss what happens when process safety intent meets the reality of operations.
13. White House Flips on Cyber Talks with Russia

    Jul 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By Peter Behr
    
    
    The Trump administration will explore discussions with Russia's government on limiting cybersecurity conflicts involving the two nations, White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert said Friday.
14. Texas Companies Often Go Unpunished for Industrial Incidents

    Jul 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

    Dennis Gallagher was a proud Shell Oil Co. employee for 23 years, but everything changed in 2015 when a critical pump failed in his Texas facility, releasing more than 300,000 pounds of 1,3-Butadiene — a known carcinogen — into the atmosphere.
15. Water Clean after Chemical Spill at Lake Michigan Tributary

    Jul 17, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)

    Chemical tests at an Indiana tributary that feeds Lake Michigan are coming up clear following a spill of a potentially carcinogenic chemical.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

16. EPA to Retain Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide Pollution

    Jul 17, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama
    
    
    The Trump administration says the current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard for nitrogen dioxide pollution concentrations should stay in place.
17. California Lawmakers to Decide Fate of Landmark Climate Law

    Jul 17, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)

    California lawmakers are nearing a vote on a climate change initiative.
18. Greens Fear Momentum Loss in 9-State Climate Pact

    Jul 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

    By Benjamin Storrow
    
    
    Environmentalists are expressing growing alarm over the future of America's sole regional cap-and-trade program, saying the nine Northeastern states that constitute the compact appear increasingly open to a modest reduction in the program's emissions cap.
19. Trump May Reverse Decision on Climate Accord, France's Macron Says: JDD

    Jul 17, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

    French President Emmanuel Macron said he was hopeful that U.S. President Donald Trump would reverse his decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord, according to weekly newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche...

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Chemical Appointee Pushes Back on 'Distractions'

   Jul 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

   By Cecilia Smith-Schoenwalder

   One of the biggest tasks facing U.S. EPA's chemicals office is the implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. It's a job that most people might find daunting, but not Nancy Beck.

   Beck came into her first day on the job as deputy assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention on May 1 with less than two months to meet the first-year statutory deadlines under the newly amended version of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

   "That's going to be the great challenge — to try to get the program running," Beck said during an interview last month.

   But the agency met its deadlines in June on the one-year anniversary of President Obama signing the law (E&E News PM, June 22).

   Despite that victory, Beck's transition to the agency hasn't been smooth. Democrats and environmental groups have questioned her appointment and have raised concerns over her time at a top chemicals trade group.

   "We have concerns that she may be more protective of the chemical industry than public health," said Liz Hitchcock, government affairs director for the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition (Greenwire, July 14).

   Beck's voice in OCSPP could get a little louder next month, when the office's acting assistant administrator, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, is expected to resign (Greenwire, July 14).

   But Beck said her knowledge of the agency's culture, people and process is what will bring her success in the office's No. 2 spot.

   Her background includes working in the Washington State Department of Health as a toxicologist and public health adviser. She then spent two years at EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment and went on to the White House Office of Management and Budget for almost 10 years. There, she worked as a toxicologist, risk assessor and policy analyst before joining the American Chemistry Council in 2012.

   Beck said her work in the private sector made up a small portion of her professional career but was an important learning experience. She said her role as the senior director of regulatory science policy at ACC showed her what it's like to be on the outside of the government, and it gave her time to ask herself what good science looks like. She defines sound science as using the highest-quality evidence to objectively present information.

   For her part, Beck said the responses she has seen to her appointment point to a conflict that doesn't exist.

   "I mean, obviously, understanding the perspective of all the stakeholders ... the constraints on which they operate ... and understanding what they're trying to achieve — how could that possibly create a conflict or bias?" she asked. "I just don't see that, and I think it's an unfortunate talking point that they continue to use."

   A recent letter written by over two dozen groups to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt protesting Beck's role at the agency criticized her work at OMB, saying "her actions were called into question as potentially politicizing White House review of agency science and second-guessing the professional judgment of career risk assessors."

   Specifically, it addressed what the groups say is a 2006 OMB risk assessment bulletin Beck wrote that the National Academy of Sciences said was "fundamentally flawed" and that was later rescinded (Greenwire, May 10).

   Beck acknowledged her work on what she said was a draft document, noting that "a lot of people" worked on it with her. She also said that draft documents do not get rescinded and that, based on the review from NAS, OMB made changes and published it as a 2007 memorandum.

   Beck agreed that NAS's comments were not favorable toward OMB but said they were mostly concentrated in the executive summary and press release.

   "When you actually looked at what they said about all the elements in there, it actually wasn't as bad as the press points made it sound," she said.'Independent thinker'

   Vicki Dellarco, who previously worked in EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs and who has overlapped with Beck on several projects, said Beck's background gives her a unique understanding of regulatory policies across the government.

   Dellarco called Beck an "independent thinker" whom she finds a gracious person and a good listener. She said Beck's focus and enthusiasm will help her lead the office.

   Thomas Hartung, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, has worked with Beck as a part of the Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration. The process the group advocates for is all about "transparency and objectivity," Beck said.

   Beck is on the board of trustees for the group and has said she hopes to continue her work with it during her time at EPA.

   Hartung said the group is still developing and just in its beginning stages but praised Beck for being an advocate of the process.

   "It shows some of her work ethic. It's about sound science," he said.

   As for the pushback Beck has gotten, Hartung said "industry would have something similar to say if an environmentalist was chosen."'Getting somewhere good'

   When asked what she'll be working on at OCSPP, Beck said her job will include everything from chemicals to pesticides.

   She also said she wants to work on relationships with stakeholders but she has concerns about whether the groups that have criticized her are committed to working together.

   "I would like to be focused on the science and the approaches and getting somewhere good," she said. "All this other stuff is just a distraction. It's a distraction to say you can't trust anyone because now someone with industry experience is here."

   Beck also has been tasked with overseeing the backlog of new chemicals under review. Pruitt has pledged that EPA will fully eliminate the backlog by the end of this month (Greenwire, June 6).

   https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/17/stories/1060057461
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) 8 Ways to Cut Calories and Cost at the Grocery Store

   Jul 17, 2017 | Today

   By Jean Chatzky and Joy Bauer

   Do you feel like you spend your entire paycheck at the grocery store? You're not alone. Most of us walk in intending to buy just a handful of items — but leave with so much more stuff and so much less money.

   This week, TODAY's financial expert Jean Chatzky and nutritionist Joy Bauer share their top tips for grocery shopping the smarter and healthier way. Here are a few of Jean's tips for saving the most cash:

   1. Make a list.

   It sounds old fashioned, but if you know what you’re cooking that week — and you have an actual list — you’ll save money because you won’t buy things not on your list.

   2. Pick one store — and get to know it.

   The easiest way to leave the store with money still in your pocket is to shop just the perimeter and a few aisles. A study from the Marketing Science Institute found the more aisles you go down, the more unplanned purchases end up in your cart.

   3. Have a snack before you go.

   Don’t sample. I know your mother told you this and it’s true. Chewing gum and wearing headphones with your own playlist (not the store’s, which is designed to get you to dawdle) will also help you tune out the triggers stores put in place to get you to buy. Also, try to go alone so that no one eggs you to buy things you don’t need.

   4. Anything non-perishable should be bought on sale.

   Grocery stores work on cycles and every five or six weeks, things cycle on sale. For that reason, you don’t have to buy anything other than true perishables when they’re not on sale.

   5. Be brand agnostic.

   Because of the sale cycles, if you can be happy switching between brands of yogurt, hummus or types of apples, you can almost always get items on your list on sale. For example, one brand of yogurt is almost always on sale. If you don’t mind switching between Chobani, Oikos, Fage, etc., you can almost always get it for a discount.

   6. Things you think are perishable don’t have to be.

   Frozen fruits and veggies are cheaper — for example, a 12-ounce bag of fresh, microwave-in-bag string beans is $2.50 (on sale), while a 12-ounce bag of frozen microwave in bag string beans is $2.00 (on sale). If you wind up not using the frozen string beans when you were planning to, they won’t go bad. That’s a big savings. The average American household throws out $640 worth of food each year, according to the American Chemistry Council.

