Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 8/30/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) INSIGHT: Massive US Petchem Capacities Knocked Out From Harvey
Aug 29, 2017 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
First and foremost, our thoughts, sympathies and best wishes are with the people of Texas who are going through the disaster caused by Hurricane Harvey. -
Chemical Facilities Face Danger During Harvey Shutdowns
Aug 30, 2017 | Chron
By Matt Dempsey and Jordan Blum
Hurricane Harvey's winds and floodwaters have created emergencies at chemical facilities across the Houston area, from an Exxon Mobil roof collapse at its massive Baytown complex to the risk of an explosion at a chemical plant northeast of Houston. -
Practitioner Insights: TSCA Preemption—Sooner Than Later
Aug 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric Gotting
Federal preemption of state chemical laws and regulations was hotly contested during debates on the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (“LCSA”), Pub. Law No. 114-182. -
(ACC Mentioned) Steve McQueen’s Widow is Outraged by Trump’s Pro-Asbestos Position in New PSA
Aug 29, 2017 | HuffPost
By Linda Reinstein
The Steve McQueen we know and love was a bonafide badass. Leather jacket, motorcycle, the works — and the attitude to match, both onscreen and off. Steve once famously said, “When I believe in something, I fight like hell for it.” -
Texas Floats Arsenic Cancer Risk Value, Providing Model For Revising EPA's
Aug 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is proposing a cancer risk estimate for arsenic that -- while using EPA's strict default linear method for cancer risk calculation -
Atrazine: A Harmful Weedkiller Taints Tap Water for Millions in U.S.
Aug 29, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Olga Naidenko and Sonya Lunder
Atrazine, a widely used agricultural weedkiller that disrupts hormones, contaminates tap water supplies for about 7.6 million Americans at potentially harmful levels. But the federal government is doing little to counter the threat. -
(ACC Mentioned) West Virginia 'At A Crossroads' With Appalachian Storage Hub Development
Aug 29, 2017 | The Exponent Telegram
By Linda Harris
The head of the West Virginia University research team that’s spent the past year studying geological formations to pinpoint the best sites for storing high-value natural gas liquids underground said knowing where to build the infrastructure is just a first step. -
Hurricane Harvey Challenges Response to Energy Facility Incidents
Aug 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Exxon Mobil's Baytown Refinery near Houston was damaged by Hurricane Harvey, the company told regulators, adding to the number of storm-related incidents challenging officials as feet of rain continue to fall in the state. -
Harvey’s Wrath Draws Millions in Relief from Energy Sector and Beyond
Aug 30, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The devastation from Hurricane Harvey will be difficult to overcome, but the energy industry is making an effort to ease the pain by donating money and time to relief efforts along the Gulf Coast. -
Gulf Coast Petrochemicals, Refineries Pummeled by Harvey
Aug 29, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
The storm formerly known as Hurricane Harvey officially broke continental U.S. rainfall records Tuesday, but nobody had to tell anyone living in the Houston area what they already knew. -
The Nuns Fighting The Pipeline Lost Their Case In Court. But They Aren’t Giving Up.
Aug 30, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Julie Zauzmer
The nuns knew it was a long shot when they teamed up with environmental activists to build a chapel in the path of a planned pipeline. -
Harvey Triggers Spike In Hazardous Chemical Releases
Aug 30, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre
Hobbled oil refineries and damaged fuel facilities along the Gulf Coast of Texas from Tropical storm Harvey have released more than two million pounds of dangerous chemicals into the air this week, adding new health threats to Houston’s already considerable woes. -
Air Pollution Economic Impact Model Lacks Clarity: EPA Advisers
Aug 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The EPA's model for evaluating the broad economic costs and benefits of air pollution regulations isn't clear enough to help the general public, members of the agency's Science Advisory Board said Aug. 29. -
Appellate Decisions Will Guide Future Of EPA's SO2 NAAQS Designations
Aug 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Two recent decisions by federal appeals courts will guide the future of EPA's issuance of designations for which areas are attaining the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) air standard, with one court agreeing to hear a suit over four existing designations while a separate circuit court has approved EPA's timetable for issuing other designations. -
Washington Urged To Heed Harvey Climate Warning
Aug 29, 2017 | Reuters
By Sophie Hares
Unprecedented flooding unleashed by Hurricane Harvey in the southern United States underscores the need for even wealthy countries to ramp up their disaster plans to keep vulnerable people safe and help them deal with the knock-out blows climate change could bring, experts say.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) INSIGHT: Massive US Petchem Capacities Knocked Out From Harvey
Aug 29, 2017 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
NEW YORK (ICIS)--First and foremost, our thoughts, sympathies and best wishes are with the people of Texas who are going through the disaster caused by Hurricane Harvey.
Texas is the heart of the US energy, refining and chemical sectors, and the damage and disruptionsfrom rain and floodwaters from the record storm will last for weeks and likely months.
Harvey and its lingering aftermath will take out an estimated 46% of total US ethylene capacity and 36% of polyethylene (PE) capacity offline for an uncertain period of time, according to Kevin McCarthy, analyst at Vertical Research.
The storm was “wreaking havoc with personnel, chemical production assets, access to electric power as well as with logistics, including rails, ports, barges and ocean freight”, said McCarthy in a 28 August report.
“Procurement of natural gas liquid (NGL) feedstock and other pipeline-related considerations remains of concern as well,” he added.
The Wall Street analyst estimates known US ethylene closures at 26.3bn lb/year (11.9m tonnes/year), or 38% of total US capacity, and polyethylene (PE) closures of 4.8m tonnes/year, or 29% of US capacity.
ICIS has similar but somewhat lower numbers.
Harvey Impacts on US Petrochemicals
Outages as of 29 AugustIncluding probable closures of additional plants, the totals amount to 12.6m tonnes/year, or 40% of ethylene capacity and 6.1m tonnes/year, or 36% of PE capacity, according to McCarthy of Vertical Research.
Lastly, the analyst takes into account estimated reduced operating rates of 70% at two Texas crackers – Dow’s Texas-8 in Freeport, and LyondellBasell’s facility in Channelview. That bumps up total US ethylene capacity curtailment to 14.6m tonnes/year, or 46% of the total.
IMPACT ON CYCLE DYNAMICS
While the disruptions to US ethylene and PE capacity and potential delays to new start-ups could push back the widely expected supply-driven downturn in prices caused by a wave of new projects starting up, they may not significantly alter long-term cycle dynamics.
“If the average duration of plant outages were two weeks, then the impact on available US ethylene/PE industry capacity would by -1.5-2.0% of nameplate levels. Thus, the magnitude and duration of outages has not yet risen to a level that is sufficient to alter our ‘big picture’ cycle view of a cyclical downturn that is likely to extend into 2019 based on numerous new plant start-ups in coming years,” said McCarthy.
“However, the unplanned restriction of capacity should lend at least temporary support to prices, possibly through year-end 2017,” he added.
The cumulative loss of US ethylene production from Harvey has amounted to about 90,000-95,000 tonnes as of 29 August, and is running at about 30,000 tonnes/day, according to Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
The overall US economy is expected to take hit in the third quarter from the impact of the storm, as Houston is the fourth largest city, but activity would snap back in Q4 2017 from construction activity, said Swift. The impact on the US chemical sector and the US economy is likely to be transitory, the economist said.
LOGISTICS ISSUES
US Gulf Coast operations are typically in low port areas prone to flooding, with mud and debris washing in, noted James Ray, senior consultant at ICIS based in Houston.
An average restart period of two weeks for crackers is not unreasonable for those that did not sustain major damage, he noted.
“Those on the ‘dirty side’ of Hurricane Harvey will be impacted the most. This will disrupt US Gulf Coast operations and those that depend on this region for feedstock,” said Ray.
“There is a ‘virtual pipeline’ of product on the road/water, in route, as well as some reserve supply on site for operations outside the US Gulf Coast, that depend on it for feedstock,” he added.
Typical lead time to get product from the US Gulf Coast to the US east coast is about seven days, to eastern Europe about 14 days and to Asia 21-28 days. Waterborne shipments are likely to be delayed by the weather, said the consultant.
“Onsite inventory levels are likely to be 7 to 28 days maximum. So disruption will be delayed for those outside the US Gulf Coast. However, once the logistics pipeline is disrupted for even a few days, there is a gap that is difficult to plug and which will hit them at some point if they are unable to accelerate deliveries or use alternate feedstocks or sources,” said Ray.
FORMOSA MAKING PROGRESS AT POINT COMFORT
Formosa Plastics USA on 29 August said it is making progress with facility assessment at its Point Comfort, Texas, site, with limited in-plant utilities in operation. Regular employee work schedules were set to commence on Tuesday evening “at reduced staffing levels due to the number of employees that have sheltered outside the immediate area”.
“Management teams are assessing production resumption constraints, strategies and timelines. We continue to work with our transportation providers to establish plans for resumption of their services,” the company said in a statement.
Earlier on 28 August, Formosa Plastics USA said its Point Comfort site did not suffer significant damage – “only modest damage has been observed”.
ACCESS TO FACILITIES A FACTOR
A major factor for chemical companies to even begin to approach the point of restarting plants is getting access to the locations, said Scott Jensen, director of issue communications at the ACC.
“Some facilities have limited crews on site, and they are inspecting and assessing. But they need broader access by employees who are also dealing with personal situations. Transportation and infrastructure such as ports and railroads and roads are at a standstill,” said Jensen.
ICIS ASSESSMENT ON OUTAGES
It’s not just ethylene and derivatives, but the whole gamut of commodity chemicals that will be impacted by supply restrictions. Prices are poised to rise, and even spike higher in the coming weeks and months.
As of 29 August, ICIS estimates about 37% of US ethylene capacity is currently offline, and 26% of PE capacity. Figures for other commodities offline include 23% for propylene, 25% for polypropylene (PP) and 31% for benzene.
BOOST TO VINYLS MOMENTUM
Among commodity chemicals, McCarthy of Vertical Research’s sees “the greatest potential for a boost to chlor-alkali and vinyls, where pre-hurricane market conditions have been supportive of ongoing price increases in caustic soda and nascent momentum in chlorine”.
He noted that as demand for chlorine tends to ebb seasonally this time of year, supply of co-product caustic soda can be restricted, even in normal market conditions.
“Now, Hurricane Harvey has forced the temporary shutdown of at least two sites – Occidental Chemical at Ingleside, Texas, and Formosa Plastics at Point Comfort, Texas – the combination of which will remove an estimated 10% from US chlor-alkali supply,” said McCarthy.
The analyst points out that the figure could rise materially, depending on the status of other facilities, including Olin’s at Freeport, Texas, which represents 20% of US chlor-alkali capacity.
Harvey and its aftermath
Operations at US Gulf Coast refineries and petrochemical plants have been disrupted this week by severe weather and flooding from Hurricane/Tropical Storm Harvey, leading to a wave of force majeure declarations.Harvey’s flooding rains have resulted in logistical issues as Texas ports remain closed and as several railroad companies have issued embargoes or suspended operations.