   7. Download coupons to your loyalty card.

   You certainly can clip coupons, but you don’t have to anymore. You can download them at coupons.com, couponmom.com, or redplum.com. Make sure to keep that loyalty card in your wallet or on your key ring. Then, photograph your receipt to get cashback through Ibotta.

   8. Use the self-checkout.

   According to a study from IHL Consulting Group, impulse purchases among women drop 32 percent and men 16 percent when self-checkout is used instead of a staffed checkout. The primary reason for the drop, according to the study, is that self-checkout devices are not as stacked with candy, gum and other merchandise as staffed lanes at most retailers. Additionally, there is usually a shorter line at each register, removing the captive audience with the tempting impulse items in front of them.

   http://www.today.com/health/8-ways-cut-calories-cost-grocery-store-t113918
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.

3. (ACC Mentioned) NMP Producers Urge Withdrawal of TSCA Section 6 Rule

   Jul 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin

   Domestic manufacturers of n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) are urging the US EPA to withdraw its proposed rule to ban or restrict certain uses of the solvent. They argue the agency failed to identify risks to consumers within its statutory deadlines for supporting such actions.

   The NMP Producers Group set out its argument in a comment letter on one of three TSCA section 6 rules seeking to manage risks posed by the solvents NMP, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene (TCE). The proposal includes two approaches that would either see NMP banned in paint stripping, or would impose new restrictions on this application.

   The new TSCA explicitly permits the EPA to put forth risk management measures based on risk assessments completed under the old law.

   But according to the industry group, the risk assessment for NMP published in March 2015 did not identify risk with any consumer uses evaluated. And because the EPA did not publish an updated risk assessment with consumer use analyses prior to passage of the Lautenberg Act in June 2016, "the section 6 action on NMP cannot include restrictions associated with consumer uses unless and until EPA reissues an updated assessment for review."

   The EPA has supported its consumer use restrictions with a supplemental analysis beyond that completed in 2015. But the NMP group says it wasn't until August 2016 – two months after passage of the new TSCA law – that the agency said it had completed additional analyses to support the consumer risk scenarios, and that this supplemental report would not be available for public review until it issued the proposed section 6 rules.

   The producers also say the EPA made a presentation in March 2016 – seven months before publication of the supplemental report – "clearly and definitively" stating findings of consumer risk. And they question how the EPA presented on these findings prior to finalising the assessment.

   At best, says the group, the agency's statements are "misleading". At worst, "it appears that EPA made the decision to pursue risk management on consumer uses, despite the findings of the March 2015 assessment report, and worked backwards to identify potential consumer risk scenarios that supported that decision."

   Science standards

   The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said in its comments that the scope of the risk management decision on NMP is "consistent with the scope of [its] risk assessment." But it said that the supplemental analysis's lack of peer review prior to the proposal's publication is "significantly problematic".

   The supplemental analysis contains "important scientific information and assumptions about exposure scenarios, impacts of reduced substance content in paint removers, and the presumed effects of risk management measures," said the trade group.

   "A peer review of such critical information would be a substantial measure towards EPA's satisfaction of section 26(h)'s statutory requirements" around 'best available science'. And its absence "calls into question the agency's continued decision-making process for rulemakings under this statute."

   The NMP group adds that the scenarios and calculated risk thresholds identified by the EPA in the supplemental assessment "are not scientifically appropriate and cannot be used as the basis for risk management actions."

   But a coalition of NGOs – spearheaded by Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (SCHF) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – says that the 'good science' considerations outlined in section 26(h) of the new TSCA do not apply to risk assessments conducted under the old law. And they say that notwithstanding their applicability, the considerations are sufficiently addressed by EPA's approach.

   There is no statutory deadline for the EPA to finalise the three proposed section 6 rules. It has not attempted to ban a substance through this mechanism in close to 30 years.

   NMP use in US

   NMP is widely used in the chemical manufacturing, petrochemical processing and electronics industries. Commercially, its primary uses are for producing and removing paints, coatings and adhesives. It is also used in solvents, reagents, sealers, inks and grouts, and there is growing use in semiconductor fabrication and lithium ion battery manufacturing.

   The EPA says that over 160m lbs of NMP were produced or imported in the US in 2015.

   The substance has been on the REACH candidate list of SVHCs since 2011 because of its mandatory classification in the EU as a category 1B substance toxic to reproduction. Earlier this year Echa recommended it be included on the REACH authorisation list.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/57685/nmp-producers-urge-withdrawal-of-tsca-section-6-rule
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. GenX Pollution Questions Multiply

   Jul 17, 2017 | North Carolina Health News

   By Catharine Clabby

   Six weeks after his customers learned an industrial chemical called GenX had contaminated the Wilmington drinking water supply he manages, Jim Flechtner was still briefing his bosses on new questions related to the pollution.

   The uncertainties range widely, such as: What will be the best way to extract and safely release 49 million gallons of water the utility stored underground potentially tainted with GenX? Does affordable technology exist to scrub out the treatment-resistant chemical? What else of concern lurks in the river water they depend on?

   “We need to document and understand out what is in the river,” the visibly weary Flechtner stressed to Cape Fear Public Utility Authority board members in a morning meeting in Wilmington last week.

   Other weighty questions persist about GenX pollution in the Cape Fear beyond the tough ones that Flechtner’s utility and two others are grappling with. Among them:

   How much GenX originated from wastewater released by the Fayetteville Works production facility that DuPont Co. ran for decades?

   How frequently did its concentrations exceed newly announced state concentration goals for drinking water?

   Who knew when that a suspect chemical was flowing from an industrial site toward public drinking supplies, possibly since the 1980s?

   “There is not a lot of clarity yet about who knew what when,” said Derb S. Carter, Jr., director of the Southern Environmental Law Center for North Carolina.

   One thing is certain, however. This GenX problem arrived on the tail of some sobering history.A complex backstory

   Neither the EPA nor North Carolina regulates GenX or related chemicals that EPA scientists first detected in the Cape Fear in 2012. However, in 2009 the EPA did require DuPont Co., and later its spin off Chemours Co., to prevent GenX from escaping from any manufacturing processes with “99 percent efficiency.”

   EPA obtained that consent order after concluding that GenX and similar compounds, introduced to replace similar chemicals, could be toxic to people and the environment.

   GenX and similar chemicals replaced a group of voluntarily phased-out compounds called perfluorinated chemicals known as PFOA and C8. Maybe best known as an ingredient for making Teflon, they were used to make many more products valued for their toughness, a quality that also allowed them to accumulate in the environment.

   The consent order followed EPA’s 2005 settlement with DuPont of allegations that the company had failed to disclose evidence multiple times over more than 20 years that the older compounds posed risks to people and the environment.

   DuPont agreed to pay $10.25 million, EPA’s largest civil administrative penalty at that time, in the settlement. In addition, the company paid $6.25 million, partly for projects to investigate the potential of nine of DuPont’s fluorotelomer-based products to breakdown to form PFOAs.

   The controversy ticked on. In February of this year, DuPont settled a class-action lawsuit involving PFOA water contamination in the mid-Ohio Valley for $670.7 million.

   A Chemours spokeswoman did not respond to a request by phone or email to comment on the origin of GenX in the Cape Fear. But in writing, Chemours, which manages wastewater emissions for three companies at Fayetteville Works, has stressed that GenX emissions there are low and the chemical is unlikely to pose a risk.

   “Our polymerization processing aid, sometimes referred to as GenX, has been well characterized and undergone extensive safety evaluations,” Chemours has written. “In addition, regulatory agencies required substantial data to be developed on the alternative chemistries that have been introduced. This data shows that the polymerization processing aid offers a favorable toxicological profile and very rapid bioelimination.”

   That said, an EPA agency spokeswoman confirmed last week that the EPA is investigating whether Chemours has complied with the 2009 Toxic Substances Control Act consent order. Failure to do so, in general, can result in civil and criminal penalties, the EPA has said.

   Chemours staff members told state and local officials last month in a meeting that the company is in compliance because any amounts of GenX that floated down the river were small and were an unintentional byproduct from a process not covered by the EPA order.

   The EPA consent order does exempt GenX produced as byproducts from the order.

   “We had an unregulated chemical,” said Kathy O’Keefe, Chemours product sustainability director, as quoted in notes DEQ posted from the June 22 meeting, which was closed to the public and to all but one news reporter. “There’s no requirement to capture emissions of that chemical but we put abatement technology in place and we did that in November of 2013.”

   Even if that is the case, observers such as the SELC’s Carter wonder how the company or DEQ, if the state agency was aware that GenX was being discharged, could have allowed any of the suspect compound to reach the river.

   “Someone has to explain this, either the state or Chemours, of both,” Carter said.

   Shifting waters

   In addition to questions, new developments regarding GenX contamination in the Cape Fear keep cropping up.

   Just Friday the state Department of Health and Human Services lowered by 99.8 percent a provisional “health goal” limit for GenX amounts in drinking water,  reducing it from 70,000 parts per trillion (ppt) to 140 ppt. Created with help from the EPA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this is not a regulation. It’s a provisional estimate built with limited data of the contamination level below which exposure is unlikely to do harm to people, including developing fetuses and bottle-fed babies over a lifetime of exposure.

   The uproar over GenX started early last month after the Wilmington Star News reported research by N.C. State University water chemist Detlef Knappe and collaborators. Their study detected mean levels of GenX at 631 parts per trillion in 37 samples of untreated water drawn in 2013 from the Cape Fear Public Utility – that’s four times higher than the new “health goal” level.

   The researchers also found related chemicals, some at significantly higher levels, in the untreated water.

   Also on Friday, results from testing for GenX in drinking water samples, which Chemours is paying for, brought good news. GenX levels in the samples collected from June 29 to July 6 in three counties show levels of GenX declining, with all but one of the most recent samples below the new DHHS “health goal” of 140 ppt level.

   Knappe and his collaborators also reported that efforts to remove the compounds using standard water treatment, such as coagulation, ozonation, biofiltration, and disinfection, had “negligible” success.

   Also on Friday, DEQ announced that Chemours had alerted the state agency that GenX discharges had not stopped during the third week in June – as the company had believed it had – but they are now fully stopped.

   That news didn’t sit well with Mike Brown, chairman of the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority who works in commercial real estate.

   “In June CFPUA requested that DEQ monitor Chemours discharges daily and to monitor the internal waste streams into the Chemours wastewater treatment facility,” Brown posted on a GenX update he composes for the utility, sometimes multiple times per day. “We are very discouraged that this additional GenX discharge was not identified sooner.”Looking forward

   While trying to sort out how the GenX contamination developed, the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority is also working to reduce the risk of Fayetteville Works site releasing GenX or sister chemicals in the future. DuPont and a Japanese company also have facilities on the site.

   The utility has asked DEQ for information on any GenX chemicals released from the Chemours site. A letter to DEQ Michael Regan from the Greensboro law firm of Brooks Pierce on behalf of the authority also pushed for explicit requirements in Chemours’ state wastewater discharge permit.

   The company’s previous permit is expired but state rules allow a company to continue with discharges as long as it submits a written renewal request, which Chemours has done. The company also included a request that it no longer be required to test for PFOAs, the now-phased out chemicals that GenX and others replaced.

   Knappe has observed some of those chemicals in the Cape Fear.

   The water authority wants GenX discharges limited to “only such amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to public health,” the letter states.

   The water utility is also evaluating whether any company or organization  carries financial liability for the trouble the release of GenX has caused the utility and its customers.

   “All the facts are not available to us yet” chairman Brown said. “We are collecting information to see where it might lead us.”

   http://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2017/07/17/genx-pollution-mysteries/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

5. Health Advocates Call on Albertsons to Ban Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Products

   Jul 17, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

    Today, the Mind the Store campaign, joined by health advocates across the country, launched a national “week of action” to urge the nation’s second largest grocery chain, Albertsons, and its subsidiaries like Safeway to stop selling products containing or packaged with toxic chemicals such as lead, formaldehyde, parabens, and BPA. The campaign is calling on the supermarket giant to announce a safer chemicals policy to reduce and eliminate toxic chemicals, as Walmart, Target and other retailers have done. For this week of action, advocates will be demonstrating outside stores across the country holding signs and distributing leaflets to customers while donning Hawaiian shirts, pool floats, and other summer essentials to underscore the omnipresence of these chemicals in our daily lives. Advocates will also be distributing petitions and making calls to the company’s headquarters.  

   The week of action is supported by new research revealing toxic chemicals in two dozen products sold by Albertsons, including lead in the handles of summer barbeque basting and cleaning brushes, formaldehyde releasers, parabens, fragrance and other toxic chemicals in personal care and cleaning products.

   “This summer, it’s time for Albertsons to turn up the heat on toxic chemicals,” said Mike Schade, Mind the Store Campaign Director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “As one of the nation’s largest retailers, Albertsons should wield its market power to drive dangerous chemicals out of products. If retailers like Walmart and Target can do it, so can Albertsons.”

   Last fall, in a report card rating retailer actions to eliminate toxic chemicals, Albertsons received the third lowest grade of eleven retailers evaluated, with a letter grade of F and only 12.5 out of 130 possible points. Albertsons has no public safer chemicals policy in place. While the company has reported some progress in reducing the use of BPA in canned foods, it has not disclosed a timeframe or plan for completely eliminating and safely substituting BPA in canned foods.

   The week of action is led by the Mind the Store campaign, a project of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. The campaign has already collected more than  130,000 signatures from consumers calling on Albertsons to remove BPA from its canned food and develop a comprehensive chemicals policy.  In May, the group co-released a new report that found toxic BPA in nearly 40% of food cans tested from the nation’s largest grocery stores and dollar store chains. The campaign found that Albertsons continues to sell food cans lined with toxic BPA. 36% of Albertsons’ “private-label” food cans tested positive for this harmful chemical. While that demonstrates notable progress since last year, more work is still clearly needed.

   “Albertsons should make a splash with toxic-free products,” said Tracy Gregoire, Healthy Children Project Coordinator for the Learning Disabilities Association of America.  “Lead and other toxic chemicals linked to learning disabilities, autism, ADHD and other challenges have no place in everyday consumer products.”

   Groups participating in this week of action are in 16 states including: Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Washington DC.  

   http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/health-advocates-call-on-albertsons-to-ban-toxic-chemicals-in-everyday-products/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Cancer Data Being Suppressed by International Organization

   Jul 17, 2017 | Morning Consult

   By Dan Perrin

   Right now, there is a controversy that has called into question a finding by an international organization that a common chemical is a cancer-causing agent.

   Last month, Reuters reported on new data that might mean the final nail in the coffin for allegations that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the world’s most widely used weed killer, is a known carcinogen. As a direct result of Reuters’s reporting, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) asked Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt to make sure the agency reviews the previously undisclosed data from a previously withheldAgricultural Health Study, which shows that glyphosate does not cause cancer.

   In a controversial assessment of glyphosate, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, disregarded AHS data presented during deliberations that contradicted a finding that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” That pronouncement caused confusion among consumers and controversy among policymakers on the safety of the common weed killer that is still playing out on the international stage.

   For instance, the original IARC finding that glyphosate is a carcinogen led the European Commission to delay its decision on whether to re-license European Union-wide sale of herbicides containing the chemical, and caused some countries and municipalities to ban the use of the weed killer in parks, and even privately owned gardens. A petition in Europe calling for the herbicide to be banned gathered 1 million signatures, while a loophole in California’s Prop 65 used IARC’s study to force all glyphosate-based atomizers sold in the state to carry a disclaimer about its potential effects on human health.

   Moreover, IARC’s decision frayed public trust in science-based regulations. So it’s not only in the interest of farmers and consumers that the EPA perform a full review and release the full data sets. It’s also in the interest of transparency and openness — critical features of science itself.

   Since it was introduced in the mid-1970s, glyphosate has been seen as one of the most benign herbicides on the market. And that’s not just a matter of image. All international and national regulatory bodies have backed up this view. The EPA, the European Food Safety Authority, and others have all concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer. The one outlier has been IARC.

   What’s key here is that IARC’s methodology for establishing carcinogenicity — it’s evaluated more than 989 substances and activities — is vastly different from actual regulatory bodies. For one thing, IARC examines hazard, or the evidence of whether a given substance can theoretically cause cancer in any way — not the risk, or actual chance, that it will do so, based on how people actually use it. Second, it doesn’t perform its own studies, but only evaluates research that’s already been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

   Both of these practices go a long way towards explaining why, in four decades’ worth of evaluations, IARC has only determined that one substance — an ingredient in nylon that’s used in yoga pants! — doesn’t cause cancer.