Visit ICIS Dashboard for a list of all the plants and markets affected by the storm. To view an interactive map of petrochemical plants in Texas, click here. Use the drop-down menu to see plants by products, and zoom in to see more details.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017/08/29/10137941/insight-massive-us-petchem-capacities-knocked-out-from-harvey/
-
Chemical Facilities Face Danger During Harvey Shutdowns
Aug 30, 2017 | Chron
By Matt Dempsey and Jordan Blum
Hurricane Harvey's winds and floodwaters have created emergencies at chemical facilities across the Houston area, from an Exxon Mobil roof collapse at its massive Baytown complex to the risk of an explosion at a chemical plant northeast of Houston.
The incidents, which also included a shelter-in-place Monday evening in La Porte from a pipeline leak, reveal how dangerous it can be when a storm of Harvey's magnitude collides with the nation's petrochemical capital. Even the controlled, Harvey-related shutdowns of refineries and plants are resulting in the release of millions of pounds of carbon monoxide and other chemicals into the region's atmosphere - primarily through a process called flaring.
"This is an unprecedented storm, and we have taken every effort to minimize emissions and safely shut down equipment," said Exxon spokeswoman Charlotte Huffaker. "Flaring is an environmentally approved measure to safely burn hydrocarbons that cannot be processed during a unit shutdown. This is necessary so personnel can safely work on the equipment."
Several companies, including Exxon, have reported problems with storage tanks in recent days. In Exxon's case, a roof collapse triggered the release of more than 12,000 pounds of potentially toxic chemical compounds, according to a filing with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
However, Exxon Mobil emphasized the collapse was partial and quickly brought under control. "The tank is now stable, and there are no containment issues," Huffaker added.
Northeast of Houston in Crosby, officials at an Arkema chemical plant are bracing themselves after multiple systems failed due to flooding.
Late Monday night, the facility lost power from both its primary supply and its backup generators. Employees moved highly volatile organic peroxides into back-up containers to keep them cool. If that class of chemical gets too hot, it can cause fires or explosions.
"At this time, while we do not believe there is any imminent danger, the potential for a chemical reaction leading to a fire and/or explosion within the site confines is real," Arkema spokeswoman Janet Smith said on Tuesday.
The Crosby Fire Department evacuated one employee last night and 11 remaining staff members were evacuated Tuesday afternoon when the refrigeration in some of the back-up containers also started to fail. State and local authorities began evacuating residents within a mile and a half of the plant Tuesday night.
Potential for harm
It would be surprising if Arkema had not considered a scenario like this, said Sam Mannan of Texas A&M University's Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center. Companies can typically quench organic peroxides in situations like this with another chemical, to eliminate the danger.
"You'll lose the feedstock, but it's safer than letting it go into runaway mode," Mannan said.
The plant has been shut down since Friday in anticipation of the storm.
Both the Arkema plant in Crosby and the Exxon Mobil facility in Baytown were among the Houston-area sites with the highest potential for harm in an incident, according to a 2016 analysis by the O'Connor Process Safety Center and the Houston Chronicle. That analysis factored risks based on the amount and type of dangerous chemicals on site and their proximity to the public.
Arkema is working with the Department of Homeland Security and the state of Texas on a safe location for a command post to manage the situation.
In La Porte, a pipeline operated by Oklahoma-based Williams Cos. leaked dangerous chemicals Monday evening that triggered a shelter-in-place warning.
The leak was stopped that night, and no injuries were reported. Residents of La Porte, Shoreacres and Baytown were warned to close their windows and turn off their air conditioners. The Fred Hartman Bridge was closed over the Houston Ship Channel but has since reopened.
Williams Cos. officials said they will investigate the cause of the incident. The chemical that leaked, just north of the interchange between Texas 225 and Texas 146, was anhydrous hydrogen chloride, "which presents symptoms of eye, throat and nasal irritation," according to a statement issued by the city of La Porte. A federal safety guide identifies hydrogen chloride as a corrosive poison gas that "can cause serious or permanent injury." The nonflammable substance is used to manufacture "rubber, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and in gasoline refining and metals processing."
The Tulsa-based pipeline giant said the leak occurred at an "instrumentation rack" along a 14.5-mile system of 18-inch pipe that transports anhydrous hydrogen chloride gas.
Chemicals released
Nine other facilities have released some amount of chemicals due to Harvey, according to National Response Center data.
Nothing releases more emissions than the controlled shutdowns and restarts of refineries and chemical plants.
Emissions from Wednesday through Monday in the greater Houston area represent nearly 40 percent of the region's releases for all of 2016, based on pounds of chemicals, according to Luke Metzger, director of the advocacy group Environment Texas.
Roughly 2 million pounds of emissions have been released during Harvey-related shutdowns and incidents, compared to more than 5.2 million pounds all of last year.
Metzger argues these emissions are "illegal," because many exceed allowable limits.
He said the companies wait until the last minute to shut down plants, so they can collect as much money as possible, which creates more environmental hazards and emissions when the plants are shuttered more suddenly. These toxic emissions of carbon monoxide and other harmful chemicals can lead to increased cancer risks and respiratory problems, he argued.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Chemical-facilities-face-danger-during-Harvey-12160003.php
-
Practitioner Insights: TSCA Preemption—Sooner Than Later
Aug 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric Gotting
Federal preemption of state chemical laws and regulations was hotly contested during debates on the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (“LCSA”), Pub. Law No. 114-182. In the end, industry and states were left with a complicated but limited form of TSCA preemption, where numerous factors may come into play in determining whether a state chemical control law applies.
Because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) will be assessing the thousands of chemicals on the market today over many years, likely no more than 20 or so at a time once the program is fully underway, we do not expect to see any significant preemption of state chemical control laws for some time. However, there are already a handful of ongoing, potentially overlapping EPA and state evaluations/proposals involving particular existing chemical substances that could trigger federal preemption questions in the near future. These include 1,4 dioxane, asbestos, hexabromocyclododecane, methylene chloride, N-methylpyrrolidone, decabromodiphenyl ethers, hexachlorobutadiene, and trichloroethylene. Perhaps the most interesting involves efforts by both EPA and the State of California to regulate the use of methylene chloride in paint strippers and, in particular, the interplay between the reformed TSCA and California's Green Chemistry initiative.
Federal and State Action on Methylene Chloride
Following the June 22, 2016, passage of the TSCA amendments, EPA initiated two separate actions on methylene chloride: (1) it formally proposed to ban the chemical's use in most paint stripping applications (“Methylene Chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone; Regulation of Certain Uses Under TSCA Section 6(a)”; and (2) it commenced a risk evaluation of all other uses of methylene chloride under its new authorities (“Designation of Ten Chemical Substances for Initial Risk Evaluations Under the Toxic Substances Control Act.” Section 6(b)(2)(A) of TSCA required EPA to commence risk evaluations on ten of the 90 chemicals listed in the Agency's 2014 TSCA Work Plan for Chemicals Assessment (“Work Plan”) by December 19, 2016, and the non-paint stripper uses of methylene chloride were selected to be one of those ten. EPA published the initial scope of its risk evaluation for methylene chloride (and the nine other substances in this group) on July 7, 2017.
At the same time, the State of California is preparing targeted risk management measures aimed at restricting the use of methylene chloride in paint strippers. California is taking independent action pursuant to the state's Green Chemistry initiative, also known as the Safer Consumer Products (“SCP”) program. The SCP program was created by a 2008 California statute and initial implementing regulations adopted in 2013. In this article, we examine the preemption provisions of the amended TSCA in the context of the contemporaneous federal and state actions on methylene chloride, and the extent to which TSCA's preemption provisions will preclude California from regulating methylene chloride in paint strippers.
The Lautenberg Act's Preemption Mechanisms
In general, the new TSCA Section 18 preemption provisions will prohibit the enforcement of any state chemical regulation of a particular substance once EPA both completes a Section 6 risk evaluation for the substance and either: (1) determines that the chemical will not present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment; or (2) concludes that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk under the circumstances of use, and promulgates a rule under Section 6(c) that restricts manufacturing or use of the chemical to mitigate the identified risks. From that point, with certain exemptions discussed below, states are forever prohibited from maintaining existing restrictions or enacting new restrictions on the manufacture, processing, distribution or use of the substance that are different from those imposed by EPA with respect to uses within the scope of EPA's risk evaluation. For example, and subject to certain exemptions, where EPA has concluded that the chemical does not present an unreasonable risk, any state restrictions on uses of the substance within the scope of EPA's risk evaluation would be barred.
Preemption Pause
In addition to permanent preemption at the end of the TSCA Section 6 risk evaluation and risk management process, there is a limited period of temporary preemption that arises during the risk evaluation itself. Referred to as “pause preemption,” new state chemical regulations applicable to a substance are prohibited if they are established on or after the date that EPA publishes the scope of the risk evaluation for the substance undergoing formal risk evaluation under Section 6(b)(4). This temporary preemption of new state rules remains in effect until either EPA completes and publishes its formal risk evaluation for the chemical or, if EPA misses the statutory deadline for risk evaluations under TSCA Section 6(b)(4)(G), the date 3½ years after the commencement of the risk evaluation. This protects chemical manufacturers from the burden of new, state requirements for the expected duration of the risk evaluation process, but allows states to enforce their new desired controls for an interim period after formal risk evaluation has been (or should have been) completed, but before the risk management controls (if any) are promulgated and have become effective.
Preemption Pause Exemptions
There would be no “pause preemption” for any new state regulation of paint stripping uses of methylene chloride or of uses of any other chemical for which a final risk assessment was issued by EPA under the Work Plan prior to the TSCA amendments. EPA is authorized by Section 26(l)(4) to propose risk management rules for these uses without a separate Section 6 risk evaluation. TSCA Section 18(b)(2) effectively exempts state rules regulating these uses from any “pause preemption” because Section 26(l)(4) permits EPA to proceed to establishing risk management controls without first publishing the risk evaluation scope required under TSCA Section 6(b)(4)(D) that otherwise triggers pause preemption. New state standards for these uses would not be preempted during the development of risk management measures but may be preempted after EPA takes final action, depending on the nature of the underlying state requirement.
Also, exempt from pause preemption are any state standards applicable to a chemical that were established prior to EPA's publication of a TSCA Section 6(b)(4)(D) risk evaluation scope for the substance. “Pause preemption” applies only to new state rules that are established after EPA has published the scope of its intended risk assessment for a chemical. Under Section 18(b)(1), state rules established before that date stay in effect until EPA takes final action after completing the risk evaluation. This provides any interested states a window of as much as six months after EPA determines a substance to be a “high priority substance” to establish new manufacturing or use standards for that substance. If it acts either before or during that window, the state restriction can remain in place at least until EPA takes final action, which may be as long as seven years. (EPA must complete the risk evaluation within three years and risk management controls within an additional four years).