   But more than anything, it’s IARC’s willingness to ignore valuable unpublished research that explains why its assessments have often been out in left field. And the Reuters story shows why.

   Unpublished data from AHS, one of the most highly regarded investigations into the effects of pesticides on humans involving scientists from the EPA and other agencies, showed that there was no evidence of an association between glyphosate exposure and cancer. Aaron Blair — who was a senior researcher on that study and chaired IARC’s glyphosate review panel — had not only seen the data, but was a participant in the research in his role at the National Cancer Institute. So of course Blair was aware of its implications, which, he admitted under deposition, would’ve changed IARC’s mind.  

   Blair never published the AHS’s data on glyphosate, which was available a full two years before IARC published its assessment — saying there was too much to fit into one paper. The National Cancer Institute also blamed “space constraints” as the reason why the new data wasn’t published. Meanwhile, two independent statisticians interviewed by Reuters both noted the significance of the research and couldn’t see why the data wasn’t published.

   At this point, it’s too late to go back in time and there’s hardly anything the U.S. government can do (other than pressure IARC and threaten to withdraw taxpayer funding) to make it rethink its absurd ban on considering unpublished data. But the least we can do is to have the EPA not only review the AHS data, but also finally bring it out of the dark.

   https://morningconsult.com/opinions/cancer-data-suppressed-international-organization/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Echa Faces Resources Squeeze next Year

   Jul 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch

   By Geraint Roberts

   Echa has warned its Management Board that unless next year's REACH registration deadline generates more fee income than expected it will not be able to fully carry out the range of new tasks that it has been given.

   Recent months have seen the European Commission ask the agency to categorise the 150 approved biocidal active substances regarding potential endocrine disrupting properties; provide a portal to help firms submit poison centre notifications; assess the scientific relevance, through its Risk Assessment Committee (Rac), of occupational exposure limits for five carcinogens; work on an EU 'chemicals legislation finder' database; and provide technical guidance for the Commission and member states on a recast of the EU Regulation on persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

   Echa's request for extra staff and financial resources to fulfil these tasks was rejected by the Commission, as was its request to redirect the unused subsidy amounts from 2016 under REACH/CLP and the biocidal products Regulation to finance any shortfall in fee revenue and unplanned tasks in 2018.

   At its June meeting, Echa's Management Board agreed this meant the agency "will not have any financial buffer to face possible low fee revenue, nor will it be able to take up the proposed new tasks to the extent foreseen and, in effect, their take-up will be conditional on the 2018 registration deadline generating higher than budgeted fee income."

   Potential fee shortfall

   However, the agency is not optimistic that fee income from 2018 registrations will be sufficient to cover the shortfall. Speaking before the European Parliament's Environment Committee last week, agency executive director Geert Dancet said the first signals were not positive and that Echa has received far fewer registrations from SMEs and for substances in the 1-10 tonnes category than expected.

   Echa also warned the Board that it may be given new tasks in relation to the implementation of the Commission's package of measures on the circular economy. In response, Board members "strongly stressed" the need for appropriate resources.

   Echa’s budget is set, together with those for all the other EU agencies, as part of the Commission's overall budget. The Commission proposed 2018 budget, published on 30 May, will be considered by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers in the autumn before its final adoption in November. Before then, Echa, together with the other agencies that have already had to implement cuts, plans to appeal to the Parliament and Council for a better deal.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/57695/echa-faces-resources-squeeze-next-year
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

8. House Panel Continues Break With Trump, Passes $37.6B Energy, Water Bill

   Jul 17, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Charlie Passut

   The Republican-controlled House continued its break with President Trump on budget matters, after lawmakers on the Appropriations Committee agreed to a $37.6 billion spending bill that calls for smaller budget cuts to the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Army Corps of Engineers.

   Under the energy and water appropriations bill, one of 12 to fund the federal government, lawmakers agreed to allocate $29.9 billion to the DOE in fiscal year (FY) 2018. That amounts to a 2.8% decrease ($857.6 million) in funding from the $30.7 billion the DOE received in FY2017, but it's also 7.2% higher ($2 million) more than the $27.9 billion Trump proposed giving the department last May.

   Within the DOE, funding for energy programs would total $9.6 billion, which is about $1.7 billion below FY2017 but $2.1 billion above the budget request. The committee said it was recommending $5.4 billion for the Office of Science, $1.1 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy, $969 million for nuclear energy and $634.6 million for fossil energy. The budget eliminates funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy but research and development (R&D) funding is included.

   The bill also calls for giving the DOE's Energy Information Administration $118 million, or $4 million less than the $122 million it received in FY2017. It also includes "a provision regarding the drawdown and sale of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)."

   The Trump administration had proposed cutting $500 million in support of the SPR in FY2018. The White House estimated that cutting the SPR in half would save an estimated $4.4 billion over the next five fiscal years, and $16.6 billion over the next 10 years.

   Meanwhile, the Army Corps would receive $6.2 billion for civil works programs -- $120 million more than what was enacted in FY2017 and about $1.2 billion above the budget request.

   Overall, the energy and water appropriations bill is $209 million below what was enacted in FY2017, but $3.2 billion above the budget proposed by the White House. The bill now heads to the House floor before the Senate takes up the legislation.

   "This bill prioritizes fulfilling our national security needs and maintaining critical investments to support American competitiveness within tight budget caps," said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), chairman of the House Energy and Water Subcommittee. "It strikes a responsible balance between the modernization and safety of our nuclear weapons, advancing our national infrastructure, and strategic investments in basic science and energy R&D.”

   In its decision on DOE funding, the committee wrote in the bill that it supports "an all-of-the-above energy strategy designed to take advantage and utilize all sources of American-made energy. Funding for fossil and nuclear sources, which provide 84% of all electricity generated in the nation, is targeted to ensure the safe and efficient use of the nation's critical baseload energy generation sources...

   "This strategy provides the correct balance to enable full use of our nation's abundant fossil resources while laying the foundation for developing future energy sources."

   According to a report in the Washington Examiner, Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and Nita Lowey (D-NY) attempted to add an amendment that would have removed a policy rider for the Army Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw the controversial Clean Water Rule, which was promulgated by both during the Obama administration to clarify what constitutes Waters of the United States. The amendment was voted down along party lines, 32-20.

   http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111110-house-panel-continues-break-with-trump-passes-376b-energy-water-bill
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. The D.C. Circuit v. Deregulation

   Jul 17, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal

   By Editorial Board

   Harry Reid may have left Washington, but the former Senate Majority Leader’s legacy abides in a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stacked with progressives ready to defend the Obama Administration’s agenda. One of those judges joined a Bill Clinton appointee this month to salvage President Obama’s methane rule with an extraordinary display of raw judicial power.

   Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency imposed the controversial rule forcing oil and gas drillers to slash methane emissions—never mind that such emissions are already falling. Scott Pruitt, the new EPA Administrator, announced in April that the agency would reconsider the rule.

   One reason is that the Obama EPA included provisions in the final rule that weren’t in the proposed version and thus weren’t open to public comment. Mr. Pruitt also issued a 90-day stay of the rule’s June 3 compliance date, and such a stay is clearly within his powers under the Clean Air Act.

   Six environmental groups quickly filed an emergency lawsuit with the D.C. Circuit, which Mr. Reid packed with liberal jurists after killing the Senate filibuster for appellate-court nominees. One of those judges, Robert Wilkins, joined Judge David Tatel in a 2-1 ruling that blocked the Pruitt stay with the effect of imposing the Obama policy (Clean Air Council v. Pruitt).

   The opinion is extraordinary for taking such action despite its acknowledgment that the court can only review “final agency actions” and that the EPA’s decision to reconsider the rule is not final. The two judges nonetheless contort themselves to explain why a stay is really the same as “revoking a rule”—and thus is final and so the court has jurisdiction.

   In her dissent, Judge Janice Rogers Brown skewered this legal creativity: “In contrast to our precedent, the Court’s opinion concludes a particular administrative proceeding has innumerable final agency actions, including intermediate decisions. No authority supports this proposition.”