‘Grandfather Clause’ Preemption Exemption
Perhaps the most significant federal preemption exemption for state chemical rules is for certain state chemical regulatory requirements enacted prior to the TSCA amendments. TSCA Section 18(e)(1) generally exempts from potential federal preemption any substance-specific state requirements enacted before April 22, 2016, and also exempts from preemption chemical regulatory action taken on a substance at any time if the action is taken pursuant to a state law that was enacted prior to August 31, 2003 (e.g., California's Proposition 65). 15 U.S.C. §§ 2617(e)(1)(A), (B). State rules in these categories are never preempted under TSCA Section 18 and remain in effect even after EPA takes final action on a chemical.
Other Types of State Chemical Rules Exempt from Preemption
There are several other classes of state chemical control requirements that are not subject to TSCA preemption. These include: (1) state laws that impose only reporting, monitoring, or information obligations; and (2) environmental laws that regulate air quality, water quality, or hazardous waste treatment or disposal. Moreover, states can apply to EPA for rule-specific waivers from either the preemption pause or permanent preemption. As to the latter, the state must make several showings in its application, such as that the state law is grounded in sound science and that the waiver will not unduly burden interstate commerce. EPA has discretion whether or not to grant the waiver from permanent preemption. 15 U.S.C. § 2617(f).
Thus, except to the extent ‘pause preemption’ applies, states generally will remain free to maintain existing use controls and impose new bans or restrictions on individual chemicals, at least until EPA completes a risk evaluation of relevant uses of the chemical and takes any appropriate risk management actions. Even where the Agency has acted, whether state rules are preempted (and the scope of any preemption) depends on a number of factors, including principally the timing of a state's legislation or rules.
TSCA Preemption and California's Green Chemistry Regulations
Application of TSCA's preemption grandfather clause will be a straight-forward exercise in most instances, such as when a state has regulated “a specific chemical substance” within its borders prior to the first grandfather date of April 22, 2016, or when it has regulated a specific chemical after that date but pursuant to a statute enacted prior to the second grandfather date of August 31, 2003. In those cases, the state regulation would be grandfathered and not subject to TSCA preemption. So-called state Green Chemistry laws enacted after 2003, however, may raise more difficult questions. State Green Chemistry laws and regulations often do not impose restrictions on a specific chemical; in many cases, they establish a legal framework for a state agency to designate and impose restrictions on individual chemicals and uses in the future. This raises the question whether chemical-specific regulations issued after April 22, 2016 pursuant to a law adopted before that date are subject to preemption or protected by the grandfathered clause.
This scenario may soon play out. Under California's SCP program, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) is designating “Priority Products” that contain particular “Chemicals of Concern” (“CoC”) (e.g. , methylene chloride in paint strippers). The manufacturers (and potentially retailers) of designated Priority Products may be subject to substantial regulatory requirements, potentially including state use restrictions on particular chemicals, such as limits on the amount or concentration of a chemical in a product, use restrictions to reduce exposures to the chemical, or a complete ban on the Chemical of Concern / product combination. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22 §§ 69506.4, .5. To date, the DTSC has proposed (to different degrees) to regulate three such products, including paint strippers containing methylene chloride. As noted, under TSCA Section 6(a), EPA also has proposed to regulate use of methylene chloride paint strippers. If both EPA and DTSC issue methylene chloride paint stripper regulations, will the California regulations be preempted?It might be argued that it is sufficient for preemption protection that the California SCP statute and general implementing regulations were adopted before the April 22, 2016, grandfather date, even if a specific regulation of methylene chloride use is not enacted until after the grandfather date. Indeed, DTSC arguably acted to signal its intent to regulate methylene chloride in some manner prior to the grandfather date when it formally designated the chemical as a Candidate Chemical for regulatory action in 2013.
However, we believe the better view is that SCP chemical-specific requirements first adopted after the grandfather date would not be exempt from preemption and would be preempted to the extent the California requirements prohibit or otherwise restrict manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use or disposal of methylene chloride with respect to uses within the scope of EPA's risk evaluation(s). Grandfather protection only applies to state “action[s] taken” or “requirement[s] imposed” or “enacted” with respect to a particular chemical substance prior to the grandfather date. General program framework regulations that do not regulate any particular chemical are not enough. Similarly, mere listing of a “Candidate Chemical” does not impose any state requirements that might be preserved.
Regardless, if California were to adopt rules regulating use of methylene chloride in paint strippers before EPA's pending risk management rule for that same use is finalized and effective, the California rules would not be subject to pause preemption, and could remain in effect until EPA's final risk management rule for that use became effective. Paint stripper use of methylene chloride was the subject of a risk assessment completed under the Work Plan before the TSCA amendments. Thus, EPA never issued a TSCA Section 6(b)(4)(D) risk evaluation scope for the paint stripper use and state regulation of that use is not subject to pause preemption. Moreover, EPA has now issued a risk evaluation scope for other uses of methylene chloride. If California were to establish use restrictions under the SCP program on any other methylene chloride use covered by EPA's risk evaluation scope, the California restrictions would be subject to pause preemption, as well as permanent preemption once any risk management rule became effective.
As to other potential exemptions, the initial obligations for manufacturers of products formally designated as “Priority Products” under the California SCP regulations might well be deemed “informational” and exempt from preemption by TSCA Section 18(d)(1)(A)(ii). Once a Priority Product is listed, manufacturers first notify DTSC of their status and, absent an applicable exemption, must then perform an elaborate alternatives analysis to assess possible measures to reduce potential exposure and risk of harm to public health and the environment. California would not act to restrict manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, or use of the COC in the product, if at all, until the end of the process, after the alternatives analysis is completed. TSCA only preempts state action that prohibits or restricts manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use or disposal of a chemical.
While this underscores that even a formal listing as a SCP Priority Product before the grandfather date would not seem to be sufficient to prevent subsequent preemption, it also suggests that states may retain some portion of whatever authority they may have under state law to compel risk analysis, data development, and other “information” obligations. However, this potential authority is not unlimited. TSCA Section 18(a)(1)(A) specifically preempts state administrative actions to compel development of information about a substance to the extent duplicative of information required to be developed under TSCA Sections 4, 5 or 6.
Of course, for such a dispute to arise, EPA must finalize a Section 6(a) risk management rule and California's DTSC must conclude that its own restrictions are still warranted after paint stripper manufacturers have conducted the required alternatives analysis for methylene chloride. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22 §§ 69501, 69505. Alternatively, California could ask EPA to grant a waiver under Section 18(f) or DTSC could issue a discretionary exemption under its own regulations from SCP obligations if there were either a direct conflict between its rule and EPA's regulation, or where there is substantial overlap between the two. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22 §§ 69501, 69506.9.
Conclusion
The scope of preemption as applied to California's efforts to regulate methylene chloride is just one of numerous examples of how the amended TSCA may intersect state laws. Industry must pay close attention to all of the nuances of TSCA Section 18—the grandfather clause, statutory exceptions, discretionary and mandatory state waivers, low- or high-priority designations, and the timing of any action taken by EPA and the states—to adequately determine whether there is any preemptive effect.
Eric Gotting is a partner in Keller and Heckman LLP's litigation and environmental practice groups. His practice focuses on civil and appellate matters, administrative law, internal investigations, enforcement actions, and toxic torts. James Votaw is a partner in the firm's environmental practice group. He specializes in regulatory compliance in the areas of nanotechnology, chemicals, pesticides, consumer and industrial products, and industrial processes and wastes. Adrienne Timmel is an associate in the firm's Washington office. She practices environmental law, focusing on chemical and pesticide regulation—both in the United States and internationally—fuels registration and compliance, and product safety.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119810494&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119810494&jd=119810494
-
(ACC Mentioned) Steve McQueen’s Widow is Outraged by Trump’s Pro-Asbestos Position in New PSA
Aug 29, 2017 | HuffPost
By Linda Reinstein
The Steve McQueen we know and love was a bonafide badass. Leather jacket, motorcycle, the works — and the attitude to match, both onscreen and off. Steve once famously said, “When I believe in something, I fight like hell for it.”
Since Steve’s life and fight was cut so suddenly short by asbestos-caused mesothelioma, his widow Barbara McQueen has taken up the fight against his killer. With a newly released anti-asbestos PSA video, she is adding her powerful voice to the conversation at a crucial moment.
Despite the fact that asbestos kills an estimated 15,000 Americans every year — from construction workers to schoolteachers to movie stars — it still hasn’t been banned in the U.S. In fact, we still import tons of raw asbestos for manufacturing and millions of dollars worth of asbestos-contaminated products.
In 2016, historic (and bipartisan, believe it or not) legislation brought us closer than ever to finally getting asbestos banned. But under Trump, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken a drastic pro-business, anti-science turn and threatens to undo years of hard-fought but collaborative progress.
President Obama earmarked asbestos as the litmus test for success when he signed the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA) into law last June. He posed the idea of an asbestos ban as a no-brainer with the bolstered regulatory power LCSA gave to the EPA. The EPA echoed that sentiment in November — while still being led by Obama-appointed Administrator Gina McCarthy — by prioritizing asbestos as one of the first 10 chemicals for evaluation and regulation under LCSA.
Trump, on the other hand, has publicly praised asbestos as a quality “100% safe” building material for years, and suggested that the campaign to ban asbestos is led by the mafia. All this in spite of the fact that Trump himself has been sued by former contracted employees for dangerous work conditions, including “choking clouds of asbestos dust.”
hen Trump took office, he appointed Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA, despite the fact that Pruitt had sued the agency 14 times in his capacity as state AG and is a climate change denier.
During his confirmation hearing, Pruitt was asked directly if he would ban asbestos, or if he would defer to the President’s affinity for the known carcinogen. Pruitt repeatedly refused to offer a clear answer.
Since being confirmed, Pruitt has proceeded to staff his EPA with like-minded industry insiders, whose job histories and track records suggest a heavy business bias.
Nancy Beck, the new Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), is a longtime chemical industry executive. She left her senior policy director position with American Chemistry Council (ACC) to join the EPA. Decades have proven that the ACC is one of the major trade industries fighting protect the use of asbestos in American manufacturing. Most recently, Michael Dourson has been tapped to lead the OCSPP. Dourson left a previous post at the EPA in 1995 to found the nonprofit Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), which has “close ties to chemical manufacturers, tobacco companies and other industry interests,” according to the Center for Public Integrity (CPI).
“TERA goes out of its way to describe itself as a nonprofit, to emphasize it works for government, not just industry…when in fact [Dourson] and his group engage in industry-funded activities all the time,” Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), told CPI.
This caliber of EPA leadership coupled with the Trump administration’s anti-regulatory agenda draws the future of health and environmental policies into question.
For asbestos, this means that — despite decades of damning evidence — the current regulatory evaluation process could quite easily be derailed by industry-backed junk science and rubber stamped by a series of Trump yes-men.
Asbestos-caused cancers are preventable, but Barbara and I both had to bury our husbands because of this deadly mineral. We’re refusing to stand back and let this unconscionable negligence continue.