   The judges are claiming the courts are the final arbiters of when a federal agency can stay its own rules pending reconsideration. This has implications for other Obama regulations that the Trump Administration is now reviewing—such as net neutrality at the Federal Communications Communication or the Education Department’s gainful-employment rule for colleges.

   This is a sweeping new claim of judicial powers of administrative review, and it follows the pattern set by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits in their rulings blocking President Trump’s immigration order. The Supreme Court unanimously rebuked those courts before it left town by allowing the order to proceed in nearly all cases until it can hear the merits in October.

   Mr. Pruitt can appeal to the Supreme Court, but that means waiting into next year for a ruling. He can continue his review with an eye toward reissuing a new, less-onerous methane rule, but in the interim the EPA may be obliged to enforce the Obama version. This means imposing new costs and uncertainty on businesses that would have to comply even if the rule is ultimately withdrawn.

   Look for a deluge of such lawsuits as progressives resort to the courts to compensate for their defeat in 2016. The D.C. Circuit’s afflatus also underscores the stakes in judicial nominations and why even appellate courts have become political battlegrounds. We’re in dangerous political territory when judges appear to join the anti-Trump resistance on such flimsy legal grounds.

   https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-d-c-circuit-v-deregulation-1500235480
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Companies Comply with EPA Rules amid Legal Pingpong

    Jul 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By Mike Soraghan

    Oil and gas companies say they're complying with U.S. EPA's methane rule for new wells as they watch the legal pingpong match about implementation of the rule.

    "You've got to stay in compliance because you won't be able to catch back up," said Chad Warmington, president of the Oklahoma Oil & Gas Association (OKOGA). "For the most part, we're going to comply, but it may all be for naught."

    Company officials at Newfield Exploration Co. made plans for this year based on the regulations in effect, said company spokeswoman Cindy Hassler, "not on what we hope they might look like."

    So they're continuing to comply, she said, even as they "continue to educate the administration and lawmakers" about the effects of the rules.

    For now, the rules are on hold. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said it was recalling the mandate "for a limited period" to allow time for EPA to decide whether to ask for a rehearing or seek another form of appeal (E&E News PM, July 13).

    The methane rules apply to new and modified oil and gas operations. The Obama administration issued the standards in 2016 to halt leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The rule also aimed to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds that contribute to the formation of smog.

    EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in June delayed compliance for 90 days for the agency to consider an industry petition for reconsideration.

    But a D.C. Circuit panel lifted the stay earlier this month and ordered EPA to restore the regulations right away. EPA argued that reimposing the rule was an "unusual step" and asked for more time. After that, the judges put the regulations on hold, but for only two weeks.

    That created regulatory confusion for many in the industry. One attorney called it a "quagmire." But environmental groups involved in the litigation said it was simple: Companies needed to start complying (Energywire, July 6).

    EPA is likely to impose a two-year stay in August or September. Environmentalists will almost certainly challenge that stay, too. If they're successful, the restrictions will be back in place.

    Environmentalists supported the restrictions and hoped they would lead to regulation of existing oil and gas wells, too. Industry called the standards overly burdensome and said methane emissions had been dropping for years even as production rose.

    The appellate ruling was the first loss in court for President Trump's deregulatory agenda. And it was the first stumble in Pruitt's drive to lift Obama-era regulations from the oil and gas industry.

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/07/17/stories/1060057451
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Pipeline's Path Paved with High Hopes — and Broken Dreams

    Jul 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

    By Hannah Northey

    Promoters of the 255-mile Nexus pipeline say their project means "energy, jobs and a vibrant economy" as it pumps clean, cheap Appalachian gas to power plants in Ohio and Michigan that now burn coal.

    But for 74-year-old Tom West, the ballyhooed venture means heartbreak.

    The pipeline is expected to rip through the former horse breeder's 5-acre property here in northeastern Ohio, passing within 150 feet of the white Cape Cod house that he and his wife, Ruth, built more than 40 years ago, knifing through an area where the Wests buried seven horses and family pets.

    "It's ruined our retirement," West said one recent afternoon as a Tennessee walking horse named Sunny D nosed his shoulder. "We're kind of out here on an island. ... [My children] don't want to live on top of this pipeline. I don't want to live here."

    West lives on the border of Wayne and Medina counties — a Republican stronghold where President Trump romped in November. The pipeline that would affect West's property is expected to be one of the first projects up for a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission vote after Trump's agency nominees are confirmed by the Senate.

    Getting the project going would be a big win for DTE Energy Co. and Canadian pipeline company Enbridge Inc. The developers say Ohio and Michigan will also win with an $830 million economic jolt and 6,800 jobs. "Nexus means jobs," the project website says.

    But West and others along the pipeline's path worry about safety and property values. Many are seething about what they fear will be the seizure of their land through eminent domain — something that could become a political issue for Republicans as energy companies tapping Appalachian shale collide with landowners in rural, conservative strongholds.

    "We're starting to build pipelines in places we haven't built them before," Republican strategist Mike McKenna said. "Eventually, we're going to bump up against the tea party guys, the right members of Congress, the right amount of pissed off. Until then, we'll keep muddling through."

    West is far from a political rabble-rouser. On this day, the silver-haired, tanned West wore a tank top dirty from a long day's work in the barn where he keeps four horses, mostly for the enjoyment of his 10 grandchildren.

    At one time, the Wests raised and sold horses from their property — dubbed Gunsquire — where they also raised three children. The horse business was a side venture for Tom West, who worked in an Akron warehouse for 35 years and now partners with a friend in a car restoration business. West's wife worked for 32 years in the Akron Beacon Journal's composing room, where newspaper pages were typeset. She's now retired.

    While FERC has seen sign-carrying pipeline protesters at its Washington headquarters, the Wests and their neighbors say they don't oppose energy development, but they worry about safety. West said his children no longer want to build on or near the property.

    "If anything blows on this thing, we're crispy critters," West said.

    When asked about federal statistics showing interstate gas pipeline explosions kill fewer people than car accidents, floods and even lightning strikes, West's eyes widened. He recalled an explosion last year along a gas line in rural Pennsylvania that blew open a 1,500-square-foot hole, scorched 40 acres of rural farmland and left one man with severe burns (Energywire, May 5).

    "Being rare doesn't affect us because it could be rare right here," West said. "One time is one too many."'They're not engaging'

    About 20 miles east of Rittman in the city of Green, Mayor Gerard Neugebauer pulled his black SUV to the side of the road to point out where the Nexus pipeline would pass within 150 feet of the backstop of a baseball field in Greensburg Park.

    Neugebauer, citing FERC's review, maintains that a 1,100-foot-wide path around the pipeline could be vulnerable to explosion or fire.

    "As someone who leads this community, is it OK for me to have 42 families gathered here within 150 feet?" he said. "If there was an accident, it's very likely everybody here could be incinerated."

    He continued, "Let's say you err on the side of saying, 'It'll never happen.' When it happens, you carry quite a bit of responsibility on your shoulders because you could have said, 'Let's abandon that field.'"

    For the past three years, the city has wrangled with FERC officials over the Nexus path.

    FERC staff ultimately rejected an alternative route the city proposed, saying it didn't offer "significant" environmental advantages and dismissed the city's argument that land for future industrial development would be less valuable given that construction is not allowed along a 50-foot-wide swath of land covering the pipeline.

    FERC's response: Work around it.

    Commission staff warned of "unfair distribution of environmental burdens on less affluent communities" should the pipeline be rerouted south of Green. The agency also said the additional 8 miles of pipeline required in the city's alternative route would cost Nexus developers more money and undermine the project's viability.

    Green officials and landowners along the Nexus route question why a pipeline whose gas is only 60 percent subscribed as it heads to Canada should be allowed to take private property.

    The dispute shines a bright light on landowners' precarious position and FERC's process for determining which projects are needed for "public use." Developers aren't required to commit a specific amount of gas to customers before building under FERC's policies, but they do have to show demand exists through contracts, precedent agreements and studies — proprietary material that's oftentimes not laid out for the public in detail.

    Nexus developers insist gas running through the pipeline would feed more than a dozen connection points along the route in Ohio, Michigan and Canada, and more customers are on the way. One of those customers is DTE, a Detroit-based utility that's slated to use the gas to shutter five coal plants by 2040.