Our story could become your story. Until we have a ban on asbestos, we continue to expose more Americans, young and old, to deadly asbestos. Help counter the alternative facts and fake news on asbestos by sharing Barbara’s important PSA with your friends and family. Find more resources at www.adao.us.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-mcqueens-widow-speaks-out-against-trumps-anti_us_599f39d9e4b0a62d0987adcd
-
Texas Floats Arsenic Cancer Risk Value, Providing Model For Revising EPA's
Aug 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is proposing a cancer risk estimate for arsenic that -- while using EPA's strict default linear method for cancer risk calculation -- produces a much weaker value than the agency's controversial 2010 proposal, providing a model for how the Trump administration may revise EPA's if it seeks to do so.
Like EPA's proposal, TCEQ's draft report, released Aug. 16 for public comment, relies on the strict default linear approach that assumes no safe level of exposure, sidestepping controversy over whether it should instead be assessed using a non-linear, or threshold, approach that assumes that there is some threshold level of exposure below which it is safe.
But unlike the federal proposal, Texas' draft plan uses an analysis of a score of epidemiology studies from around the world, rather than just the single controversial study from Taiwan that EPA relied on.
The result is a draft cancer potency estimate of 3.3x10^-02 per milligram per kilogram bodyweight per day (per mg/kg-day) -- a cancer potency estimate some 78 times weaker than the cancer slope factor (CSF) of 25.7 per mg/kg-day that EPA proposed in its 2010 draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of inorganic arsenic (iAs).
"We were hoping to show by example how EPA could take a broad-based [epidemiology (epi)] approach to the question," Lorenz Rhomberg, a principal with Gradient Corp., the contractor that performed the underlying data analysis for TCEQ, tells Inside EPA. He adds that it's a suggestion for EPA to show how the agency may be able to implement advice from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which in 2013 reviewed the agency's draft and provided a series of recommendations for overhauling it.
The values in EPA's 2010 draft assessment -- which were 17 times stricter than the IRIS program's 1991 CSF of 1.5 per mg/kg-day -- raised widespread concerns, particularly with smaller drinking water utilities in Western parts of the country with higher levels of arsenic in the soil, and also within the agency due to the broad regulatory effects that would result.
Critics charged that EPA's use of linear extrapolation combined with data from highly exposed populations in Taiwan led to the overly-conservative assessment in 2010.
EPA has been seeking to update its 1991 IRIS assessment of arsenic's human health risks since the mid-1990s. The assessment has undergone numerous drafts, re-writes and peer reviews. But EPA's last two public drafts used strict linear modeling to calculate the proposed cancer risk estimates, as well as controversial Taiwanese epidemiology data, resulting in risk values that industry groups warned would have driven unattainable and cost-prohibitive drinking water, soil cleanup, pesticide safety and other regulatory limits.
The criticism prompted Congress to require EPA to have NAS review the arsenic assessment, along with additional IRIS reviews, and the agency re-started the arsenic assessment nearly from scratch.
EPA has yet to release another public draft of its arsenic assessment. The document has undergone internal review within the program that crafts IRIS assessments. Once recommendations from this review process are addressed, the draft will be ready for the next step in the process, review within EPA more broadly, an agency source says.
EPA's press office did not respond to a request for an update on the assessment's status by press time.
TCEQ's Assessment
TCEQ undertook its own arsenic assessment after a "public request for toxicity information" in February 2014, according to the draft document.
While TCEQ's draft assessment adopts a linear approach, it relies on work from its contractor to consider 19 epidemiology studies, in contrast to the single study EPA relied on. Texas explains in its draft report, that "[w]hile the mode of action evidence support there being a threshold, making a robust quantitative demonstration of a threshold using epidemiological data is difficult. Consequently, a no threshold relationship between [inorganic arsenic] and cancer risk was assumed in deriving toxicity factors."
Rhomberg, TCEQ's contractor, explains that Gradient focused on epidemiology data at TCEQ's request -- based on the NAS' 2013 recommendations to EPA.
"I think Texas is trying to say we think that's a good idea, and we want to do it that way too," Rhomberg said. "Our task was to use the epi data to come up with an estimate for potency."
Rhomberg said that his group examined the epi data for evidence of thresholds, but would have been surprised to find any. "Epi data don't lend themselves to" establishing thresholds, he said, adding that other types of evidence, such as mode of action studies, provide better evidence of threshold.
The EPA source agrees that "people are not able to demonstrate a population threshold with robust epi data for a wide variety of chemicals," adding that some reasons that may explain this "are that the exposure curve is noisy and obscures any population threshold that may exist or additivity to background risk makes dose-response relatively linear."
"This has been under discussion for awhile," Rhomberg says of the approach. "It's still under discussion at EPA. … We really were thinking with the number of [epi] studies [there are], take a meta regression approach, instead of saying, 'One study from Taiwan is applicable [to the U.S. population], look for similarities across studies."
Rhomberg said that the idea behind the approach was to "try to get some common information across studies about how the [cancer] slope [factor] would go." To do so, Rhomberg and his colleagues sought to use as many epi studies as possible, though they discarded from their analysis those with methodological difficulties. They developed a common slope factor based on elevation over background in each study."
TCEQ explains further that "Meta-regression was used to pool data across studies from different regions of the world to derive oral [CSFs] for [inorganic arsenic] based on the background risks (i.e., incidences) of bladder and lung cancer in the US. The CSFs derived represent more objective measures of incremental cancer risk from iAs exposure than those previously derived using a single dataset (e.g., the Southwest Taiwanese cohort utilized in USEPA 2010)."
EPA's much stricter draft number came about because agency staff chose the study they did, with a highly exposed Asian population, and used the linear exposure approach, Rhomberg adds.
NAS' Recommendations
NAS, in its 2013 recommendations to EPA on how it should re-do its draft assessment, urged the agency to step away from the linear method, arguing that there is sufficient information about the ubiquitous metal to drop the traditional approach that results in very strict risk estimates. Instead, NAS recommended that EPA use newer epidemiological data, some of which includes exposures and effects at lower levels than the Taiwanese data or toxicological data, to form the basis for modeling the dose-response curve and reduce the need for extrapolation.
"The [NAS] committee proposes a limited extrapolation by using the modeled shape of the dose-response relationship to provide a data-informed estimate of the potential dose-response relationship below the range of observation," the report says. "EPA could use different models and present the risk estimates that would result to illustrate the magnitude of the impact of selecting one model over another. Justification should be provided for the chosen model, including any policy considerations that were factored into the decision."
TCEQ's contractor, Gradient, included some low-dose studies in its analysis, says Sam Cohen, an oncology professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, which helped to address lower levels of arsenic that Americans are generally exposed to in their environment. EPA's reliance on Asian data, "without considering the differences in the U.S. population, was not the correct way to go forward," Cohen says.
As evidence, he pointed to four studies published since EPA's 2010 draft showing "no increased risk" for cancer or cardiovascular disease in American and Japanese populations from eating rice, which is adept at taking up arsenic in soil.
Cohen, who has long argued in comments and presentations before EPA that arsenic has a threshold and should be modeled as such, added that he wished Gradient and TCEQ had utilized additional data, rather than relying on the linear default. "I'm encouraged they lessened the slope," he said. "There could be a stronger statement about threshold level even though it can't be [demonstrated] with epi evidence … mechanistic [evidence] strongly supports a threshold."
TCEQ notes that Gradient performed "[s]ensitivity analyses … to determine the effect of various assumptions on the analysis (e.g., average iAs drinking water concentration versus cumulative exposure or daily iAs intake as the exposure metric, study population/location), including study quality considerations. Populations with relatively high iAs exposures appeared to drive the pooled cancer risk estimates. … Overall, results of the meta-regression analyses show that the incremental risks of bladder and lung cancer associated with iAs are relatively low."
TCEQ goes on to conduct some calculations to test the CSFs based on bladder and lung cancer that it combines to get its CSF for regulatory purposes. "Considering these oral CSFs in conjunction with typical exposure levels in the U.S. and Texas results in estimates of excess risk that are much lower than the underlying observed incidences of bladder and lung cancer, which supports the plausibility of the CSF estimates. Furthermore, it indicates that existing widespread exposures of the general US population to relatively low doses of iAs are unlikely to result in substantial excess cancer risks, but rather result in potential risks well within the USEPA acceptable excess risk range (1E-06 to 1E-04)."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/texas-floats-arsenic-cancer-risk-value-providing-model-revising-epas
-
Atrazine: A Harmful Weedkiller Taints Tap Water for Millions in U.S.
Aug 29, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Olga Naidenko and Sonya Lunder
Atrazine, a widely used agricultural weedkiller that disrupts hormones, contaminates tap water supplies for about 7.6 million Americans at potentially harmful levels. But the federal government is doing little to counter the threat.
EWG’s Tap Water Database, based on water tests by public water systems nationwide, shows that in 2015 atrazine was detected in more than 800 systems in 19 states at levels exceeding a health-protective guideline. The annual average atrazine level did not exceed the legal limit set by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in these systems, but that level is 20 times a non-enforceable public health goal determined by California state scientists.
High levels of atrazine were found in 237 water systems serving more than 3 million people in Texas, and in 192 systems serving more than a million people in Kansas. Other states struggling with widespread atrazine contamination of drinking water are Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio. To see if atrazine contaminates your tap water supply, search for your local water utility in EWG’s database.
Atrazine, manufactured by the agro-chemical giant Syngenta, is one of the most heavily sprayed pesticides in American agriculture. EWG's analysis of data from the U.S. Geological Survey and the EPA for 2014, the most recent year available, found that most of the 70 million to 80 million pounds of atrazine used each year are sprayed on corn during the spring. The highest levels of atrazine in tap water are detected in May and June.
In 2012 Syngenta settled a class action lawsuit brought by water utilities with atrazine contamination for $105 million. The settlement money was distributed to communities with the most contamination, but for many systems even this was too little money to cover costs of long-term water treatment.
Atrazine has been banned in Europe since the 1980s under laws that prohibit the use of any pesticide that contaminates drinking water. But in U.S., the federal government places few restrictions on its use.
Atrazine harms hormones in people and wildlife
Tyrone Hayes, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, has found that atrazine can cause male frogs to become “functionally female,” or hermaphroditic. In humans, atrazine disrupts the male and female hormone systems.
Recent studies of American communities with atrazine-contaminated water associate exposure with increased cancer risk, shorter pregnancy and altered menstrual cycles. These studies examine people drinking water with atrazine concentrations well below the federal legal limit of 3 parts per billion, or ppb. A part per billion is about one drop of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool. In contrast, scientists at the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment determined in 1999 that atrazine contamination of tap water above 0.15 ppb increases the lifetime risk of developing cancer.
Federal atrazine rules fail to protect young children and the developing fetus
The EPA's monitoring data for 2014 show that some Midwestern communities experience atrazine spikes in the spring and summer at levels well above the legal limit. In 2014, atrazine concentrations in 18 communities exceeded the legal limit of 3 ppb, sometimes for weeks. For example, atrazine contamination peaked at 32 ppb in Blanchester, Ohio, from May 5 to June 9, and at 21 ppb in Beloit, Kan., from June 9 to July 7.
The EPA monitoring program targets water systems most vulnerable to atrazine contamination. The systems monitored change from year to year, which can make comparison between years and analysis of trends difficult. The EPA has not yet released data for 2015 or 2016 – information should be immediately released to let families, utilities and regulators know if their communities are at risk of exposure to unsafe levels of the pesticide.
Atrazine poses the biggest health risks during pregnancy and infancy. Because of their small size and limited diets, bottle-fed babies consume five to six times higher doses of water pollutants than adults in the same household. Scientists don't how long children must be exposed before suffering harm – but when it comes to children’s health, why take a risk?
EWG and our supporters have demanded that the EPA ban this water-contaminating pesticide. Until this happens, EWG recommends filtering your tap water. Check out EWG’s Water Filter Buying Guide to find the right home water filter for your budget and living circumstances.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/08/atrazine-harmful-weedkiller-taints-tap-water-millions-us#.WaZ_xrIjGUk
-
(ACC Mentioned) West Virginia 'At A Crossroads' With Appalachian Storage Hub Development
Aug 29, 2017 | The Exponent Telegram
By Linda Harris
CANONSBURG, Pa. — The head of the West Virginia University research team that’s spent the past year studying geological formations to pinpoint the best sites for storing high-value natural gas liquids underground said knowing where to build the infrastructure is just a first step.
The real test will be convincing the private sector to pony up millions of dollars to develop storage hubs before they have any customers, one storage area at a time.
Brian Anderson, director of the WVU Energy Institute, said it’s a gamble, but one West Virginia needs to have happen.
“We’re at a crossroads in the state of West Virginia,” he said. “Our economy is shifting, and if we don’t add value to our raw materials, we’re due for another 100 years of exporting those raw materials and not adding value in the region.”
The study was sponsored by the Tri-State Shale Coalition, a cooperative venture among Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia that takes a regional approach to creating economic opportunity.
Led by WVU’s Energy Institute, researchers identified and mapped areas of opportunity along the Ohio River from southwestern Pennsylvania to eastern Kentucky and the Kanawha River Valley, focusing on three storage options:Areas where the Salina F Salt is at least 100 feet thick and suitable for solution mining, a type of mining that uses a liquid such as water injected through a bore hole to dissolve and extract salts and minerals;• Areas where Greenbrier Limestone is present 1,800 to 2,000 feet below the surface and is at least 40 feet thick;
• The potential for converting existing sandstone reservoirs in depleted gas fields and inactive gas storage fields to natural gas liquids storage.
Anderson said the areas of interest extend from Southwestern Pennsylvania, where Royal Dutch Shell is spending $6 billion-plus to build an ethane cracker in Monaca “all the way to the base of the Northern Panhandle.” Monaca is about a 20-minute drive from northern Hancock County.
“Before we did the study, people owned property with no idea what was below it,” added Doug Patchen, director of the WVU Appalachian Oil and Natural Gas Research Consortium and Petroleum Technology Transfer Council-Eastern Region. “Now they have a good idea what is below it and what they can do with it. We’re not picking favorites, really.”
Patchen said they were tasked with “mapping everything important in the whole area, from one end to the other, in all 50 counties in the area.”
“Everybody will just have to look at their own site, their own property, and make a determination,” he said. “We just looked at geology, nothing else. We didn’t look at who owned property, whether they wanted their property to be used for this sort of thing.
“It’s going to be competitive,” Patchen added. “There are probably multiple companies that would like to have it.”
Ultimately, Anderson said cost will drive the decision-making.
“It really is wide open,” he said. “At this point, the next commercial step is to identify customers, suppliers, connections to infrastructure, and doing the engineering work. Today’s results are all about the geology, and the geology says we have lots of different options and when you have options you can find the lowest price options. Our next step is to identify potential demand for natural gas liquids that would be stored and the location of geology next to existing infrastructure to minimize (costs).
“If we need to develop salt, we have ample salt throughout the Ohio River Valley from very near Monaca all the way to the base of the Northern Panhandle. There are really good opportunities there. There are other locations for hard-rock storage. It comes down to building a whole portfolio of storage for ethane, propane and ethylene, and having that portfolio connected to infrastructure and site locations.”
He figures it will build out incrementally. Even so, he concedes the price tag is steep.
“It’s going to cost $1 billion at a minimum to start,” Anderson said. “But if we’re going to build out enough to support the ... amount of production we can support in the region and what the American Chemistry Council is projecting the region can support, it would cost in neighborhood of $10 billion, but that’s not all going to be borne by one entity. There are lots of companies in the region building interconnected pipelines that all are part of the storage hub.”
A 2016 council report said {span class=”st”}development of a new petrochemical and plastics industry in the Appalachian basin could generate $36 billion in investment and create more than 100,000 new jobs in the four-state region, including Kentucky.{/span}
“We’re looking at it from a three-state perspective, more of a regional view than the individual industry partner can take so we can at least lay out a framework and plan for infrastructure that the region needs, then it’s up to the industry to fulfill those needs.”
The study was funded by a $100,000 grant from the Benedum Foundation with matching funding from AEP, Antero, Blue Racer, Charleston Area Alliance, Chevron, Dominion, EQT, First Energy/Team NEO, Mountaineer NGL Storage LLC, Noble Energy, Southwestern Energy, XTO Energy and the West Virginia Oil & Gas Association.
https://www.theet.com/news/free/west-virginia-at-a-crossroads-with-appalachian-storage-hub-development/article_75d1ecd5-b6d5-5e76-8cb9-a4dd6a9709c7.html
-
Hurricane Harvey Challenges Response to Energy Facility Incidents
Aug 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Exxon Mobil's Baytown Refinery near Houston was damaged by Hurricane Harvey, the company told regulators, adding to the number of storm-related incidents challenging officials as feet of rain continue to fall in the state.
The company reported to Texas regulators that the floating roof on one of the tanks at Baytown partially sank during the heavy rains causing benzene and toluene, two carcinogens, and volatile organic compounds to be released. According to the report, a portion of the emissions were within permitted limits.
Exxon Mobil shut down its Baytown refinery, the second largest in the U.S., as a precaution during the storm. The company also reported a release of sulfur dioxide emissions at its Beaumont refinery, but said actions “were taken to minimize emissions and to restore the refinery to normal operations.”The incidents are the latest in a string of problems reported by petrochemical companies in the area as Harvey lingers.
Texas is home to one of the largest concentrations of energy infrastructure and production in the country. The state has 5.6 million barrels per day of petroleum refining capacity, much of that along the coast. There are no levees or barrier islands protecting that infrastructure from hurricane storm surge.
Some parts of the state have received more than 50 inches of rain, and water being released from reservoirs and levees to relieve the pressure building behind them only compounds the problem of monitoring and responding to leaks and other incidents.Monitoring for Incidents
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has been monitoring facilities that have reported spills and providing technical guidance to wastewater facilities in flood-impacted areas, agency spokesman Andrew Keese, told Bloomberg BNA. High water can also pose a risk to energy infrastructure and state regulators are watching for leaks and other incidents.
The commission and other state agencies are giving priority to protecting and preventing imminent threats to public health. Once floodwaters have receded and it is safe to enter flooded areas, debris-removal activities will begin.
“The TCEQ is aware that spills occur during flooding events, and the appropriate primary agency will monitor and work with the responsible party, if known, to take appropriate actions as conditions allow,” Keese said.
Oil, gas and pipelines inspectors at Texas Railroad Commission are on call to respond to reported spills or other incidents as soon as it is safe to do so, Ramona Nye, the spokeswoman, said.
The Railroad Commission has jurisdiction over intrastate pipelines, and the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees pipelines that cross state boundaries.
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is urging oil refineries and chemical plants to follow safety precautions when restarting operations. The board notes that floodwater may leak into tanks or become trapped in insulation, while debris can damage electric motors and block sewers.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is working with pipeline operators to get a better view of their facilities, agency spokesperson Darius Kirkwood said.
“Operators have already contracted staff capable of inspecting critical infrastructure after the storm and they are preparing for aerial inspection of pipeline right-of-ways when it is safe to do so,” he told Bloomberg BNA.
Spills Reported
The National Response Center, operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, received more than 30 calls for spilled gasoline, crude oil, petroleum, and the release of contaminants from flare stacks in areas affected by Hurricane Harvey.
According to the response center's records, a caller reported natural gas leaking from a transmission pipeline on Aug. 26 in Ingleside, along the Texas coast. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is investigating.
State and federal regulators have their hands full responding to these incidents and others at energy facilities during the monster storm. They not only will have to contend with the possibility of billions of dollars in infrastructure damage, but potential environmental damages as well.
On Aug. 28, a 14-inch pipeline in La Porte, Texas, spewed toxic gas for several hours. Nearly a day later, it had not been determined what caused anhydrous hydrogen chloride to leak from the pipeline owned by Williams Field Services Gulf Coast, Andrea Morrow of the TCEQ, told Bloomberg BNA.
The gas mixed with moisture in the air to produce hydrochloric acid, a corrosive that can damage respiratory organs, eyes, skin, and intestines. The pipeline was depressurized and the leak ended after a couple of hours.
Other Storm Issues
Shell Oil Deer Park reported to the TCEQ the Aug. 28 discovery that the external floating roof had material on top and in the dike area at the refinery due to Harvey. The company has placed foam on material to lower emissions and is still investigating the situation, according to filed documents.
The Chevron Phillips Chemical Cedar Bayou Plant in Baytown, Texas, reported an unexpected cooling water pump issue during the storm, the company told TCEQ. Process material was routed to fare and cooling water pump was restarted.
In the Baytown incident, the company said the tank will need to be emptied to repair the roof. The company performed a controlled shutdown of the refinery ahead of the hurricane.
Valero also reported that benzene and unspeciated volatile organic compounds got on top of an external floating roof at its facility in Harris County and into a dike firewall through tank roof drains, the company said in a filing to TCEQ.
The Texas Railroad Commission received reports of hurricane-related incidents Aug. 26 and 27.
In the first, Kinder Morgan notified the railroad commission oversight and safety division that a tank at its Pasadena Terminal had tilted due to the large volume of rain from Hurricane Harvey, Ramona Nye, Railroad Commission spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA.
The tilting resulted in the release of an unknown amount of gasoline into a containment dike surrounding the dike. Kinder Morgan reported that fire retardant foam had been placed over the exposed liquid contained in the dike, and Kinder Morgan was emptying the liquid from the tank and containment dike.
A day later, the Houston office of the railroad commission, the state's energy and gas regulator, was notified of a fire in Jefferson County and dispatched a inspector, Nye said. Initial reports indicated a lightning strike on a fiberglass storage tank with resulting fire burning two tanks, releasing fluids into the firewall. An estimated five barrels of crude oil and 20 barrels of produced water was released, but contained within the firewall. Vacuum trucks were brought in to pick up released fluids. The operator was reported as Karbuhn Oil Company.