    Once FERC approves a pipeline, developers can then use eminent domain to obtain right of way if landowners do not decide to negotiate with the pipeline, leaving local civil courts to determine compensation in a process that can take months, according to the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust.

    Federal guidelines define the distance surrounding a pipeline where people could be affected if the line fails — but they don't dictate a minimum distance to separate an underground pipeline and homes.

    As anger at FERC's handling of siting issues and eminent domain grows, analysts say landowners must press Congress if they want the process to change.

    But Neugebauer said the city has tried that with little luck.

    Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, he said, have declined to publicly support the city's push for an alternative pipeline route or address concerns about FERC.

    Neugebauer said he hasn't received public support from any Ohio lawmakers or Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor (R), a former Green City Council member who formed a campaign committee to raise money for a 2018 run to replace term-limited Republican Gov. John Kasich. Taylor in an email maintained she's discussing the need to balance gas development with environmental and safety concerns with officials at the Ohio EPA and at FERC.

    "They're just really not willing to forsake a major contributor to their campaigns. That's just my feeling," Neugebauer said. "They're not engaging because they see it as a NIMBY ['not in my backyard'] principle, and they don't want to get in the face of oil and gas."'Isn't that a hair product?'

    Sizing up the alfalfa-covered hills on the outskirts of Green, botanist Jim Bissell plotted out the Nexus pipeline's trail.

    Construction for the pipeline would occur about 200 feet from the rare glacial wetland deposited thousands of years ago by receding mountains of ice. For Bissell, a prominent curator at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History who discovered the site in the 1970s, it's too close for comfort.

    "I just don't think it's worth the risk," the wiry 71-year-old said.

    Bissell acknowledges FERC approval is likely given the project's positive environmental review, but he's skeptical of the agency staff's conclusion that the project poses no threat to Singer Lake Bog's hydrology or its 35 endangered or rare plants and 14 endangered insects.

    FERC maintains the developer's use of technology and restoration strategies will preserve the sensitive ecosystem.

    He worries the pipeline, disrupting up to 8 feet of glacial sand and gravel, could divert water and cut off a critical groundwater supply for the lush wetland or change the system's chemistry.

    "My concern is groundwater all the way," he said, before he spied a racket-tailed emerald dragonfly, an Ohio endangered insect.

    Gary Adkins, an Army officer near retirement who with his wife, Deb, lives next to the Wests, is unhappy with a Canadian pipeline developer taking their land.

    "It feels a little like I'm getting stabbed in the back," he said. "Coming on my land, cutting my trees, ruining my property. It's like I have no rights, and I still have to pay tax on all this property."

    But not everyone in northwestern Ohio has strong feelings — positive or negative — about the project.

    At the dimly lit pub in downtown Green, Joe Abraham enjoyed a beer after his shift ended in the sales department of Goodyear in nearby Akron. Abraham said he'd never heard of the Nexus pipeline or the heated fight between his neighbors and project developers.

    Neither had other regulars at the bar.

    "Nexus! Sounds like a hair product," said a woman seated next to Abraham. "Isn't that a hair product?"

    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/17/stories/1060057421
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

12. (ACC Mentioned) The Reality of Risk Roundtable

    Jul 17, 2017 | EnergyGlobal Hydrocarbon Enineering

    By Angharad Lock

    In this roundtable, led by Petrotechnics, senior industry executives discuss what happens when process safety intent meets the reality of operations. This includes how we think we manage risk, how we actually manage it and how we can improve it practically and tangibly.

    Participants:

    Mike Neill, President, Petrotechnics USA (MN).

    Jeff Thomas, Sr. Process Safety and Reliability Engineer, Process Improvement Institute(JT).

    Kelly Keim, Chief Process Safety Engineer (retired) (KK).

    Greg Cline, Principal Market Analyst, Aberdeen Group (GC).

    1. Industry regulation is at an all-time high. Every operator is committed to safety and risk avoidance. So why do you think incidents and accidents still happen?

    JT: Not all countries have process safety regulations. However, even where good, detailed regulations exist, it’s hard to implement all the processes and procedures they require 100 percent correctly, all the time. There are often conflicting priorities, particularly in the field, between safety, production, and cost. In addition, there are often not thorough operating and maintenance procedures that cover all modes of operations, such as start-up, shutdown and other infrequent tasks. In some cases, companies in countries without regulations have implemented excellent PSM programs - so adding regulations may not always be the answer.

    GC: Incidents and accidents depend on many things, including the regulatory environment and the overall level of safety awareness. And often it’s just human nature. People try to prepare and create a culture of safety, but slip-ups happen.

    JT: People don’t always understand all the hazards or safeguards. They get used to doing things a certain way. In addition, we do not often identify all the hazards, especially those related to infrequent modes of operation, like start-up and shutdown, where a majority of incidents occur. Human Factors are not generally evaluated and included in most process safety management systems, so we often “set the operators up to make errors.”

    KK: But it’s important to note, accident rates for process safety incidents across the refining and petrochemical industries are actually incredibly low.

    MN: I’d say most people in the industry think, ‘I could almost guarantee we will have an accident,’ rather than, ‘I can guarantee that we won’t.’ But they don’t know when, and they don’t know how big. And the chances are, if you’re a big organisation with a lot of operations, you pretty much know eventually something will happen.

    KK: The good news is the American Petroleum Institute (API), American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) collect information on causes and causal factors on a consistent basis. They’re beginning to get a much clearer picture of process safety related issues. Traditionally the industry looked at facility causes – equipment failure, corrosion, etc. And those are still big factors. But the greatest proportion of incidents, based on industry evidence, is related to human performance, which is people failing to execute a procedure properly, or missing an operating step.

    MN: There’s a lot of focus on humans as the weak link in the chain. But as much as we blame individuals when things go wrong, we need to credit them for reacting and recovering from problems. Where poor decisions are seen as the root cause of incidents, we need to examine whether competence was lacking or if people just did not have the correct information to make a decision.

    KK: We’re only just learning how to classify, let alone improve human performance. There’s still a lot to do. And the industry does seek to get better – by making reference to the nuclear and airline industries. Those industries addressed things like equipment design, maintenance, management systems and people simultaneously. In oil and gas, the Mexico City and Bhopal disasters sparked PSM regulations in the US focusing on systems and then eventually people. I think the nuclear and airline industries have been far more successful versus the oil and gas industry’s phased approach.

    2. Does the reality of risk management measure up to the intent of risk management?

    JT: Most companies probably recognise their process safety performance is not where they want it. But on the whole, we’re doing a better job today of understanding risk than we did, when I started, say, 30 to 40 years ago.

    MN: People are experienced enough to know that hazardous industries mean risky business. I don’t think people would publicly admit that risk is so unpredictable. But other industries, nuclear and airline, have managed to eliminate some sources of unpredictable risk. These sectors put a lot of emphasis on training, stop work authority and redundancies in design so that if a system fails, there’s another that would take over. In the process industries, we’ve become somewhat normalised to risk, and we don’t come anywhere close to investing the same level of risk management resources. But there is a lot to gain from investing in safety. Typically, with safety comes improved operational performance.

    KK: Actually, I do think there’s an undue confidence at both the executive and field levels that “those things just don’t happen to us.” There isn’t that everyday sense of caution that should be present in people who are one procedure away from a major catastrophic event. Most plant workers and managers have never experienced a major process safety event, so they believe it won’t happen to them.

    GC: Real safety happens on the ground when people internalise it and don’t view it as a burden on everyday business. That means risk exposure must be made visible, prominent and available so everyone can understand its impact.

    KK: When I first started in the industry 40 years ago, fires and explosions were relatively common. Most workers had experienced one. There was a belief that these could happen, and people paid attention to avoid them. There was maybe a negative that people felt responsible for putting their own lives at risk to minimise those events. But now the industry has the newest and rawest process safety data. We've really only been managing it for five years or so. With more time and data, we’ll be able to say whether we’re actually better than we think.

    3. What critical process safety information do people who make the daily decisions about operating a plant need?

    GC: When we talk about making daily decisions, operational data must correlate with the management of process safety and vis-a-vis. Management needs to analyse the plant and the processes that relate to PSM. And then this needs to be incorporated into operational dashboards – in an actionable way.

    MN: Operators need data that clearly shows if something unexpected is happening, what the impact could be, how that affects the program of work, the threats it creates – and of course, the effect of any remedial reaction. Their number one priority is containment, so they need data on the integrity of pipes and vessels, and critically, the condition of the actual detection systems themselves.