—With assistance from Sylvia Carignan.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119810479&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119810479&jd=119810479
-
Harvey’s Wrath Draws Millions in Relief from Energy Sector and Beyond
Aug 30, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The devastation from Hurricane Harvey will be difficult to overcome, but the energy industry is making an effort to ease the pain by donating money and time to relief efforts along the Gulf Coast.
ExxonMobil Corp. has doubled a pledge to $1 million, matching $1 million contributions from Chevron Corp., Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Phillips 66 and Dow Chemical Co., among others. Many companies are matching their employees’ contributions as well.
Houston-based Phillips 66 CEO Greg Garland echoed comments from his peers and said the company’s “thoughts and prayers go out to all those affected by the disaster, including our many employees, friends and neighbors across southeast Texas. The solidarity of our community is remarkable, and I am confident that this unity and spirit to overcome will drive our efforts to rebuild. It is our sincere hope that this contribution from Phillips 66 will help those efforts and those most in need.”
California-based Sempra Energy, which has natural gas operations along the Gulf Coast, has pledged up to $250,000 to help victims of the historic-scale storm. A $75,000 contribution is being made to the American Red Cross and an additional $75,000 to Americares.
Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. (TPH), whose main offices are in Houston, is donating half of this week’s trading commissions to Harvey relief and recovery efforts. The donations will be directed to the Houston Flood Relief Fund established at youcaring.com by Houston Texan’s defensive star J.J. Watt.
Watt had set up the fund with an initial goal to raise $200,000 for relief efforts. As of Tuesday afternoon the fund had raised well north of $3 million.
“Hurricane Harvey has taken a catastrophic toll on our great city, while leaving many stranded and in need of assistance,” Watt said. “We must come together and collectively help rebuild the aspects of our community members lives that were damaged or lost. Any donation that you can spare, no matter how large or small, is greatly appreciated. We will come out of this stronger than ever. We are Texans.”
“We will direct all TPH trading commission donations to this effort,” TPH said of the Watt fund.
Other investment bankers with extensive ties to the energy industry also are stepping up.
Jefferies announced that it would donate all net trading commissions on Wednesday (Aug. 30) from U.S., European and Asia equity, fixed income and foreign exchange trading. It also plans to donate $1 million directly to the relief effort.
“Finally, all 3,324 employees worldwide will be given the opportunity to donate to the relief effort their salary for the day on Wednesday,” Jefferies said. The contributions would be allocated to a series of charities with the goal of quickly getting funds to relief efforts directly involved in the rescue and recovery efforts.
"All of us at Jefferies are deeply saddened and concerned about the loss of life and devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey to those in Texas, including the people of Houston where Jefferies has a long and prominent presence,” said CEO Richard B. Handler and Chairman Brian P. Feldman. “We hope this donation from Jefferies will quickly help to ease the suffering of those affected, and we encourage our employees and clients around the world to join our efforts to contribute on behalf of those in need.”
Wells Fargo also announced it would donate $1 million to support those affected by Harvey and the extensive flooding in its wake. Half of the amount is to be directed to the American Red Cross, while the other half would go to “local nonprofits focused on recovery and relief efforts in Texas in the coming days and weeks.”
Energy publications are arm-in-arm in the effort, with Petrochemical Updatedonating to the American Red Cross.
Natural Gas Intelligence has directed its donation to Watt’s Houston Flood Relief Fund. The Dulles, VA-based publisher, which has offices in Houston, provides natural gas news and market data.
“Our thoughts are with those in Texas suffering in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey,” said NGI founder Ellen Beswick, Editor/Publisher Emeritus. “Houston and the surrounding areas will pull through and rebuild, and they will need all of our help to do so. We urge others to join us by contributing to one of the many well-vetted charities, such as the J.J. Watt Houston Flood Relief Fund.”
To donate to hurricane relief efforts, other reputable organizations that have set aside specific areas for Harvey-related contributions include the American Red Cross, the United Way of Greater Houston, Samaritan’s Purse, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner’s Hurricane Harvey Relief Fund, the Houston Food Bank and the Food Bank of Corpus Christi.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111558-harveys-wrath-draws-millions-in-relief-from-energy-sector-and-beyond
-
Gulf Coast Petrochemicals, Refineries Pummeled by Harvey
Aug 29, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
The storm formerly known as Hurricane Harvey officially broke continental U.S. rainfall records Tuesday, but nobody had to tell anyone living in the Houston area what they already knew.
According to a 4 p.m. CDT advisory on Tuesday from the National Hurricane Center (NHC),a preliminary report from a rain gauge has broken the Texas tropical cyclone rainfall record. The Cedar Bayou gauge, east of Highlands, reported 51.88 inches of rain as of 3 p.m. CDT.
“This total is higher than the previous record of 48 inches set during tropical cyclone Amelia of 1978 at Medina, TX,” NHC said.
A rain gauge in Mont Belvieu east of Houston, where most natural gas liquids (NGL) in the state are processed, had registered 51.1 inches of rain through early Tuesday afternoon, according to Texas state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon of Texas A&M University. Enterprise Products Partners LP maintains the world's largest NGL complex at Mont Belvieu.
A list of rainfall observations is being compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Weather Prediction Center.
The storm is already one for the record books, one of biblical proportions that has separated people from their homes and livelihoods from South Texas into Louisiana. And it may take months before anything is close to “normal.”
Some operators managed to avoid being impacted directly.
The Boardwalk Pipeline Partners LP system “has had minimal operational disruptions and no service interruptions, only minor property damage and no safety issues,” spokeswoman Molly Ladd Whitaker said.
The natural gas and liquids operator’s principal operating subsidiaries, nearly all concentrated in Texas, many along the Gulf Coast, are Texas Gas Transmission LLC, Gulf South Pipeline Co. LP, Gulf Cross Pipeline Co. LLC, Boardwalk Field Services LLC and Boardwalk Louisiana Midstream LLC.
“With regard to construction activities, all pre-storm precautions were taken to protect equipment and the construction sites, and construction activities were shut down Friday in anticipation of the storm and resumption will occur once conditions allow,” she said.
Boardwalk has more than $1 billion of infrastructure projects underway, including the 66-mile Coastal Bend Header, to deliver gas to Freeport LNG Development LP's liquefied natural gas export terminal near on the Texas coast, which was about 50% completed in July.
However, the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC (NGPL) expanded its force majeure for the Louisiana Line. Compressor Station (CS) 302 in Montgomery County, north of Houston on Segment 25 of the TexOK Zone was unavailable as of Monday. CS 342 in Cameron Parish, LA, Segment 23 of the Louisiana Zone and CS 343 in Liberty County near Houston, Segment 25 of the Tex/OK zone, “continue to be unavailable until the force majeure event has been lifted.
Eagle Ford Waiting for ‘Mud’ To Settle
Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. (TPH) shared some “field-based feedback” on the Eagle Ford Shale, where there are more than 70 horizontal rigs running and 35 fracture spreads.
“While the impacts invariably prove largely ephemeral,” analysts talked with private Eagle Ford service providers/vendors on Monday.
“Most service/equipment/consumables providers in-basin shut in operations sometime on Friday, and those operations remained largely halted until Tuesday, although some operators are apparently electing to let the mud (wet dust) further settle and as they plan to restart activity on Wednesday.
“Logistics are a material issue” for the oilfield services (OFS) operators because moving equipment, people, rail, trucking and transloading all have been impacted by the storm.
One proppant producer said transloading issues were causing “certain operators to request quick truck delivery of fracture sand in hopes of avoiding completions delays in the coming days/weeks, while another service provider informed us they ceased operations on half a dozen rigs, representing the large majority of the company's activity in the region.”
However, TPH noted, “a large flowback player” said workers were already going back to work on wellsites where setups were in place. Another noted some planned completions “went off over the last few days sans much of an issue. None of these hold-ups seem long lasting and the impacts are likely pretty muted for most OFS players…”
Meanwhile, along the Gulf Coast it was hit and miss. Sempra Energy’s liquefied natural gas export joint venture with Woodside Petroleum Ltd. in Port Arthur, TX, although in the path of Harvey’s wrath, was unaffected by the storm as there was no activity ongoing on the site, a spokeswoman told NGI’s Shale Daily.
The same could not be said for petrochemical and refinery infrastructure.
Largest U.S. Refinery Shuts Down
As of Tuesday afternoon, eight Texas refineries were shuttered, with the Motiva facility in Port Arthur sharply reducing output (estimated at 60%) from its 603,000 b/d plant. Motiva is the largest refinery in the United States.
Sandy Fielden, who directs oil and products research for Morningstar Commodities Research, said ’the closures already were impacting markets with crude prices lower on a perceived drop in demand and gasoline prices spiking in response to lower supply.
“Although refineries in Corpus Christi, TX were shut ahead of the storm in anticipation of damage, the bigger concern now is crude supply and product distribution for plants further east in Houston,” Fielden said.
“Should the flood disruption caused by Harvey continue to plague Houston and the close-by Beaumont/Port Arthur refining hub to the east, we estimate 11 more refineries with combined capacity of 1.3 million b/d are at risk of closure,” Fielden said.
Of the remaining plants on Fielden’s “vulnerable” list, the Kinder Morgan Inc. condensate splitter at Galena Park in Houston “is likely to shut down or reduce throughput if the Kinder Morgan Eagle Ford crude pipeline is not up and running to provide supply.
“The absence of Permian crude supplies via the Magellan pipelines will increase the chances of these refineries shutting down or reducing throughput. Continued port closures preventing imports will further increase the risk.”
Cracker Capacity Decimated
Meanwhile, around 44% of total U.S. cracker capacity, nearly all sited on the Gulf Coast, was estimated to be offline as of Monday.
The number could rise to 56%, said TPH, if Dow Chemical Co.’s Freeport project and Lyondellbasell’s Channelview go offline. They are the only two crackers running in the Corpus and Houston regions, according to analysts.
“With the storm predicted to continue moving northeast, attention will next shift to the Beaumont/Port Arthur/Lake Charles market, which holds 20% of U.S. cracking capacity.”
Beyond The Gulf Coast
The rest of the country could feel the pinch of Harvey in the coming weeks. California’s 1 billion gallon/day gasoline consumption may see higher prices, but refinery operations and general supplies should be unaffected, state officials said Monday.
With its low-carbon fuel standard blending renewables into retail gasoline sold in the state and a lack of pipeline ties to Texas, industry representatives downplayed any impact on operations.
Senior fuels specialist Gordon Schremp of the California Energy Commission said the state fuel supplies should not be impacted by Harvey. "California does not normally receive transportation fuel imports originating from Texas or Louisiana," he told NGI on Monday. "However, California fuel prices will likely increase. How much prices will increase will depend largely on how the market responds to what emerges over the next week about how much refinery operations are impacted by the storm."