    JT: There is a lot of information that people need to make decisions. KPIs are needed at the management level to help make decisions about operations, resources, and priorities. At the engineering level, they need inspection and test data to help determine frequencies of maintenance and repairs. And then the operator needs data to understand the current state of a process and what the risk is of the tasks they are completing.

    One of the key issues is there is so much data; it’s hard to figure out what is really meaningful. So you need to clearly identify that type of information. And then the importance and the timing of activities are key, so operators can determine what’s urgent and what can wait. You need a whole picture of risk based on data – so decisions aren’t isolated from everything else that’s going on in a facility.

    KK: That consolidation of information is certainly vital to more rational decision-making. The trouble is we don’t provide consolidated systems for operations to effectively assess if they can take one more step in their procedure.

    At Deepwater Horizon, for example, roughly 11 layers of protection needed to be in place to prevent the scenario that happened. One-by-one those layers of protection were whittled away. The response was always, “well that’s okay because we’ve got this other ultimate layer of protection.”

    So it shows even a plant with multiple protection layers can experience a major hazard because of an accumulation of relatively harmless decisions. The current process safety barrier status must be visible to operations, the front line but also management so appropriate decisions can be made.

    4. What are the current obstacles to access this information in a timely manner and how can they be eliminated?

    JT: First, we have so much data, particularly with things like digital process control systems (DCS), safety instrumented systems (SIS), maintenance systems, etc. We get information overload, and it’s not always clear what’s most important. Second, there can be a lag in the data. We don’t always get it when we need it - and things can be missed. Third, maintenance management and process control systems don’t always make it easy to extract data. And that’s just the start!

    KK: The information is there, but it’s often in lots of different systems – some of which are still paper-based. Even for a process safety engineer who’s been on the site forever, it will take time to pull all that data together. And if it isn’t consolidated and condensed in useful forms, nobody actually uses it for making critical risk-based decisions.

    GC: The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) is enabling a new era where we have the capability to monitor and improve processes to ensure they’re safe. Safety must be implicit. I think, to the extent that operators can connect operations with the information needed, via IIoT or another framework, they can overcome risk and help prevent incidents.

    MN: We need to connect the data we have. We also need ways of assessing the impact of doing something or – equally important – NOT doing something. But individuals also need multiple viewpoints – from maintenance and asset integrity to drilling and subsea. That’s the source of informed decision-making.

    5. How can operators maintain their safety and risk management standards over time?

    KK: For the most part, operators don’t get feedback on their risk levels, let alone their risk management performance. Even companies that are doing a good job of tracking tier-three and four process safety indicators are basing performance on lagging data. And they’re certainly not communicating this to operations. If you don’t get good feedback, you can’t improve.

    JT: Constant communication with operations is key, so they know the impact of any change, for example management of change (MoC), and how best to adjust. I think there is merit to having a tool that shows an overall picture of hazards, operational risk, barriers and safeguards –updated on a real-time basis.

    GC: Safety and risk factors change all the time, so companies must be responsive to changing conditions.

    MN: Safety standards define our risk tolerance. And risk tolerance is not an exact science. It’s an interpretation whether certain outcomes are acceptable. And that’s hard. Of course, managers would love to have a physical device with traffic signals that tell them they need to do something or prioritise differently. We all would. But it’s more about being sure that systems are effective. It’s about an attitude of constant vigilance and questioning – giving people confidence in each other and their data, and empowering them with systems they can rely on.

    https://www.energyglobal.com/downstream/refining/17072017/the-reality-of-risk-roundtable/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. White House Flips on Cyber Talks with Russia

    Jul 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By Peter Behr

    The Trump administration will explore discussions with Russia's government on limiting cybersecurity conflicts involving the two nations, White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert said Friday.

    Bossert told reporters on Air Force One, returning to the United States from Paris, that he would work with Cabinet secretaries to define how such a cybersecurity discussion might evolve before trying to open new lines to President Vladimir Putin's government.

    Bossert's explanation followed a confusing exchange around the Group of 20 meeting in Hamburg, Germany, this month, when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin described a possible U.S.-Russia communication on cybersecurity but President Trump appeared to scotch the idea (Energywire, July 11).

    "We have to have a conversation about the rules of the road in cyberspace, norms and expectations," Bossert said Friday. He added, "We at least start with what is acceptable behavior in cyberspace and what norms and expectations that we'll have moving forward, long before you get into the enforcement of those rules or anywhere near before we get into a partnership."

    U.S. authorities continue to investigate a hostile cybersecurity probe of U.S. energy and manufacturing facilities disclosed last month. While some press reports have speculated that hackers in Russia were responsible, there is no official confirmation of the source. Mark Bristow, deputy division director for the Hunt and Incident Response Team at the Department of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, discussed the investigation in an interview with E&E News but did not comment on the origins of the campaign (Energywire, July 14).

    Bossert was asked whether a cybersecurity "partnership" is possible with Russia in the current environment.

    "I would say we are not discussing a partnership here. That is certainly not what President Trump suggested. And that's not what I'm suggesting today," he said.

    "A partnership suggests that you've reached a place where you believe that you have a trusted relationship and you've come to some common agreement on ideals and goals and behaviors," Bossert said. "I don't believe that the United States and Russia have come to that point yet in cyberspace. And until we do, we wouldn't have the conversation about partnership. But we had to have a dialogue, and that's where we'll start."

    The cybersecurity agreement signed in 2015 by President Obama and China's President Xi Jinping is "not a template" for any discussions with Russia, Bossert said. That agreement addressed the widespread theft by Chinese hackers of U.S. companies' trade secrets, technology and other intellectual property, with both governments declaring they would not engage in or support such commercial espionage. Bossert said the agreement "is something that we would expect the Chinese to continue to honor. The United States is very serious about that."

    "I don't have any trend analysis to report today on whether China does or doesn't observe the norms," Bossert said.

    "But I believe that they have the commitment," he said, citing Trump's personal relationship with Xi.

    "Has that [the U.S.-China agreement] been 100 percent effective? No. But some of the most egregious activities prior to that have been reduced," said Christian Beckner, deputy director of the George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security.

    Talks with Putin's government "could be a step toward building some degree of rapport that could be the basis for avoiding escalation," Beckner said, "with no illusions that behavior will change anytime soon."

    He added, "It's OK to have that ongoing communication as long as you're realistic about what those activities can achieve."

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/07/17/stories/1060057449
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Texas Companies Often Go Unpunished for Industrial Incidents

    Jul 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

    Dennis Gallagher was a proud Shell Oil Co. employee for 23 years, but everything changed in 2015 when a critical pump failed in his Texas facility, releasing more than 300,000 pounds of 1,3-Butadiene — a known carcinogen — into the atmosphere.

    There was no explosion in the incident, but Gallagher says it cost him his job, and he began suffering from balance issues, a known side effect of butadiene exposure. He took a year off work and said he was fired after a minor screw-up during his retraining.

    But the cost to Shell was almost nothing. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality fined the company just $25,000 — the maximum allowed for an air violation under state law — and called for it to give its employees refresher safety training.

    What's more, the phenomenon isn't uncommon, according to numbers compiled by The Texas Tribune. There were 3,723 unplanned "emissions events" in Texas last year, an average of more than 10 per day.

    Collectively, these incidents added up to about 57.9 million pounds of excess air pollution in 2016. Scientists say the emissions events are exacerbating air quality problems in the state's largest cities.

    Still, companies are rarely fined, and when they are punished, the penalties are often insignificant and require little corrective action.

    TCEQ levied fines over fewer than 1 percent of emissions events reported during the 2016 calendar year, according to the Tribune data.

    As a result of poor enforcement, companies are often hesitant to do preventive maintenance on their machinery, and they seek to "keep running these plants until things break," said Neil Carman, a chemist who worked for more than a decade as a Texas enforcement inspector.

    Gallagher also faults Shell for poor maintenance, and he says the company could have done more to prevent the incident that eventually cost him his job.

    "It might be a big process to get it done, but you can get it done; Shell can do it," he said (Kiah Collier, Texas Tribune, July 17). — NS

    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/17/stories/1060057475
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Water Clean after Chemical Spill at Lake Michigan Tributary

    Jul 17, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)

    Chemical tests at an Indiana tributary that feeds Lake Michigan are coming up clear following a spill of a potentially carcinogenic chemical.

    The (Northwest Indiana) Times (http://bit.ly/2txsXq0 ) reports that the Burns Waterway has been tested weekly for hexavalent chromium following April’s spill at a U.S. Steel facility. Nearly 300 pounds (136 kilograms) of the chemical was spilled.

    The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore is assisting U.S. Steel with long-term monitoring of four beaches on the waterway.

    Charles Morris is an environmental protection specialist at the National Lakeshore. He says none of the samples taken so far have shown a concentration above the 0.03 milligrams per liter minimum detection level for hexavalent chromium. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s drinking water standard is 0.1 milligrams per liter.

    Sampling will continue until the end of August.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/water-clean-after-chemical-spill-at-lake-michigan-tributary/2017/07/17/e3e519ce-6b09-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html?utm_term=.b225888f94fb
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

16. EPA to Retain Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide Pollution

    Jul 17, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama

    The Trump administration says the current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard for nitrogen dioxide pollution concentrations should stay in place.

    The agency said it has completed a scientific review of the nitrogen dioxide standard from 2010 and determined that it is sufficiently protective of public health.

    “EPA proposes that the current [standards] don’t need to be changed because they provide the appropriate public health protection, with an adequate margin of safety, including for older adults, children and people with asthma,” an agency spokeswoman said in a statement.

    The EPA released a formal proposal Monday to keep the current limits in place. It will take public comments on the proposal before making it final.

    Nitrogen dioxide is a pollutant from burning fossil fuels and comes primarily from vehicles, power plants and industrial facilities. Inhaling it can exacerbate asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

    The current limit for nitrogen dioxide concentrations in ambient air are 53 parts per billion averaged over a year and a maximum 100 parts per billion for a one-hour period.

    Stricter limits would mandate that states and localities find ways to reduce pollution, like limiting development.

    The EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, a group of outside scientific advisers, recommended in April to keep the existing standard, based on its review of the scientific literature.

    The agency is required to review the nitrogen dioxide for potential changes every five years under the Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards provision.

    Environmental groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity sued the EPA last year, saying it missed its deadline. The EPA settled the case and agreed to complete its review this year.

    No areas in the United States are known to exceed the nitrogen dioxide limits, the EPA said.

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/342332-epa-wants-to-maintain-current-nitrogen-dioxide-pollution-rule
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. California Lawmakers to Decide Fate of Landmark Climate Law

    Jul 17, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)

    California lawmakers are nearing a vote on a climate change initiative.

    The decision Monday could give another decade of life to California's expiring cap-and-trade program. It has global implications as the largest U.S. state looks to be a model for reducing carbon emissions at a time when President Donald Trump is pulling back from fighting global warming.

    Gov. Jerry Brown has pitched the legislation with nearly apocalyptic rhetoric, calling it essential for the survival of civilization. But his plan has infuriated some environmental groups who say progressive California should be far more aggressive in combatting harmful pollution.

    The legislation is one of Brown's highest priorities as he nears the end of his fourth term, but he's struggled to line up support from the two-thirds of lawmakers needed to pass.

    https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/07/17/us/ap-us-california-climate-change.html?_r=0
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Greens Fear Momentum Loss in 9-State Climate Pact

    Jul 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

    By Benjamin Storrow

    Environmentalists are expressing growing alarm over the future of America's sole regional cap-and-trade program, saying the nine Northeastern states that constitute the compact appear increasingly open to a modest reduction in the program's emissions cap.

    Negotiations over the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative's emissions targets represent the first substantive test of state pledges to cut carbon in the Trump era. Six of RGGI's nine participants have signed onto the newly minted U.S. Climate Alliance, which has the stated goal of meeting the Paris climate accord's targeted emissions reduction of 26 percent by 2025.

    "If they can't follow through, it raises questions about how much meat on the bone there is to this thing," said Jackson Morris of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

    The warnings came as long-running discussions over RGGI's cap appeared to enter a new phase. Officials in Maryland told a meeting of the state's Commission on Climate Change Mitigation Working Group last week to expect a draft decision to be released by the end of the month.

    It also exposed the political fault lines of the nine-state program. New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu and Maine Gov. Paul LePage, both Republicans, have entertained the idea of departing the program in the past. They reportedly favor a less ambitious cap reduction (Climatewire, Nov. 28, 2016).

    New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), meanwhile, made a 30 percent reduction in RGGI emissions a feature of his 2017 State of the State address. Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have all committed to slashing emissions 80 percent by 2050.

    The source of the tension is three proposals to further reduce RGGI's carbon cap starting in 2020, when annually scheduled emissions reductions are scheduled to cease. The three proposed scenarios are a 2.5 percent annual cap reduction, a 3 percent annual cap reduction and a 3.5 percent annual cap reduction.

    Each proposal also includes varying fixes to the number of allowances power plant owners are allowed to bank and adjustments for emergency situations, during which extra pollution credits are made available.

    State and RGGI officials, for their part, remained mum over the talks. Nora Vogel, a RGGI spokeswoman, said she could not comment on the matter. The states had previously committed to unveiling a proposal by the end of the summer.

    "As far as what's been released, that's the latest," she said.

    A Connecticut spokesman warned about "speculation from others" about the state's position. Massachusetts referred comment to RGGI. Officials in New York and New Hampshire did not respond to requests for comment.

    Maryland officials, noting that RGGI operates by consensus, declined to comment on what they described as internal discussions.

    "From day one, Maryland's goal has been to keep the RGGI partnership strong and effective to cut emissions more deeply and broadly, while reducing costs to ratepayers and preventing dirty energy leakage from non-RGGI states," said Maryland Secretary of the Environment Ben Grumbles. "We're making real progress on all fronts, and that's good news for the environment, locally and globally."

    In meetings with environmentalists last week, state officials appeared to be increasingly open to the 2.5 percent scenario in a bid to appease New Hampshire and Maine, greens said.

    Environmentalists questioned that position, saying the 2.5 percent alternative saves ratepayers little compared to the other scenarios, while cutting far less carbon. RGGI modeling shows that the 2.5 percent scenario would save ratepayers 0.09 cent per kilowatt-hour in 2017 versus the 3 percent cap reduction. By contrast, the 3 percent scenario would cut an additional 99 million tons of carbon between 2019 and 2030 — or the equivalent of taking 19 million cars off the road for a year.

    The scenario is especially fraught for Cuomo and Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican whose administration publicly backed a 5 percent cap reduction last year (Climatewire, Sept. 7). Both have staked much on RGGI to drive future carbon reductions.

    "If the states come back with something less, you know the states that haven't said anything, New Hampshire and Maine, are more powerful," said Mark Kresowik, deputy regional director for Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.

    Peter Shattuck, director of the Acadia Center's Clean Energy Initiative, said the decision has become increasingly important in the wake of President Trump's announcement of the United States leaving the Paris Agreement.

    An Acadia Center study found that emissions in the RGGI region fell by 37 percent after 2008, the year the program was instituted, while electricity prices fell by more than 3 percent.

    "I think they need to follow through on the commitments they've made on climate change," Shattuck said. "This is now an issue of global importance."

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060057458
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. Trump May Reverse Decision on Climate Accord, France's Macron Says: JDD

    Jul 17, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

    French President Emmanuel Macron said he was hopeful that U.S. President Donald Trump would reverse his decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord, according to weekly newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche (JDD) on Sunday.
    

    "(Trump) told me that he would try to find a solution in the coming months," Macron told the paper, referring to meetings the two leaders had this week in Paris.
    

    "We spoke in detail about the things that could make him come back to the Paris accord," he added.

    Trump has said the Paris accord is soft on leading polluters like China and India, putting U.S. industry at risk.

    Trump on Friday appeared to hold the door open to a change of position on the 2015 Paris climate change agreement which he pulled the United States out of earlier this year.

    The accord, reached by nearly 200 countries in 2015, was meant to limit global warming to 2 degrees or less by 2100, mainly through pledges to cut carbon dioxide and other emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

    Trump has repeatedly said he would be open to a better deal for the United States.

    https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/07/17/world/europe/17reuters-france-usa-climatechange.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top