According to a recent analysis by Morningstar’s Fielden, refiners and operators in California have more to fear longer-term from the state's aggressive climate change regulations than from occasional hurricanes in the GOM.
Officials at the Western States Petroleum Association and the California Independent Petroleum Association also said Harvey was not expected to affect production in the West.
Well beyond Texas in the Bakken Shale, North Dakota’s Department of Mineral Resources officials said there likely would be no impacts to production, which is now shipped to the Gulf Coast through the Dakota Access Pipeline.
"Our field staff is hearing that there may be delays in getting parts for repairs or service on wells because many companies operate out of Houston," a spokeswoman told NGI’s Shale Daily.
GOM Limping Back
In the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), Anadarko Petroleum Corp. has resumed production from its deepwater Lucius facility, one small step in returning to business in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.
On Tuesday afternoon the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) said workers had been evacuated from 102 (13.84%) GOM production platforms -- four more than on Monday -- and five of the GOM's 10 non-dynamically positioned (DP) rigs. A total of 319,523 b/d (18.26%) of crude oil had been shut in along with 615 MMcf/d (19.1%) of natural gas, both about the same as in Monday’s BSEE report.
Anadarko said its Boomvang, Gunnison and Nansen platforms in the western GOM remained shut in “until the weather permits the safe return of our personnel to these facilities.”
While the offshore is limping back, the same cannot be said of the onshore energy sector. Harvey as of Monday had sapped about 1 Bcf/d from U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico, according to Genscape Inc. And because the Gulf Coast increasingly is the hub for gas exports and industrial demand, Harvey may foretell what could occur in future natural disasters, according to Barclays Capital.
Many businesses, energy-related and otherwise along middle to upper Texas coast, have been crippled by Harvey’s rain of terror, either because of destroyed or flooded infrastructure or because they were not accessible as roadways were impassable.
For example, Anadarko said its offices in The Woodlands outside of Houston were not damaged by Harvey, but because of “widespread flooding and road conditions throughout Houston, it will remain closed until further notice.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111555-gulf-coast-petrochemicals-refineries-pummeled-by-harvey
-
The Nuns Fighting The Pipeline Lost Their Case In Court. But They Aren’t Giving Up.
Aug 30, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Julie Zauzmer
The nuns knew it was a long shot when they teamed up with environmental activists to build a chapel in the path of a planned pipeline.
An energy company, which has plans to deliver the natural gas coming out of Pennsylvania’s fracking fields, has the authority to take the land it needs by eminent domain, and the cornfield owned by the nuns is in the pipeline’s proposed path.
But these nuns in Lancaster County, Pa., members of the Adorers of the Blood of Christ, concluded that allowing a natural gas pipeline through their cornfield violated their belief in protecting the environment. They refused to strike a deal with the pipeline company — and, as a symbol, they worked with the activists to build a bare-bones chapel right in the spot where the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline would go.
The elderly sisters’ act of protest led to headlines nationwide, including a front-page story in The Washington Post.
It also led to a Reading, Pa., courtroom, where U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl ruled last week against the nuns. Williams Cos. has the immediate right to access the nuns’ land, Schmehl wrote in his order, and if the nuns or anyone acting with their blessing attempt to interfere, U.S. Marshals can arrest and imprison them.
If the nuns or the other four local landowners resisting the pipeline delayed construction, Williams Cos. would suffer “irreparable harm” from the financial cost, Schmehl ruled. He also wrote: “Granting the preliminary injunction is in the public interest, as the project will provide the general public throughout a vast area of the country with access to the Marcellus Shale natural gas supplies for heating their homes and other purposes.”
The nuns argued in court that allowing the pipeline on their land would go against their religious beliefs, including the “land ethic” that their 2,000-member worldwide order of Catholic sisters agreed upon years ago. Schmehl was unmoved.
“The Adorers have failed to establish how Transco’s possession of the right of way on their land will in any way affect their ability to practice their faith and spread their message. They have not presented one piece of evidence that demonstrates how their religious beliefs will be abridged in any way. Clearly, the harm alleged by Transco outweighs this harm alleged by the Adorers,” he wrote.
Despite the decisive ruling, the nuns’ fight is not over. Last month, they filed suit in federal court, arguing that allowing the pipeline on their land would violate their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They’re still waiting for a ruling in that suit, which could forestall Williams Cos. from beginning construction in their cornfield.
And Lancaster Against Pipelines, a grass-roots group opposing the Atlantic Sunrise project, has vowed since the construction of the outdoor chapel that if the company ever tries to tear out the wooden benches and altar, the group’s members will physically attempt to protect the space by praying there.
“Change is only going to happen from the bottom up,” Lancaster Against Pipelines leader Mark Clatterbuck said after the ruling last week. “It just comes down to local community doing it. No one’s going to come in and save us. It’s not going to be some judge.”
If Williams Cos. does start construction in the cornfield, the company will pay the nuns for the use of their land and will return it to them for farming once the pipeline is installed underground. But the sisters said in July that no amount of money could persuade them to support the use of their land for fossil fuel infrastructure, which they believe harms Earth.
At the time, chatting in the quiet home where many of the sisters live, they agreed that they weren’t sure their chances in court were very good — but that even if they lost, they’d have still done something good by drawing attention to their belief in environmental stewardship.
“To stand up and speak for the health of the Earth and of human beings and all of creation, I think that’s a win,” said Sister Janet McCann. Then she quoted the Italian nun St. Maria de Mattias, who founded this order in the 19th century. “I think that’s a win also, and helping to bring about that ‘beautiful order of things.’ There’s lots of ways to win.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/30/the-nuns-fighting-the-pipeline-lost-their-case-in-court-but-they-arent-giving-up/?utm_term=.cf99e0b14d2b
-
Harvey Triggers Spike In Hazardous Chemical Releases
Aug 30, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre
Hobbled oil refineries and damaged fuel facilities along the Gulf Coast of Texas from Tropical storm Harvey have released more than two million pounds of dangerous chemicals into the air this week, adding new health threats to Houston’s already considerable woes.
The big spike in releases, which include carcinogenic benzene and nitrogen oxide, will add an environmental and long-term health risk to the region that's struggling with the massive flooding that Harvey has brought to the country’s energy capital, according to environmental watchdogs.
The jump in emissions has been noticed on the ground in Houston, where residents have taken to Twitter to reporta stronger-than-normal chemical smell in some areas.
“It’s adding to the cancer risk to the community and well as respiratory problems,” said Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas, which has been tracking the emissions recorded by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for years.
That level of chemicals released this week from "unplanned events," which typically exclude normal day-to-day operations, was equal to the average amount measured over a three-month period last year, he said.
The reports of the pollution emissions began in earnest on Aug. 27, about a day and a half after Harvey made landfall, according to a POLITICO review of the filings.
Harvey slammed into the Houston refining belt as a Category 4 hurricane late Friday, bringing several feet of rain and strong winds. It has since crawled northeast along the Gulf Coast, damaging refinery infrastructure and forcing Exxon Mobil, Shell and other companies to halt operations, emitting hazardous gases as they shut down the vast plants that populate the Texas coast.
The Gulf Coast is home to nearly a quarter of the U.S. fuel refining output and half the country's chemical manufacturing. The storm has cut power to nearly 300,000 people in Texas, forced 13 refineries to shut down and caused another five to ramp down operations, according to the latest information from the Department of Energy.
President Donald Trump visited the Corpus Christi area Tuesday to survey the flood damage.
An EPA spokeswoman did not immediately return calls for comment. The EPA, whose funding Trump has sought to slash, is in charge of monitoring the area air quality. Trump has not yet appointed a director to the agency's Texas district.
Chemical maker Chevron Phillips reported the largest pollutant release. The company estimated it had sent more than 766,000 pounds of chemicals to its flare for burning as it shut its Baytown plant down because of the storm, it said in a TCEQ filing.
But Harvey’s heavy rains have allowed a significant amount of chemicals to escape straight to the atmosphere from their storage tanks.
“External floating roof tanks impacted by torrential downpour from Hurricane Harvey,” Kinder Morgan noted in its Pasadena terminal in a filing showing a release of 279,500 pounds of chemicals.
A tank’s “floating roof partially sank during the excess rain event from Hurricane Harvey,” Exxon said in a filing showing more than 12,000 pounds of chemicals escaping from its Baytown refinery.
The emissions volumes are based companies' initial estimates, and the figures could change as more information is released.
The American Petroleum Institute noted that preparing refineries for such an unprecedented storm was a complex process, and it said the industry was “committed to the safety of our workers and the community and the protection of human health and the environment.” The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers trade association did not immediately reply to questions.
Some oil companies, including Chevron and Motiva, have pledged money to help emergency efforts.
TCEQ spokeswoman Andrea Morrow said the agency would conduct investigations into any large emissions events, though those actions would be delayed because of the storm.
“We are in contact with facilities and talking with facilities.” Morrow said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/08/harvey-triggers-spike-in-hazardous-chemical-releases-161200
-
Air Pollution Economic Impact Model Lacks Clarity: EPA Advisers
Aug 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The EPA's model for evaluating the broad economic costs and benefits of air pollution regulations isn't clear enough to help the general public, members of the agency's Science Advisory Board said Aug. 29.
The analysis is intended to help utilities, industries, and the Environmental Protection Agency's policymakers determine the effects of federal regulations on factors like energy prices and employment. A recent court decision in Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA gave the agency latitude to carry out cost-benefit reviews as it and its advisers deem appropriate.
Members of the science board, who met Aug. 29 to discuss their draft report on EPA's draft economy-wide model, sought clarifications and transparency on the model's shortcomings.
“These models are very intricate, very complex—a lot of moving parts—and in some cases those are grounded in careful econometric estimates,” said Robert Johnston, a board member and economics professor at Clark University. “But in many cases, we don't have the data, and these models are based on long-maintained assumptions.”
A Science Advisory Board sub-panel formed to create the report will make revisions and send the report to Administrator Scott Pruitt once the panel's chair, Peter Wilcoxen, has signed off.
“This is a tremendously costly endeavor, and that's why we haven't done it already,” Wilcoxen, an environment and international policy professor at Syracuse University, said.
Members of the chartered Science Advisory Board include consultants, researchers and analysts at U.S. universities, environmental advocacy groups, Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble, and ExxonMobil.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119810481&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119810481&jd=119810481
-
Appellate Decisions Will Guide Future Of EPA's SO2 NAAQS Designations
Aug 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Two recent decisions by federal appeals courts will guide the future of EPA's issuance of designations for which areas are attaining the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) air standard, with one court agreeing to hear a suit over four existing designations while a separate circuit court has approved EPA's timetable for issuing other designations.
EPA's issuance of designations is a crucial step in the implementation of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for SO2 and other criteria pollutants, because it starts the clock for states to write plans detailing the emissions controls they will impose in order to reduce air pollution and either stay in attainment or get out of nonattainment. But the agency fell years behind schedule issuing the SO2 designations due to a lack of air quality data.
However, EPA was able to issue several initial attainment findings for some areas of the country, and four of those findings face a legal challenge pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
The court in an Aug. 25 decision rejected EPA's motion to either dismiss the state's challenge to designations of areas as “nonattainment” with sulfur dioxide (SO2) standards in Texas, or transfer it to the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is now considering parallel litigation in Samuel Masias, et al. v. EPA, et al., over the Texas and other designations for the 2010 SO2 standard, which is set at 75 parts per billion (ppb) over one hour.
EPA argues in both suits that designations are “nationally applicable” and of “nationwide scope or effect,” and therefore under the Clean Air Act must be heard by the D.C. Circuit. This is essential to maintain uniformity in the NAAQS designation process so that it is not easier for some areas to attain the standards than others, EPA argues -- but petitioners suing over the designations say the findings are area-specific and not national in scope.
At 5th Circuit oral argument on the venue and jurisdiction question July 26, Department of Justice attorney Dustin Maghamfar on EPA's behalf warned of “inequitable outcomes” that would flow from a fragmentation of decision-making on the designations process. Stressing the need for “national uniformity,” he said consistency in the designations was “a very practical concern for EPA,” and that all designations used the same analytical approach.
In its Aug. 25 per curiam opinion, however, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit sides with Texas, which argues that area designations exclusively within the boundaries of a single, regional judicial circuit are a local matter. The court retains jurisdiction and says it will proceed to merits briefing, regardless of the possibility of a conflicting ruling in the D.C. Circuit and even a Supreme Court intervention to resolve any circuit split.
“EPA has not shown Petitioners are seeking review of an agency action that is either nationally applicable or based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. The EPA’s motion therefore is denied without prejudice to reconsideration by the merits panel,” the court says.
The court says that because EPA chose to issue the nonattainment designations of four Texas areas close to power plants in a single supplemental Federal Register notice, the agency cannot claim they are part of the same “action” as designations for other areas now being tested in Samuel Masias. Nor has EPA clearly stated in the notice designating Texas areas that the decision is of “nationwide cause or effect,” the court says.
Court's Decision
EPA has argued that “the weight of the evidence” especially including “air quality modeling” is itself a determination of nationwide scope or effect, the court notes. “But beyond these generalizations, the EPA has not provided adequate detail on how the Supplement rests on determinations of larger importance instead of particularized factual findings about air quality in certain regions in Texas,” it says.
The court concludes, “[W]e are not convinced that the Supplement is based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. It is possible, however, that the merits briefing will provide greater clarity on what determinations lie at the Supplement’s core, by, for example, illuminating that the key determinations in the rule are determinations that specific methodologies are appropriate or preferable for assessing sulfur dioxide levels nationwide, as opposed to fact specific assessments of sulfur dioxide levels in the four Texas regions.” EPA's merits brief is now due Sept. 5 in State of Texas.
Texas has meanwhile asked the D.C. Circuit to sever its issues in Samuel Masias and hold them in abeyance, pending resolution of the 5th Circuit suit, arguing that its issues are in a “unique procedural posture."
However, in an Aug. 28 response, environmentalists in the D.C. Circuit case say severing the Texas issues would not be justified. They say “severance would be inappropriate and would depart from this Court’s past practice, because all of the petitions pertain to the same administrative proceeding,” namely EPA's second round of area designations for the SO2 NAAQS. This includes both a primary rule designating dozens of areas, and the supplemental rule designating the four Texas areas, they argue.
Environmentalists say the rules “were proposed at the same time in the same rulemaking docket; they rely on a common administrative record; they apply the same legal interpretations of the definitions for 'nonattainment,' 'attainment,' and 'unclassifiable' to the implementation of the SO2 NAAQS specifically; and they utilize the same five-factor analytical approach and technical assessment for evaluating the many unique issues that apply to sulfur dioxide pollution, air quality modeling, and monitoring data, and that informed EPA’s air quality designations for individual areas throughout the country.”
EPA in a response also filed Aug. 28 in Samuel Masias says simply that the 5th Circuit has already decided the venue question in its Aug. 25 ruling in State of Texas, rendering the state's motion to sever and hold in abeyance its issues in the D.C. Circuit “outdated,” and stating that the agency takes no position on Texas' motion.
The outcome of the D.C. Circuit and 5th Circuit cases could, depending on how the courts rule, set new parameters for how EPA must issue NAAQS designations, including some upcoming SO2 attainment findings.
Designations Schedule
Meanwhile, the 9th Circuit has upheld EPA's overall schedule for issuing SO2 designations, which stretches until the end of 2020 under a consent decree timetable agreed with environmentalists.
After EPA missed its air law deadlines by years for designating areas, both states and environmental groups sued the agency seeking a faster designation process. Some states, unsatisfied with the slow pace of designations agreed-upon, appealed the consent decree to the 9th Circuit in State of North Dakota v. EPA.
While environmentalists were seeking more designations of nonattainment from the process, bringing with them more air pollution control requirements, states in State of North Dakota primarily wanted EPA to label areas “unclassifiable” -- a status that avoids nonattainment status and control requirements.
In its split 2-1 Aug. 28 ruling, the 9th Circuit rejects states' objections to the consent decree. Judge Margaret McKeown, writing the majority opinion for herself and Judge Jay Bybee, says, “In the end, what the States really take issue with is that the EPA blew the deadline to promulgate NAAQS designations and that the deadlines outlined in the Consent Decree are not 'fair, adequate and reasonable.' That failure to comply with the statutorily prescribed timeline -- and the EPA’s continued failure to remedy the problem -- has left the States in their alleged planning purgatory. But it is not the Consent Decree that inflicts this 'regulatory limbo.'”
States are not directly impacted by the consent decree, and indeed their real target is an EPA “data requirements rule” governing the SO2 designations process, McKeown writes. “Although the Consent Decree references the Data Requirements Rule, it does not impose any of that rule’s substantive obligations on the States.”
Further, the “States may have a complaint against the EPA for failure to adhere to the Act’s schedule for promulgating the designations for sulfur dioxide NAAQS, but they cannot legitimately claim that the terms of the Consent Decree, as opposed to the EPA itself, are to blame for their predicament.”
However, Judge Clifford Wallace dissents, saying the consent decree conflicts with and effectively re-writes statutory requirements for EPA to designate areas within 2 years of the issuance of a new NAAQS. The decree violated the law “by permitting the EPA to delay its initial designations while it collects more data. The separation of powers doctrine forbids our amending the statute -- only the Congress can do that,” Wallace says. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California therefore exceeded its authority in approving the decree, Wallace writes.
EPA Aug. 22 issued its list of proposed “third round” SO2 area designations, designating dozens more areas in many states, and adhering overwhelmingly to states' recommendations for which areas should be designated in attainment. In many instances, EPA labeled areas unclassifiable/attainment, where the agency assumes areas are in compliance even where it lacks hard data to confirm this.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/appellate-decisions-will-guide-future-epas-so2-naaqs-designations
-
Washington Urged To Heed Harvey Climate Warning
Aug 29, 2017 | Reuters
By Sophie Hares
TEPIC, Mexico (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Unprecedented flooding unleashed by Hurricane Harvey in the southern United States underscores the need for even wealthy countries to ramp up their disaster plans to keep vulnerable people safe and help them deal with the knock-out blows climate change could bring, experts say.
Yet few expect the devastation wrought by Harvey to convince U.S. President Donald Trump to boost government funding to prevent disasters or reinstate regulations that would limit heat-trapping emissions and protect infrastructure from extreme weather, let alone reconsider his decision to quit the Paris Agreement on climate change.
“What Hurricane Harvey is demonstrating to those few hold-out climate change sceptics is that this is our new reality. And it’s only going to get worse,” said Heather Coleman, associate director for climate change and energy policy at Oxfam America. “As we’ve seen in other disasters here and around the world, it’s the poorest who are the most vulnerable.”
At least 11 people have been killed, while tens of thousands are fleeing their homes as Harvey, which slammed into Texas from the Gulf of Mexico at the weekend, brings major flooding.
Trump arrived in Texas on Tuesday to survey the damage from Harvey, now a slow-moving tropical storm, and said he wanted the relief effort to stand as an example of how to respond to a storm.
Police, National Guard troops, city officials and other rescue workers are helping people evacuate to shelters in Houston, the fourth most-populous U.S. city, and a state of emergency has been declared in Louisiana.
The biggest storm to hit Texas in 50 years, Harvey could cause up to $20 billion in insured losses, making it one of the costliest storms in U.S. history, according to Wall Street analysts.
Experts at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the World Meteorological Organization have said Harvey’s record-setting rainfall was likely made worse by climate change.
“State governments, governors, city mayors (and) scientists all over the (United States) are very much agreeing that climate change is real,” said Saleemul Huq, director of the Dhaka-based International Centre for Climate Change and Development.
“Harvey is sending tonnes and tonnes of water on their heads as proof that this is what is likely to happen with human-induced climate change.”
Besides promising to pull the United States out of the 2015 Paris accord to curb global warming, Trump has threatened to cut billions of dollars in funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is now coordinating the Texas relief response.
Key posts at U.S. weather-tracking agencies remain empty, while a swathe of Obama-era environmental regulation has been dismantled under the Republican president, who is facing the country’s biggest natural disaster since he took office in January.
Earlier this month, Trump rolled back rules for environmental reviews and restrictions on government-funded building projects in flood-prone areas, revoking an executive order by his predecessor aimed at reducing exposure to flooding, sea level rise and other consequences of climate change.
“PLAYING POLITICS”
With disasters costing over $175 billion in economic losses last year, according to reinsurer Swiss Re, investing in measures to better protect those at greatest risk is essential, as the intensity and frequency of extreme weather is expected to increase, experts say.
“Let us stop playing politics around what is happening with climate change and nature, and really make the long-term decisions that deal not just with infrastructure, but the lives and livelihoods of people,” said Jo Scheuer, director for climate change and disaster risk reduction at the United Nations Development Programme.
Key measures include “building back better” after a disaster, forecasting climate trends decades ahead, and factoring in estimates of sea level rise and storm surges when deciding how to rebuild shattered communities to reduce the impact of future storms, he said.
In some cases, governments may have to decide to relocate people and infrastructure from disaster-prone areas, he added.
“What we’ve gotten pretty good at overall is dealing with the immediate disaster event - meaning moving people out of harm’s way... to eliminate the loss of life,” said Scheuer.
“In most cases, what we have not gotten good at is... to ensure that every investment we make is made with understanding the risk involved.”
Despite the hefty cost of Hurricane Harvey, many experts doubt that Trump will acknowledge the scientific link between climate change and weather disasters, or bolster funding and regulation to limit devastation from future floods and storms.
“The Trump administration so far has not really shown any inclination to create policy based on realities on the ground - and certainly not based on challenges that every day people are facing,” said Brandon Wu, director of policy and campaigns for ActionAid USA.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-storm-harvey-epa-idUSKCN1B82BZ
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested