Preview Newsletter

AM ACC 9/1/2017

Industry and Association News

Historic DowDuPont Merger Nears
Aug 31, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo

Dow Chemical and DuPont completed their merger last Thursday, Aug. 31, after the stock market closed, to form DowDuPont, the world’s largest chemical company by sales.
EPA Enforcement Nominee to Start Work Ahead of Confirmation
Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Renee Schoof

Susan Parker Bodine, the president's pick for EPA enforcement chief, will start work at the agency Sept. 5 ahead of her Senate confirmation vote.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Fate of Chemical Makers’ Trade Secrets Rests With EPA
Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA is preparing to receive requests from potentially hundreds of chemical manufacturers, importers, and processors who want to keep thousands of chemical details out of the public eye.

Chemical Management News

Number of Chemicals in Products Underestimated, EPA Says
Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The number of chemicals in products people use at home, work, or school typically is underestimated, an EPA exposure researcher said Aug. 31.
Five States Press ATSDR for National Health Study on PFCs
Sep 1, 2017 | Inside EPA

Five state health departments are urging federal officials to launch a national health effects study of communities that have been impacted by contamination from perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the class of chemicals emerging as a major contamination concern...
Chemours Told to Stop Discharging Two Chemicals in N.C.
Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard

North Carolina regulators are asking The Chemours Co., to stop discharging two more chemical compounds of concern into the Cape Fear River from its Fayetteville, N.C., facility.
EU Commission Issues Regulation adding CMRs to REACH Annex XVII
Sep 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

The European Commission has published its Regulation amending Annex XVII of REACH to include more than 20 substances recently classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reproductive (CMR) category 1A and 1B.

Energy News

Harvey's Floods Could Delay 10 Percent of U.S. Fracking: Analyst
Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Wethe

As much as 10 percent of U.S. fracking work could be delayed after Hurricane Harvey ripped through southeast Texas, home to one of the nation's busiest oilfields, according to Raymond James & Associates financial advisory.
Harvey Still Impacting Gulf Coast Infrastructure, with Irma Lurking
Aug 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

The worst may not be over for the Gulf Coast oil and gas industry in what one forecaster expects to be the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history.
Offshore Oil Production Slowly Coming Back Online
Aug 31, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Ben LeFevebvre

Offshore oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is slowly starting to return to normal after the shutdowns caused by Hurricane Harvey.
States Say EPA’s Climate Rule Guidance is 'Legally Incorrect'
Aug 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

Democratic attorneys general want the Trump administration to rescind guidance that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent to states about complying with the Obama administration’s main climate change regulation.
DOE to Issue Proposed Rule for 'Small-Scale' LNG Exports
Aug 31, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon

The Energy Department is formally kicking off a rulemaking Friday to determine whether to establish a special application process for the export of small quantities of natural gas to countries the U.S. doesn't have free trade agreements with.
Energy Transfer's Delayed Rover Pipeline Cleared to Start
Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick

Energy Transfer Partners LP got cleared Aug. 31 to start the first part of its controversial Rover pipeline, a $4.2 billion system that will deliver natural gas from the shale formations of the eastern U.S. to market.

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) Plant Explosions, Spills Test Industry’s Response to Harvey
Sep 1, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Matthew Brown

Explosions that rocked a Texas chemical plant after it was inundated by Harvey’s floodwaters are raising questions about the adequacy of industry preparations for the monster storm and stoking fears of more accidents in the days ahead.
(ACC Mentioned) Harvey Pounded the Nation's Chemical Epicenter. What's in the Foul-Smelling Floodwater Left Behind?
Aug 31, 2017 | Los Angeles Times
By Ralph Vartabedian

The pounding rains of Hurricane Harvey washed over the conduits, cooling towers, ethylene crackers and other esoteric equipment of the nation’s largest complex of chemical plants and petroleum refineries, leaving behind small lakes of brown, foul-smelling water whose contents are a mystery.
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Safeguards and the Arkema Chemical Plant Disaster – Information You Should Know
Aug 31, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Elena Craft

Like many Americans, we’ve been closely following the story about the Arkema chemical plant that was flooded when Hurricane Harvey hit Texas. The
(ACC Mentioned) As Waters Recede in Houston, Attention Turns to Chemical Facilities
Sep 1, 2017 | CNN
By Rene Marsh and Eli Watkins

What began as a story about flooding, environmentalist groups say, has become about preventable environmental disaster.
(ACC Mentioned) Arkema Chemical Plant Had Help in Blocking EPA Safety Regulations
Aug 31, 2017 | Digital Journal
By Karen Graham

Two blasts at the Arkema SA chemical plant in Crosby, Texas, about 25 miles northeast of Houston, shook the area early Thursday, sending billowing plumes of black smoke into the sky. The company warns there could be more explosions.
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists Say Texas Facility Fire Backs Need for Obama RMP Rule
Sep 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

Environmentalists say the fire at a Texas chemical facility caused by Hurricane Harvey backs the need for the Obama-era rule strengthening EPA's facility accident prevention program with new requirements for hazard analysis and streamlined release of facility data...
(ACC Mentioned) Burning Texas Plant Was Just Fined for Mishandling ‘Explosive Chemicals’
Aug 31, 2017 | Daily Beast
By Kelly Weill and Stephen Paulsen

The Crosby, Texas chemical plant burning in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey was cited with eight “serious” safety violations last year for failure to prevent the “catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals.”
(ACC Mentioned) REVEALED: Burning Houston Chemical Plant Successfully Lobbied Trump to Strike Down Safety Rules
Aug 31, 2017 | Raw Story
By Brad Reed

Arkema, the company that owns the chemical plant in Crosby, Texas, that suffered at least two separate explosions on Thursday, successfully lobbied the Trump administration to delay new safety rules for chemical plants that were due to take effect this year.
Chemical Plant Explosion Revives Fight Over Shelved Safety Regulations
Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson

Police and firefighters responding to an explosion at a flooded Arkema chemical plant in Texas would have known more about the facility's risks under an updated chemical safety rule shelved by the Trump administration, critics contend.
Texas Explosions Signal Chemical Plants Pushed to Limits by Storm
Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey and Ania Nussbaum

In its devastatingly slow crawl up the industrial Gulf Coast, Hurricane Harvey is proving to be the biggest test yet of the safety and vulnerabilities of the U.S. chemicals industry.
New Hazard in Storm Zone: Chemical Blasts and ‘Noxious’ Smoke
Aug 31, 2017 | New York Times
By Julie Turkewitz, Henry Fountain and Hiroko Tabuchi

A series of explosions at a flood-damaged chemical plant outside Houston on Thursday drew sharp focus on hazards to public health and safety from the city’s vast petrochemical complex as the region begins a painstaking recovery from Hurricane Harvey.

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

Environment News

Judge Won't Let EPA Delay Texas Haze Deadline
Aug 31, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen

A federal judge today rejected the Trump administration’s request to delay taking action on Texas pollution that contributes regional haze, saying the state has had plenty of time to act before now.

Industry and Association News

Historic DowDuPont Merger Nears

Aug 31, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Alexander H. Tullo

Dow Chemical and DuPont completed their merger last Thursday, Aug. 31, after the stock market closed, to form DowDuPont, the world’s largest chemical company by sales. But DowDuPont won’t be here for long. Managers’ ultimate goal is to split the new firm into three separate companies within 18 months.
Dow and DuPont combine for nearly $73 billion in annual sales. On the basis of recent stock prices, DowDuPont has a market capitalization approaching $150 billion.
DowDuPont’s stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol DWDP on Sept. 1. The company replaces DuPont in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, continuing chemical industry representation in the stock index.
When the merger was first announced in December 2015, the companies expected to complete their deal in the second half of 2016, but an in-depth investigation by European Commission antitrust regulators delayed it.
Regulators worried that the combined strength of the two firms in seeds and agricultural chemicals could limit choices and drive up costs for farmers.
The EC approved the deal earlier this year after DuPont agreed to sell a chunk of its pesticide business and most of its agricultural R&D to FMC. That transaction is still pending. The businesses being sold generated about $1.4 billion in sales in 2016. In return, DowDuPont is getting $1.6 billion in cash and FMC’s health and nutrition business.
DuPont CEO Edward Breen is the CEO of the combined firm. Dow head Andrew N. Liveris will be chair until he steps down next July.
The next order of business for these executives will be splitting up the company. One of the spin-off firms will house both of the companies’ agricultural businesses. It will have headquarters in Wilmington, Del., and have annual sales in excess of $14 billion.
The largest of the firms will be the materials science company. It will reside in Midland, Mich., and have about $45 billion in sales. It will be composed mostly of the former Dow’s petrochemical, plastics, and specialty chemical businesses. It is also slated to include DuPont’s polymers business and the Dow Corning silicones operation.
The smallest of the three firms will be a $13 billion specialty products firm with headquarters in Wilmington. It will house electronic materials businesses from both firms as well as DuPont’s safety and protection, nutrition and health, and industrial biosciences units.
But some investors are questioning the details of the split. Third Point, an investment fund and major Dow shareholder run by the activist investor Daniel S. Loeb, has suggested changes. For instance, Loeb says Dow’s food ingredients business is a better fit with the specialty products firm than the materials science company. He would also like to place Dow Corning into the specialty products company.
Dow and DuPont are taking the critique seriously and have hired the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. to evaluate the split plan. McKinsey’s report is due out soon.
Jimmy Leppert, a principal with the management consulting firm Kotter International, says hiring McKinsey was the right move. “Being attacked by these activist investors, they are looking for objective criteria from outside,” he says.
Leppert notes that Dow and DuPont managers have been refreshingly forthcoming with information about what they want to do after the deal. “With mergers of this size and complexity, it is not always that the plan going forward is laid out,” he notes.
Before the split, DowDuPont will have to achieve a lot of cost savings it has promised investors. Management expects $4 billion in annual synergies between the firms. Three-quarters of this is to come from cost-cutting and another $1 billion from new growth. These savings are in addition to ongoing cost-cutting programs at both companies.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i35/Historic-DowDuPont-merger-nears.html

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Enforcement Nominee to Start Work Ahead of Confirmation

Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Renee Schoof

Susan Parker Bodine, the president's pick for EPA enforcement chief, will start work at the agency Sept. 5 ahead of her Senate confirmation vote.
Bodine will work as special counsel to the administrator on enforcement, agency spokeswoman Amy Graham said Aug. 31. Bodine is the nominee to become assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance.
The move raised questions from one advocacy group about whether the Trump administration was getting around the Senate's role to advise and consent on the agency's leadership, even temporarily.
The nonprofit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said in a news release Aug. 31 that Bodine's early start “appears to fly in the face of the spirit, if not the letter, of a 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act bars unconfirmed presidential nominees from performing the duties of that office in an acting capacity or from serving as ‘first assistants who automatically assume acting duties.’”
Graham, asked about this, said by email, “This is a usual practice done in many administrations.”

Ryan Jackson, the EPA chief of staff, told staffers in an email obtained and released by PEER that the acting head of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, career official Larry Starfield, would remain in that role until Bodine is confirmed.

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Fate of Chemical Makers’ Trade Secrets Rests With EPA

Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA is preparing to receive requests from potentially hundreds of chemical manufacturers, importers, and processors who want to keep thousands of chemical details out of the public eye.
However, with a looming Sept. 19 deadline for companies to justify past requests to the EPA, a sense of confusion remains over what companies need to do to keep their trade secrets confidential, according to industry officials and consultants. That confusion is the result of a complex web of deadlines and requirements for different types of information and some initial missteps following the 2016 update to the nation's chemicals law.
At issue is confidential business information, facts such as a company's identity as the manufacturer of a chemical, which could be mined by competitors to gain market share.
“Protection of confidential business information is critical to enable innovation,” Jarrod Erpelding, a Dow Chemical Co. spokesman, told Bloomberg BNA.
Chemical companies frequently ask the EPA to keep some details about chemicals private. The 2016 update to the Toxic Substances Control Act added a new requirement that manufacturers routinely justify their need for that chemical information to be kept confidential.
Three ‘Buckets’
The statute requires the EPA to review all claims that a chemical's identity should be kept confidential and 25 percent of any other proprietary business information claims.
The updated chemicals law, along with a Jan. 19 Federal Register notice and an Aug. 11 rule (RIN 2070-AK24), established three general groups, or “buckets,” of CBI claims the EPA must review, Richard Engler, a senior chemist with Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. and 17-year veteran of the EPA chemicals office, told Bloomberg BNA.
Those “buckets” of claims are:
• “retrospective substantiations” for claims that companies made on TSCA documents submitted between June 22, 2016, when the law was updated, and March 21, 2017, when the EPA issued guidance;
• ongoing substantiations that provided a company's rationale to keep confidential information on any TSCA document filed since March 21; and
• justifications for CBI claims made in response to an August regulation known as the “Inventory Reset” rule, which requires chemical manufacturers and importers, and allows chemical processors to, notify the EPA about any chemical they made or used since June 21, 2006. Those submissions are due by Feb. 7, 2018.

Confidential business information isn't just a big issue for chemical companies. Environmental advocates say that workers, industrial hygienists, ecologists, state and environmental officials, and the public generally have the right to know about chemicals that are in people's bodies and the environment. The ability to figure out whether that exposure could cause harm depends on chemical information being publicly available, they said.
The Environmental Defense Fund and Safer Chemicals Healthy Families were unable to respond to a request for comment on the EPA's review of confidential business information claims, while the Natural Resources Defense Council didn't reply to repeated requests. In a Jan. 18 blog, Richard Dension, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, described the EPA's decision to give chemical companies until Sept. 19 to substantiate previously submitted confidential business information claims as “exceedingly generous.”
EPA Prepping for Deluge
The most imminent deadline companies face is the Sept. 19 deadline for justifying claims made in the nine months after TSCA was updated. A single TSCA document filed during that period could include multiple CBI claims.
The universe of claims companies made during those nine months could include thousands of requests stemming from the Chemical Data Reporting rule submissions they submitted to the EPA in 2016. Bloomberg BNA reviewed 43,095 submissions from last year: 6,554 of them, or about 15.2 percent, came from manufacturing sites claiming their identity as confidential.
Realizing a deluge of confidential business information justifications may be submitted by that deadline, the EPA boosted by 20 percent the number of staff that will review company claims, Pam Myrick, director of the chemical office's Information Management Division, told Bloomberg BNA. The agency may seek additional, temporary help due to the volume expected, she said.
The amended chemicals law gives the EPA 90 days to complete its reviews of confidential business information claims.
“We will do our best,” Ryan Wallace, acting information access chief of the Information Management Division in the EPA chemicals office, told Bloomberg BNA.
If a company fails to substantiate information it claimed needed trade secret protection, the agency will notify the company. The business have 30 additional days to substantiate the information, he said. The agency also will provide its final decisions and the rationale behind them to companies, which would then have 30 days to appeal that decision in a U.S. district court, Wallace said.
That 30 day time limit to sue means chemical manufacturers must take seriously any letter they receive from the agency and decide promptly if they want to challenge it, Irene Hantman, an attorney in the Washington office of Verdant Law, PLLC, told Bloomberg BNA. If not, the company loses its ability to prevent the information from being made public, she said.
Confusing Context
With just weeks to go before the Sept. 19 deadline, some chemical makers don't realize how many confidentiality claims may need to be substantiated, or re-substantiated, because they were made during the June 2016 to March 2017 window, Brianna Scherffius, a consultant with Ramboll Environ, Inc., and other chemical policy professionals told Bloomberg BNA.
Companies submitted thousands of Chemical Data Reporting rule forms—each form having many potentially confidential details—from June 1 through Oct. 31, 2016. Confidential business information claims also could have been made between June 22, 2016, and March 21, 2017, on:
• new chemical notices and related documents (TSCA Section 5);
• substantial risk notices (TSCA Section 8(e)); and
• documents such as chemical information submitted due to a rule or enforceable consent agreement (TSCA Section 4).

The context in which these claims were filed makes them particularly complex and potentially confusing for chemical manufacturers, Scherffius and Christina Franz, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA.
The requirement to justify confidentiality claims was effective as soon as the TSCA amendments became law in June 2016. Yet, the electronic database companies use to submit chemical information to the EPA wasn't updated for several months, Scherffius, Franz, and Wallace said.
The delay meant the software companies use didn't automatically trigger the substantiation requirement for many confidentiality claims they could make.
It also took the EPA until January to prepare guidance to help companies substantiate confidentiality requests, Wallace said. The EPA had developed guidance and updated its electronic filing system by Jan. 19 when it announced the retrospective substantiation window, he said.
Mistakes Made Early On
Prior to that January guidance, companies had some painful experiences with confidential business information requests.
Chemical manufacturers were getting letters “fast and furious” from the EPA saying confidential information had not been adequately substantiated, yet those letters weren't clear about what the agency needed, Franz said.
In at least one case, a company's CBI was unintentionally disclosed, Franz said. The company's competitive position wasn't harmed as a result of that disclosure, Franz said, but the EPA took the security breach seriously.
“We were making mistakes in the haste to get them [the letters] out,” Wallace said.
After chemical manufacturers alerted officials to the problems, the agency temporarily stopped sending letters saying claims had not been sufficiently substantiated, Wallace said. The EPA focused on setting up a clearer review and communication process and developing guidance, he added.
Those efforts included regular meetings between EPA and the American Chemistry Council to ensure that companies understand the agency's expectations, Franz said. In addition the EPA hosted two webinars in March on its updated electronic filing system and had agency staff speak during Chemistry Council webinars this summer to further explain expectations and the law's requirements.
“During the start-up of EPA's CBI review program, many companies, including Dow, encountered errors,” Erpelding told Bloomberg BNA by email. “The agency responded, and appears to have resolved those issues.”
Lack of Awareness Persists
Notwithstanding the EPA's “very constructive” efforts to clarify its expectations, some chemical manufacturers still don't realize they have to substantiate or re-substantiate confidentiality claims made soon after TSCA was amended, Franz said.
The EPA developed three CBI substantiation templates to help companies understand what information can be claimed confidential and what questions they would be able to answer to explain why.
Yet, Scherffius said, some chemical manufacturers do not know these templates exist or understand how to substantiate their claims.
Nor do manufacturers fully realize different substantiation requirements may or may not apply to different types of claims, Engler said.
The amended chemicals law presumes certain types of information to be confidential, which means companies don't have to justify the need to keep that information confidential when its provided to the EPA, Engler said. That includes information like a company's suppliers and customers, as well as the specific ingredients and percentage of those ingredients in chemical mixtures is confidential.
More Justifications Possible
There's another reason the EPA may contact a chemical manufacturer or processor and ask it to justify a confidential business information claim—if a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeks a document that contains protected information.
The EPA could ask the company to clarify inconsistencies about the amount of information that needs to be protected, the agency said. For example, if a manufacturer claimed its identity as confidential, but failed to claim its address too, the EPA would ask whether it sought protection for all aspects of its identity, the agency said.
“In general however, EPA only protects information that is claimed as CBI,” it said.
FOIA-triggered confidential business reviews do not count toward the 25 percent of examinations TSCA requires the EPA to make, the agency told Bloomberg BNA.
Companies only have 10 days to challenge an EPA determination on CBI triggered by a Freedom of Information Act request, according to Hantman, who has handled such substantiation requests for clients.
EPA Notices Common Problems
EPA's Wallace and Myrick discussed common problems staff have observed as they've reviewed substantiations. Primarily they referred to problems that arise when companies claim the specific identity of a chemical to be a trade secret.
Chemical companies are allowed to keep a chemical's identity secret in some circumstances. For example, if it's a new molecule that a company spent thousands of dollars developing. In such cases, the updated TSCA directs companies to use a “structurally descriptive generic name” for public documents about the chemical.
One mistake some companies have made is claiming that a specific chemical's identity needs to be kept confidential, even though that information is already available to the public via a safety data sheet posted on the company's website, Wallace said.
“We've encouraged industry to contact staff with questions,” Wallace said. Often, when companies do, they realize they don't need the agency to keep certain information out of the public eye, he said.
Industry representatives told Bloomberg BNA that another common problem is that companies are sometimes asking the EPA to shield their identity as a manufacturer of a specific chemical, but forgetting to claim its address or the name of its “technical contact” as confidential information. Internet searches can easily link the address or technical contact with the manufacturer.
Companies Urged to Provide Facts
Franz encouraged chemical makers to look at the EPA's CBI substantiation templates, frequently asked questions, and other information it has prepared.
Companies will have to provide facts and a clear rationale to show the agency why its release of confidential business information would harm them financially, she said.
“Companies need to help EPA understand, so it will make an educated decision,” Franz said.
Information that could help the EPA decide trade secret protection was warranted could include details showing that one company is the only business to have discovered a particular use for a chemical. For example, if a processor discovered that a chemical not known for being used in a particular type of formulation—like a paint, floor wax, or cleaner—was useful, the company might want to keep its use of that chemical confidential.
Too often, Scherffius said, CBI justifications are a last minute effort as a company finishes providing technical details on another TSCA form.
“Companies do not understand how to fill out the CBI form and the fact that this is their opportunity to support why each piece of data needs to be maintained as confidential,” she said.
Chemical Identity
One thing companies won't need to worry about yet is justifying their need for continued CBI protection for the specific identity of chemicals on the agency's confidential TSCA inventory. Those types of claims need not be substantiated now, Engler said.
Amended TSCA requires the EPA to propose a “review plan” rule describing the process it will use to review companies’ assertions that an existing chemical's specific identity must continue to be kept secret, he said. Once that plan is released, which could happen in 2019, the EPA would have five years to review all claims companies make to keep a chemical's specific identity confidential.

Given all the other statutory deadlines the agency faces, it may be a few years before the EPA begins to require and review chemical identity substantiations, Engler said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119884644&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119884644&jd=119884644

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Number of Chemicals in Products Underestimated, EPA Says

Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The number of chemicals in products people use at home, work, or school typically is underestimated, an EPA exposure researcher said Aug. 31.
Anyone trying to estimate the number and concentration of chemicals in products has to go beyond safety data sheets, ingredient labels, and other listings, according to Katherine Phillips, a research chemist at the Environmental Protection Agency's National Exposure Research Laboratory.
During an EPA webinar, Phillips described research the agency is doing to help regulatory staff and other decision-makers determine when a chemical has the potential to harm people or the environment. The research is designed to help the agency address the tens of thousands of chemicals in products people spray, touch, sit on, slather on, and otherwise come into contact with.
The EPA needs to answer a few central questions: Which ones should it worry about? Which ones should it evaluate for health and ecological risks?
Choosing to focus on chemicals unlikely to cause problems could waste companies’ money as they invest time and research to provide the agency with chemical use and exposure and other data.
Taxpayers’ money also could be squandered if the EPA unnecessarily analyzes information from academia, unions, advocacy organizations, and other groups.
However, choosing to focus on chemicals that put people's health at risk or hurt the environment could prevent disease, fish kills, and other problems that cause harm.
Research Underpins Regulations
The research Phillips and her colleagues are doing could influence how the agency picks chemicals and pesticides for further evaluation and possible regulation. For example, the research office is examining ways it can help the EPA's chemicals office determine which chemicals are priorities for risk evaluations that could lead to chemical use restrictions or other regulations.
The Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 require the EPA to examine chemical uses and exposures as it decides whether a chemical poses an unreasonable risk that requires some type of regulatory control.
The Food Quality Protection Act and Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 2006 required the EPA to establish a program to select chemicals that could mimic, block, or alter hormonal function. Subsequent screens and toxicity tests that the EPA could require companies to conduct would determine whether those chemicals actually caused harm. The EPA's pesticide office is working with agency researchers to do a better job selecting hormonally active chemicals.
Rough Estimates
EPA's exposure research has important limits, Phillips said. A chemical's presence in a product does not imply exposure, she said. A chemical may be in carpet padding that homeowners would not often touch, she said.
Nor does the presence of a chemical mean the body would absorb it, Phillips said. If there's no exposure to a chemical or if it doesn't get absorbed it doesn't pose a risk.
EPA's exposure estimates remain rough approximations and much work remains to be done, she said. Yet, the agency's ability to identify chemicals in products is improving as the agency adds more databases to its search capacity and builds on research it and other scientists have done, she said.
Company Can't Always Know
One lesson the EPA has learned so far, Phillips said, is that no matter how hard a consumer product company tries to list all the ingredients in its product on a label or product formulation sheet, it can't know all the chemicals in that formulation. She referred to manufacturers and retailers like the Procter & Gamble Co., Seventh Generation, Inc., and Target Brands, Inc. that increasingly are pledging to disclose more or all of the ingredients in products they make or sell on their shelves.
Despite such efforts, companies may not know about some of the chemicals in such products, Phillips said. Chemicals may leach from packaging, be present as byproducts in packages of oil breakdown or other compounds they mix together, or be created by chemical reactions within a packaged product, Phillips said.
Those are among the reasons she said EPA researchers are scouring many databases in their exposure identification efforts.
Illustrative Databases
EPA's exposure laboratory is working with such resources as the Functional Use (FUse) Database, which lists more than 14,000 chemicals that have more than 200 functions. Chemicals may add color, help oil separate from fabric, add fragrance, or provide other functions in products such as paints, soap, shampoo, and waxes.
The Chemical and Product Categories database draws on information compiled from other countries and regulatory agencies including the Food and Drug Administration. It contains use and function information on more than 43,000 chemicals.

Phillips is among the EPA scientists who will present during an International Society of Exposure Science annual meeting in Research Triangle Park, N.C., in October.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119884645&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119884645&jd=119884645

Return to headline | Return to top
Five States Press ATSDR for National Health Study on PFCs

Sep 1, 2017 | Inside EPA

Five state health departments are urging federal officials to launch a national health effects study of communities that have been impacted by contamination from perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the class of chemicals emerging as a major contamination concern due to its presence in drinking water systems.
“The presence of [PFAS] in drinking water is a growing national issue, with the number of affected water systems identified throughout the U.S. increasing rapidly,” says an Aug. 24 letter from the top officials with the health departments of New York, Alaska, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Vermont.
“As Health Commissioners and Directors in states that have identified PFAS, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), in local water systems, we request that [the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR)] undertakes a longitudinal, national health effects study of communities impacted by PFAS across the country,” they say.
The letter is addressed to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director and ATSDR Administrator Brenda Fitzgerald.
PFAS, also often generally referred to as perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), have widely been used in non-stick cookware, fire-fighting foam, waterproof rain gear and in other applications. PFOA, in particular, has been linked to adverse health effects, including several types of cancer.
EPA in 2016 set health advisory levels for two PFC compounds -- PFOA and PFOS -- at 70 parts per trillion, a move that has prompted a wave of recent reports about local officials finding evidence of the substances in their water supply. But the agency stopped short of setting an enforceable drinking water standard.
That has prompted growing attention at grassroots and state levels as local officials work to determine cleanup levels.
So far, only Vermont has set an enforceable cleanup level but earlier this month, Pennsylvania's Environmental Quality Board unanimously agreed to a petition by environmentalists to review PFOA contamination in drinking water and make a recommendation on whether an enforceable standard should be set and at what level, according to the Bucks County Intelligencer.
And researchers at the University of Rhode Island and Harvard University announced that they are launching a new center to study potential exposure pathways of PFCs, develop better detection tools and other efforts.
In addition, environmentalists and others have been pressing state governments to more aggressively address PFCs in drinking water, urging them to set strict enforceable standards in the absence of regulation from EPA.
The state health directors say that through prior communications with the CDC, their departments and New York’s two senators, they understand that ATSDR and CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health have been considering whether a long-term community health study would supply answers to questions about PFAS exposure.
They add that their letter is their official request to ATSDR “to move quickly to launch a longitudinal study of health outcomes in communities affected by PFAS from legacy industrial sources and from firefighting foams used by the military and others."
They note that their state health departments, and others in the Northeast, have been working since 2015 to lower exposures to PFAS in drinking water, with some states conducting blood testing of residents. They say they welcome a chance to provide ATSDR with additional information about their affected communities as part of a national study on health effects of PFAS on multiple communities.
The letter also notes that ATSDR earlier this year released a draft feasibility assessment for conducting epidemiological studies at Pease International Tradeport, Portsmouth, NH, a former Air Force base. The report describes possible future drinking water epidemiological studies for the area, following contamination of drinking water there with two PFAS due to the use of fire-fighting foam by the former Pease Air Force base. The foam contained the two PFAS.
The feasibility assessment documents an approach to follow-up health studies and highlights “population-size related issues that our states would be confronted with if we conducted these studies individually,” the letter says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/five-states-press-atsdr-national-health-study-pfcs

Return to headline | Return to top
Chemours Told to Stop Discharging Two Chemicals in N.C.

Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew M. Ballard

North Carolina regulators are asking The Chemours Co., to stop discharging two more chemical compounds of concern into the Cape Fear River from its Fayetteville, N.C., facility.
The two compounds, both perfluoroethersulfonic acid byproducts, were uncovered in the company's waste stream by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during its investigation into the facility's discharges of GenX, a substitute for the widely used Teflon chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The compounds are sometimes used to make stain resistant coatings for carpets, rain gear, fast food wrappers, and frying pans.
Sufficient exposure to PFOA has been linked to thyroid disease, high cholesterol, early signs of liver damage, and testicular and kidney cancer, among other health effects according to a 2012 paper in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
Chemours already voluntarily stopped discharging GenX due to concerns about its potential health effects. Sampling has found concentrations of GenX and three other perfluorinated compounds in the Cape Fear River—a drinking water source to tens of thousands of North Carolina residents—to have dropped since that release was stopped.
Details Sought
In addition to asking Chemours to cease discharging the two newly discovered compounds, the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) said Aug. 31 that it was still demanding that the company provide it with a “complete inventory, sampling data and test results for all chemicals included in the company's waste stream.” The request to stop releasing the two byproducts was made in an Aug. 29 letter sent to Chemours, the state agency said.
“DEQ is looking at all legal options including going to court to get the company to stop the discharge” of the newly discovered compounds, the agency said in its Aug. 31 announcement.
In a statement, the company said it “was made aware of these sampling results on Tuesday, Aug. 29. In response, we are now investigating the potential that these two substances are byproducts of the IXM production unit at Chemours Fayetteville manufacturing site. We are working with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality to understand their data and gain additional clarity regarding these samples. As we gather this additional information, we are also working to determine the appropriate next steps.”
The technical name of one byproduct is perfluoro-3,6-dioxa-4-methyl-7-octene-1-sulfonic acid. The second is called ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[1-(difluoro(1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy]-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro.
Limited Funding
The announcement that the two additional chemicals of concern were found came on the same day that state lawmakers approved a bill (H.B. 56) that, among other things, provides $435,000 to local utilities and the University of North Carolina at Wilmington for water testing and treatment efforts related to GenX.
Critics of the GenX provisions in the bill said it was too narrowly focused and provided insufficient funding, while supporters argued it was a necessary and immediate response to the issue.

H.B. 56, which now goes to Gov. Roy Cooper (D) for his consideration, also would lift a ban on the sale of plastic bags in three coastal counties in place since 2009, ease certain solid waste “flow control” requirements, and consolidate water quality reports, among other changes.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119884656&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119884656&jd=119884656

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Commission Issues Regulation adding CMRs to REACH Annex XVII

Sep 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

The European Commission has published its Regulation amending Annex XVII of REACH to include more than 20 substances recently classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reproductive (CMR) category 1A and 1B.
This Regulation will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the EU's Official Journal.
Earlier this month, the Commission notified the WTO of different draft amendments that propose adding CMRs –including cadmium compounds and formaldehyde reaction products – to the same Annex. The final date for comments is the end of September.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58433/eu-commission-issues-regulation-adding-cmrs-to-reach-annex-xvii

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Harvey's Floods Could Delay 10 Percent of U.S. Fracking: Analyst

Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By David Wethe

As much as 10 percent of U.S. fracking work could be delayed after Hurricane Harvey ripped through southeast Texas, home to one of the nation's busiest oilfields, according to Raymond James & Associates financial advisory.
More than half the rigs running in the Eagle Ford Shale are estimated to have suspended drilling because of the storm, Marshall Adkins, an analyst at Raymond James, wrote in an Aug. 31 note to clients. The muddy conditions left in Harvey's wake will add stress to the fracking services sector that has consistently lagged the faster drilling crews.
Given its location in far southeastern Texas, the Eagle Ford was the only major American shale formation in the cross hairs of Harvey when it slammed ashore as a Category 4 hurricane last week. Major explorers including EOG Resources Inc. and Marathon Oil Corp. halted drilling and evacuated crews in anticipation of the storm, crimping as much as 57 percent of daily production, according to the Texas Railroad Commission.
“Given that much of oil and gas activity occurs in areas only accessible via dirt roads, the heavy rainfall usually makes the movement of trucks and supplies much more difficult,” Adkins wrote. “The trucking and rail of sand, chemicals, and personnel to the well site will all take more time given the likely nasty condition of many Eagle Ford access roads.”
The Eagle Ford was the only shale basin of the big four to drop activity in recent days, as some in the industry start to look at shale as a more expensive option compared to other places.

The temporary drop in the rig count by as much as 45 rigs due to flooding could be a catalyst for higher oil prices, Adkins wrote.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119884641&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119884641&jd=119884641

Return to headline | Return to top
Harvey Still Impacting Gulf Coast Infrastructure, with Irma Lurking

Aug 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

The worst may not be over for the Gulf Coast oil and gas industry in what one forecaster expects to be the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history. And Hurricane Irma, a Category 2 storm as of Thursday midday, now is lurking on the same early path across the Atlantic that Harvey took.
Irma, which reached hurricane status Thursday morning and then was quickly upgraded to a Category 2, was moving west-northwest toward the Lesser Antilles Islands. In its 10 a.m. CDT update, the National Hurricane Center said Irma is forecast to become a major hurricane by Friday and could be extremely dangerous.
AccuWeather forecasters said meteorologists could be tracking the storm through mid-September. "It is way too soon to say with certainty where and if this system will impact the U.S.," AccuWeather Hurricane Expert Dan Kottlowski said.
NatGasWeather forecasters also said Irma was up to 10 days away from being close enough to be of concern to the United States, but it could be a strong hurricane on approach.
Jacob Meisel, chief weather analyst at Bespoke Weather Services, said the storm is certainly a threat to the United States, as a strong ridge of high pressure across the north central Atlantic will steer the storm slightly south of west over the coming few days.
“Such a move is rather rare for these storms, and increases the odds of it making landfall in the United States (though it still may curve out to sea before reaching the East Coast in a number of scenarios),” Meisel said. “Frankly, it is still too early to say with any confidence what region is most at risk with the storm.”
Some models show a risk of landfall near the southeastern U.S. or along the East Coast, while others show a Florida landfall and still others show the storm may re-enter into the Gulf of Mexico (GOM).
While Irma is more of a threat for the East Coast or southeast than the GOM currently, there is a chance it ends up in the GOM if it takes the southernmost of its potential tracks. If If it takes the northernmost track, Irma could re-curve harmlessly out to sea. What is clear is that a Texas landfall with this system is rather unlikely, Meisel said.
Texas and western Louisiana are by no means out of the woods, though. Over the weekend and into next week, a weak low pressure center looks to gradually develop in the western GOM, and there is a risk that it could become another tropical cyclone (Jose), Meisel said.
“The atmosphere is not quite as favorable as it was for Harvey, as the hurricane cooled some of the waters in the western Gulf, but if this formed, it could exacerbate impacts from Harvey, especially if it were to make landfall in Texas or western Louisiana,” Meisel said.
Any formation is still a few days away, and models notoriously struggle with tropical cyclone development, but the western Gulf will still to be watched closely over the holiday weekend, he added.
As the floods recede from homes and businesses, people are attempting to pick up the ruined pieces of their lives. For the energy sector, whose processing and refinery operations are concentrated along the Texas and Louisiana coasts, it will not be easy. However, some facilities are reporting progress, a sign that eventually -- whenever that may be -- business will return to some state of “normal.”
Natural Gas Demand Still Volatile
Natural gas demand remained volatile in the wake of Harvey, and signs of improvement are threatened by any new developments, according to Genscape Inc.
Using average daily gas demand from Aug. 21-23 as a baseline for the south-central region leading into Harvey, the data and analytics company said Thursday’s gas demand impact estimate is based largely upon early cycle gas nominations of 5.9 Bcf/d. That is a net impact adjusted for 0.7 Bcf/d typical decrease in south-central demand on Saturdays and Sundays. The cumulative impact using the approach is 33.4 Bcf/d.
Midstream operations appear to be main bottleneck to supply along the Gulf Coast. And the worst may not be over for energy operators or commodity prices, analysts said.
Issues impacting the Enterprise Product Partners LP Mont Belvieu facility 40 miles north of Houston should be resolved relatively soon, according to Genscape. The Mont Belvieu facility is the largest natural gas liquids (NGL) processor in the country, and also the site of massive rainfall and flooding.
A rain gauge in Mont Belvieu, where most NGLs 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.
Many processors had to reduce output or shutter facilities because of flooding, including DCP Midstream, Targa Resources Partners LP and Oneok.
“Our sample of DCP Midstream volumes is already back to about 75% of pre-storm levels in just the past two days,” Genscape said. “Additionally, Genscape’s oil team’s proprietary monitor on the Seminole pipeline observed a resumption of flows, with volumes getting back up to 120,000 b/d of flow eastward from Hobbs, NM, toward Mont Belvieu.”
The offshore region showed the first slight signs of recovery. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) said Thursday workers remained evacuated from 94 (12.75%) Gulf of Mexico (GOM) production platforms -- eight fewer than on Wednesday -- and five of the GOM's 10 non-dynamically positioned rigs were also evacuated. A total of 236,115 b/d (13.49%) of crude oil was shut in along with 568 MMcf/d (17.64%) of natural gas. Those numbers were down from Wednesday, when BSEE reported 323,760 b/d (18.50%) of crude oil and 611 MMcf/d (18.98%) of natural gas shut in.
For the offshore, production processing also was resuming.
Gulf South Pipeline's Enterprise Burns Point gas processing plant in St. Mary Parish, LA, was returning online Thursday morning, according to a notice on the company's electronic bulletin board. Once the processing resumes, Point Chevreuil, E.I. Block 32 platform, Belle Isle and Rabbit Island Production all would be able to operate, according to Gulf South.
Still, there are several closures or partial shut-ins.Crestwood Midstream Partners LP issued a force majeure for the Tres Palacios Gas Storage LLC facility and expected it to remain closed through at least Thursday, according to IHS Markit. The analyst firm said force majeures were in place as of Thursday for the Natural Gas Pipeline Co. (NGPL) segment 23 of the Louisiana Line in Cameron Parish, LA; the Kinetica Energy Express Grand Chenier System because of a mandatory evacuation of lower Cameron Parish, LA; and Kinetica’s Sabine System, also because of the Cameron Parish evacuation. NGPL compressor stations 302 in Montgomery County, TX, 342 in Cameron Parish and 343 in Liberty County, TX, still were unavailable.
As for industrial demand, Genscape proprietary monitors are seeing shuttered facilities starting to return to service. The company’s cameras on Thursday morning detected the restart Wednesday afternoon of the Dow Chemical Co.’s Freeport ethylene cracker on the Texas Coast. The 2.3 million lb/year facility had been idle since Sunday.
Refinery Issues Possibly Only Beginning
Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Rick Perry on Thursday tapped the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to offset fuel shortages. The DOE plans to deliver 500,000 bbl of crude to the Lake Charles, LA refinery operated by Phillips 66. "The Department will continue to provide assistance as deemed necessary, and will continue to review incoming requests for SPR crude oil," DOE said. The oil is being drawn from SPR's West Hackberry site, a mix of 200,000 bbl of sweet crude and 300,000 bbl of sour crude.
Motiva, which operates the largest oil refinery in the country east of Houston, said Thursday it is “conducting all necessary assessments and preparations to ready the Port Arthur Refinery for startup as soon as the local area flooding has receded. Given the unprecedented flooding in the city of Port Arthur, it remains uncertain how quickly the flood waters will recede, so we cannot provide a timeline for restart at this time. Our priority remains the safety of our employees and community.”
BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research analysts said refinery maintenance is “around the corner” and with the potential for flood damage, “we could well see an extended period of outages. Consequently, crude demand in the U.S. could stay soft just as crude oil imports start to flow in again. All these crude barrels will end up in inventory.”
Any extended outages could drag West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices even lower, according to analysts. “Weakness in the term structure of WTI could feed into Brent” prices and as the United States attempts to attract foreign cargoes, spiking Gulf Coast gasoline and distillate prices “could continue to feed into Europe and even impact Asian prices in September. Most importantly, the weakness in WTI will encourage more U.S. crude exports and less imports, and even briefly drag down Brent to $47/bbl.”
ClearView Energy Partners LLC said it estimated as much as 5.2 million b/d of GOM refining capacity, or 27.6% of U.S. nameplate, remained offline or partially offline on Thursday, which means they may face crude oil shortages. Colonial Pipeline, the largest oil pipeline in the country, suspended deliveries Wednesday night of diesel and jet fuel to the East Coast via Line 2 (1.16 million b/d) and announced plans to suspend gasoline deliveries Thursday via Line 1 (1.37 MM bbl/d).
“In tandem with the ongoing outage of the 660,000 b/d Explorer pipeline, which ships refined products from the GOM to the Midwest, major pipeline throughput disruptions from Hurricane Harvey now total 3.2 million bl/d,” ClearView estimated.
According to IHS Markit, the “biggest issue in terms of recovery is the interconnected nature of the Gulf energy industry. Even if crude production can recover quickly without lingering damage, producers will have trouble moving their crude if refineries remain offline or if ports are slow to reopen, or if key pipelines remain down. Likewise, refiners that are undamaged may have difficulty sourcing crude if the ports remain closed.
“There is still considerable uncertainty about any lingering damage to offshore platforms and the extent of flooding damage to onshore oil production. There is no official estimate of Eagle Ford volumes impacted, although estimates are that perhaps 300,000 b/d of production was shut in in advance of the storm.”
In Harvey’s wake, the Arkema Inc. chemicals facility north of Houston in Crosby notified the Harris County Emergency Operations Center around 2 a.m. CDT Thursday to report two small explosions and black smoke. Local officials earlier this week had evacuated residents from an area 1.5 miles from the plant because of the impending emergency at the plant, which lost its primary power and two sources of emergency backup power with the flooding.
Some of Arkema’s organic peroxides products burn if not stored at low temperature, company officials said. Organic peroxides are extremely flammable, and Arkema officials said the best course of action would be to let the fire burn itself out.
The plant, in a rural area, employs 57 people. No hospitals, schools, correctional facilities, recreational areas or industrial/commercial areas in the vicinity, Arkema said. “The plant has never experienced flooding of this magnitude before.”
Meanwhile, CenterPoint, which services the Houston area, had restored service to about 95% of its customers, with about 100,000 still without power Wednesday, down from the peak of 780,000. Austin Energy had reduced the number of outage customers to under 200; outages peaked at about 19,000 customers over last weekend.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111589-harvey-still-impacting-gulf-coast-infrastructure-with-irma-lurking

Return to headline | Return to top
Offshore Oil Production Slowly Coming Back Online

Aug 31, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Ben LeFevebvre

Offshore oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is slowly starting to return to normal after the shutdowns caused by Hurricane Harvey.
Just over 13 percent of offshore oil production remained offline as of midday today, down from nearly 20 percent earlier in the week, according to the latest information from BSEE. Exxon Mobil and other oil companies evacuated crews and shut down production from offshore rigs in the path of Harvey, which made landfall in Texas last Friday.
“Offshore oil and gas operators in the Gulf of Mexico are re-boarding platforms and rigs to assess their ability to resume normal operations,” BSEE said in its release. “At this point, no damage reports from oil and gas operators have been received.”
About 236,000 barrels a day of crude oil production remain offline, BSEE said. Up to 500,000 barrels a day of onshore oil production is also shut in, according to information from the DOE.
Ten refineries have halted operations because of the storm, and companies are currently assessing more than half of those for damage before attempting to restart them, according to the latest DOE information. Two other refineries in the region are running at reduced rates, the DOE said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top
States Say EPA’s Climate Rule Guidance is 'Legally Incorrect'

Aug 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

Democratic attorneys general want the Trump administration to rescind guidance that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent to states about complying with the Obama administration’s main climate change regulation.
The coalition, representing 13 states and seven cities and counties, said in a Thursday letter that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt incorrectly told states that if the Clean Power Plan takes effect, compliance deadlines will be extended.
But the law and previous court cases on that question show that the deadlines are not automatically extended, argued the attorneys general, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D).
The attorneys general accused Pruitt of using the March 30 guidance he sent to state governors as a way to delay or repeal the Clean Power Plan without going through the full regulatory or legal process to do so.
“The facts are clear: the EPA has a legal obligation to limit carbon pollution from its largest source: fossil-fueled power plants. So if President Trump wants to repeal the Clean Power Plan, he must replace it,” Schneiderman said in a statement.
“Scott Pruitt cannot simply wish away the facts by giving governors bad legal advice,” he said. “We’ll continue to fight to ensure that the federal government fulfills its legal responsibility to New Yorkers’ health and environment.”
The Clean Power Plan has been on hold since February 2016, when the Supreme Court put a judicial stay on it. The EPA is working to repeal it fully.
Pruitt, who was a leader in the litigation against the rule in his previous job as Oklahoma’s attorney general, sent the March 30 letter to assure states that they do not have to do anything to comply.
“It is the policy of the EPA that states have no obligation to spend resources to comply with a rule that has been stayed by the Supreme Court of the United States,” Pruitt wrote at the time.
“To the extent any deadlines become relevant in the future, case law and past practice of the EPA supports the application of day-to-day tolling,” he continued, referring to the practice of pushing off deadlines.
The rule would have required states to submit their initial plans for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by Sept. 30.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/348728-states-say-epas-climate-rule-guidance-is-legally-incorrect

Return to headline | Return to top
DOE to Issue Proposed Rule for 'Small-Scale' LNG Exports

Aug 31, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Darius Dixon

The Energy Department is formally kicking off a rulemaking Friday to determine whether to establish a special application process for the export of small quantities of natural gas to countries the U.S. doesn't have free trade agreements with.
According to a Federal Register pre-publication notice, DOE wants to ease approvals for applications to export LNG in quantities up to 140 million cubic feet per day, so long as they don’t require an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The agency expects that the small-scale shipments will serve LNG customers in the Caribbean, as well as Central and South America.
“Many of these countries do not generate enough natural gas demand to support the economies of scale required to justify large volumes of LNG imports from large-scale LNG terminals via conventional LNG tankers,” the proposed rule says.
The rule was included in a list of federal rules when OMB updated information last month.
WHAT’S NEXT: DOE will take public comment for 45 days once the proposed rule is published Friday.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top
Energy Transfer's Delayed Rover Pipeline Cleared to Start

Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Catherine Traywick

Energy Transfer Partners LP got cleared Aug. 31 to start the first part of its controversial Rover pipeline, a $4.2 billion system that will deliver natural gas from the shale formations of the eastern U.S. to market.
After months of regulatory setbacks and delays, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted the company's request to start the section of the project from Cadiz, Ohio, to Defiance, Ohio, where the line will connect with another called Panhandle Eastern. The Dallas-based company said the 212-mile (340-kilometer) section would start service Aug. 31.
The approval is a major step forward for a project that's been mired in protests and investigations since Energy Transfer razed a historic house in Ohio and disclosed massive spills of drilling fluids associated with laying the pipeline. The setbacks have delayed the project's startup by months, with Energy Transfer saying earlier in August that it won't bring the system fully into service until January.
The delays helped boost U.S. natural gas futures as traders bet more of the fuel would need to be shipped from the Gulf Coast to meet demand. Once in service, the Rover system will be capable of moving more than 3 billion cubic feet of gas from eastern U.S. shale formations to other markets daily.
The section approved for startup isn't “well-connected with supply, so at best a small portion of the full Phase 1 volumes might reach downstream markets,” said Teri Viswanath, managing director for natural gas at Pira Energy Group in New York.
The energy commission said that the approval has no bearing on an ongoing investigation into environmental violations associated with construction of the pipeline. The fluid spills in Ohio spurred the agency to bar the company from horizontal directional drilling on certain segments of the line. The agency is still reviewing Energy Transfer's request to resume drilling in those locations.

—With assistance from Naureen S. Malik and Dave Merrill.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119884653&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119884653&jd=119884653

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) Plant Explosions, Spills Test Industry’s Response to Harvey

Sep 1, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)

By Matthew Brown

Explosions that rocked a Texas chemical plant after it was inundated by Harvey’s floodwaters are raising questions about the adequacy of industry preparations for the monster storm and stoking fears of more accidents in the days ahead.
The owners of the plant in Crosby, Texas, warned Thursday that further explosions could come as the unstable chemicals there warm up and degrade following a loss of power at the site northeast of Houston.
Meanwhile, the scope of the damage from Harvey continues to expand as companies report spills and toxic pollution releases linked to toppled fuel storage tanks, shutdown refineries and at least one broken pipeline used to transport hazardous materials.
“The event is still unfolding. But it’s clear that what actions and precautions were taken and were in place have proved inadequate,” said Bill Hoyle, a former senior investigator for the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. “When Crosby is resolved, there are many more dominoes to fall in the region.”
The six counties in the Houston area are home to some 230 chemical plants, 33 oil refineries and hundreds of miles of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, according to information from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Sierra Club. That infrastructure stretches east into Louisiana, where the storm traveled after leaving Texas and where damage is just beginning to be assessed.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials said they were working with the state to contact plant operators to determine their status. Andrea Morrow, a spokeswoman for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, said the agency had received “no other reports of concern” from other chemical plants in the state.
Harvey is only the latest severe weather event to pound the U.S. Gulf Coast, and oil and chemical companies operating there had touted changes made to improve safety in the wake of other devastating storms, most notably Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Those included elevating electrical systems to prevent power losses that can cause equipment to fail, spurring uncontrolled releases of pollutants, and making facilities more resistant to damage from high water or wind.
“Our industry has applied lessons from previous hurricanes and developed new technology, best practices and safety standards to help companies secure infrastructure, assess any damage, and work to minimize disruptions to supply,” said Michael Tadeo, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute.
Tadeo said the group was unable to quantify or put a dollar value on facility upgrades that were intended to better protect against storms.
Reports submitted to Texas regulators and analyzed by The Associated Press reveal more than two dozen air pollution releases from refineries and chemical plants in the 11-day period leading up to Harvey and its immediate aftermath. That includes both intentional releases as plants scrambled to shut down their operations as the storm approached and accidental emissions caused when fuel storage tanks were compromised or other equipment malfunctioned as Harvey rolled ashore.
As the storm approached, the American Chemistry Council issued a statement saying the industry was prepared for Harvey: “Chemical companies know well to avoid the dangers of being unprepared for any threat,” the council said.
Experts say such efforts remain largely voluntary because federal regulations governing plant safety have not been updated since 1992. The rules were adopted in response to an infamous chemical accident in Bhopal, India, where a gas leak at a Union Carbide pesticide plant exposed a densely populated area to poisonous gas that killed thousands of people.
Proposed updates to the federal regulations have languished for more than two decades, said Michael Wilson, director of occupational health for the BlueGreen Alliance and a former chief scientist for the California Department of Industrial Relations.
The effort gained renewed momentum after a 2013 explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, killed 15 people, most of them firefighters and other first responders. However, stricter rules issued by the Obama administration in its final days were put on hold for two years once President Donald Trump took office.
Wilson said a gap in the existing rules means companies are not required to use the most advanced technologies to prevent accidents.
The old rules also provide limited guidance on how companies should handle so-called reactive chemicals such as those at the Arkema plant in Crosby that apparently caused Thursday’s explosions and fire, said Hoyle, the former safety investigator.
“In some cases facilities have volunteered to make chemical safety improvements. But the problem with that approach is not everyone volunteers,” he said.
Arkema warned earlier this week that the chemicals would erupt in an intense fire resembling a gasoline blaze. There was “no way to prevent” the explosion, CEO Rich Rowe said on Wednesday.
The Chemical Safety Board has sought to close the loophole for reactive chemicals since 2002, when it issued a study that detailed 167 accidents involving the chemicals that had resulted in 108 deaths over two decades.
The board’s chair, Vanessa Allen Sutherland, told reporters Thursday that the board would be investigating the Crosby accident with an eye toward plugging any regulatory loopholes that could impede safety. She also warned that such events could become more commonplace as the frequency of severe weather events increases, which scientists say could occur due to climate change.
“The type of weather events we are seeing in the Gulf could be a harbinger of things to come,” Sutherland said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/plant-explosions-spills-test-industrys-response-to-harvey/2017/09/01/213a91be-8ef0-11e7-9c53-6a169beb0953_story.html?utm_term=.95f3a4d8a618

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Harvey Pounded the Nation's Chemical Epicenter. What's in the Foul-Smelling Floodwater Left Behind?

Aug 31, 2017 | Los Angeles Times

By Ralph Vartabedian

The pounding rains of Hurricane Harvey washed over the conduits, cooling towers, ethylene crackers and other esoteric equipment of the nation’s largest complex of chemical plants and petroleum refineries, leaving behind small lakes of brown, foul-smelling water whose contents are a mystery.
Broken tanks, factory fires and ruptured pipes are thought to have released a cocktail of toxic chemicals into the waters. Explosions that released thick black smoke were reported at the Arkema Inc. chemical plant, where floods knocked out the electricity, leaving the facility outside Houston without refrigeration needed to protect volatile chemicals.
Meanwhile, emissions into the air have soared as the petrochemical industry shut down and then started up chemical operations, a cycle that causes an uptick in releases.
The potential health problems were magnified by overflowing sewers, inoperative treatment plants and the residues of animal waste, including carcasses.
Nobody is sure how much long-term health impact, if any, will result from the tidal wave of toxins and bacteria that swept through the nation’s fourth largest city.
Exhaustive investigations by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Academy of Engineering after Hurricane Katrina, in which floodwaters languished in New Orleans for about six weeks, showed that toxic concentrations and the resulting exposures were too low to cause significant long-term health problems.
That festering flood caused a stench for weeks that left soldiers gagging for air as they flew helicopters 2,000 feet over the city. The Army Corps of Engineers had to pump the water out of New Orleans, much of which lies below sea level.
A report by the National Academy of Engineering in March 2006 said the floodwaters contained elevated levels of contaminants. The inorganic compounds were below drinking-water standards, while arsenic levels, attributed in part to lawn fertilizer, were above those standards.
The EPA took 1,800 samples of residue and soil from across the New Orleans area after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and found that generally “the sediments left behind by the flooding from the hurricanes are not expected to cause adverse health impacts to individuals returning to New Orleans.”
The situation is far different in Houston, where the floodwaters are receding much faster.
But because Houston is far more industrialized, Harvey could have a much larger potential for leaving a toxic trail.
Without question, air emissions rose significantly during and after the storm, said Elena Craft, a toxicologist and senior scientist at the Texas branch of the Environmental Defense Fund.
The industry shutdown and startup cycle released 2 million pounds of pollutants, equal to 40% of all the emissions from 2016, Craft said, based on reports the industry made to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
“In a few days, we have had months of exposure,” Craft said.
Marathon Oil, for example, reported to the state that heavy rain had pounded the roof of a storage tank so hard that it tilted, exposing gasoline to the air.
The emissions reports also included such carcinogens and suspected carcinogens as benzene and butadiene.
Craft said that sewage treatment plants in Beaumont went off line. A pipe carrying anhydrous hydrogen chloride was compromised in La Porte. Harris County’s 26 federal Superfund toxic waste sites may have been affected, including one that contains dioxins from a former paper mill along the San Jacinto River.
The fire at the Arkema chemical plant in Crosby released organic hydrogen peroxide, which officials said is an irritant but not toxic.
Tommy Newsom, who lives about 7 miles from the plant, said he felt fine but wondered what other chemicals might be involved. "Who knows how much of what they're telling us is true?" he said.
"I think the wind's in my favor," said Newsom, a 60-year-old port worker, pointing to Texas state and U.S. flags at the entrance to his housing development.
Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s health program, said the situation in Houston is a perfect breeding ground for hepatitis and tetanus.
“The flood is so large and slow-moving and the area is packed with dirty industries that are poorly regulated. Because the oil and gas industries down here are not as safe, we are concerned those toxins and chemicals are leaking,” she said.
Texas regulators urged caution. “Floodwaters may contain many hazards, including infectious organisms, intestinal bacteria, and other disease agents,” the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said in a statement. “Precautions should be taken by anyone involved in cleanup activities or any others who may be exposed to floodwaters.”
The American Chemistry Council said its members are in constant communication with state and federal regulators about the status of their operations.
“Hurricane Harvey has presented extreme and unique challenges for the city of Houston and the surrounding areas in southeast Texas and Louisiana, warranting an unprecedented response effort, including that by local industry,” the trade group said in a statement.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-houston-chemical-plant-20170831-story.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Safeguards and the Arkema Chemical Plant Disaster – Information You Should Know

Aug 31, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Elena Craft

Like many Americans, we’ve been closely following the story about the Arkema chemical plant that was flooded when Hurricane Harvey hit Texas. The resulting explosions there have added a horrifying new dimension to the tragic events in the greater Houston area.
Here’s more information that you might want to know.
The Arkema chemical facility in Crosby, Texas has had previous health and safety violations and has been the subject of enforcement actions.
The Arkema Crosby chemical facility has been the subject of at least two enforcement actions by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
·         In 2006, the facility was subject to penalties because of a fire due to inappropriately stored organic peroxides. The fire led to discharge of 3,200 pounds of volatile organic compounds along with other harmful pollutants.
·         In 2011, the facility was subject to penalties for failure to maintain proper temperatures of the thermal oxidizer.
Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator under President Obama, strengthened the standards governing preparedness for chemical releases during emergency situations.
In January of 2017, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy strengthened key provisions of the Accident Release Prevention / Risk Management Program. Those provisions are designed to help prevent and mitigate chemical accidents. The changes included more protective accident prevention program requirements, emergency response enhancements, and enhanced public transparency and availability of information.
Some of these key improvements, which are jointly known as the “Chemical Disaster Rule,” are summarized below (the final rule is at 82 Fed. Reg. 4594.) These protections were slated to take legal effect on March 14, 2017, and the rule required phased-in compliance with its provisions over the next several years. The rule requirements differ depending on whether the facility is classified as Program 1, 2, or 3, with more rigorous and focused requirements applying to Program 3 facilities due to the types of processes at the facility. The Arkema Crosby plant is a Program 3 facility.
·         Accident Prevention Program Improvement
·
o    Root Cause analysis: The final rule requires Program 2 or 3 facilities to conduct a “root cause analysis” as part of an incident investigation of a “catastrophic release.” The analysis is meant to look beyond immediate causes to help prevent future disasters by uncovering underlying causes in an incident investigation.
o    Third Party Audit: The rule requires Program 2 or 3 facilities to conduct independent third party audits, or to assemble an audit team led by an independent third party auditor, to perform a compliance audit after a reportable accident. Previously, facilities were allowed to perform self-audits. The revision “is intended to reduce the risk of future accidents by requiring an objective auditing process to determine whether the owner or operator of the facility is effectively complying with the accident prevention procedures and practices.” (82 Fed. Reg. at 4,595)
o    Safer Technology Alternatives Analysis: For Program 3 facilities, the rule requires a Safer Technology Alternatives Analysis to identify the practicability of any inherently safer technology identified.
·         Emergency Response Enhancements
·
o    The final rule requires all covered facilities to coordinate with local emergency response agencies at least once per year to determine how the facility is addressed in the community emergency response plan, and to ensure that local response organizations are aware of the regulated substances at the facility, their quantities, the risks presented by covered processes, and the resources and capabilities at the facility to respond to an accidental release of a regulated substance. (82 Fed. Reg. at 4,595)
o    The rule also requires Program 2 or 3 facilities to conduct notification exercises to ensure that emergency contact information is accurate and complete, and that certain facilities conduct field or tabletop exercises. From the final rule: “Improved coordination with emergency response personnel will better prepare responders to respond effectively to an incident and take steps to notify the community of appropriate actions, such as shelter in place.” (82 Fed. Reg. at 4,595)
·         Enhanced Availability of Information
·
o    “The rule requires all facilities to provide certain basic information to the public, upon request. The owner or operator of the facility shall provide ongoing notification of availability of information elements on a company website, social media platforms, or through some other publicly accessible means.” (82 Fed. Reg. at 4,596)
Arkema and its industry trade organization, the American Chemistry Council, filed comments objecting to several of these key improvements.
Arkema filed adverse comments on the proposed improvements to the Chemical Disaster Rule, and also endorsed comments filed by the American Chemistry Council (Arkema is a member company of ACC).
Arkema objected to the third-party audit procedure, objected to the safer technology alternatives analysis as burdensome, and expressed concerns about the requirements to share certain information with emergency responders and the public.
Scott Pruitt immediately obliged and suspended the Chemical Disaster Rule improvements.
One of the immediate actions taken by Trump Administration EPA head Scott Pruitt was to suspend these key improvements to Chemical Risk Program.
On February 28, 2017, an industry coalition including the American Chemistry Council, the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Utility Air Regulatory Group asked EPA to reconsider the Chemical Disaster Rule.
Administrator Pruitt quickly obliged by convening a reconsideration proceeding on March 13, 2017 and suspending the Rule for 90-days on March 16, 2017. Both of these initial actions to halt the rule took place without any public process, a pattern continued in many of Pruitt’s actions as EPA Administrator.
Subsequently, on June 14, 2017, Pruitt issued a rule suspending the requirements until February of 2019. Pruitt’s decision to suspend these protections disrupted the implementation of the rule.
Administrator Pruitt’s suspension is now being challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with a preliminary decision yesterday denying the petitioners’ motion for a stay but granting expedited briefing on the merits. Air Alliance Houston is one of the organizations challenging Pruitt’s damaging actions.
A closer look at the Arkema facility in Crosby, Texas.
The Arkema facility in Crosby, Texas is a Program 3 facility and is required to submit a Risk Management Plan under the Chemical Disaster Rule.
The envirofacts webpage for the facility notes that the last plan was submitted in June 2014, pursuant to the less stringent requirements that were then in place.
EPA does not publicly post online Risk Management Plans for facilities but they are available for review in the federal reading rooms. On August 31, 2017, EDF examined the 2014 Risk Management Plan for the Arkema facility. According to Arkema’s documents on file:
·         The Arkema facility manufactures liquid organic peroxides, which are primarily used in the production of plastic resins, polystyrene, polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, and fiberglass.
·         There are two substances on site that are present at or above the minimum threshold quantities for a Risk Management Plan – 85,256 pounds of 2 methylpropene (a flammable substance), and 66,260 pounds of sulfur dioxide (a toxic substance). Both are present in levels that make the facility subject to Program 3 requirements.
·         The site conducted a process hazard analysis on October 31, 2013 and indicated that any errors identified would be corrected by October 30, 2015. The 2013 hazard analysis identified concerns, including: equipment failure; loss of cooling, heating, electricity; floods (flood plain); hurricane; other major failure identified: power failure or power surge
There have now been explosions reported at the Arkema facility and 15 police officers were taken to the hospital after inhaling fumes from the chemical plant. Because of limited air monitors operating in the region, we do not know the pollutants or their concentrations in the surrounding air.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has led an unprecedented rollback of public health and environmental safeguards for our communities and families.
This is one of many damaging actions by EPA Administrator Pruitt to roll back fundamental safeguards under our health and environmental laws. Pruitt’s actions imperil our communities and families, and increase risks across our nation.
The explosion at the Crosby chemical facility is a terrible tragedy. It is incumbent on those who manufacture and use these dangerous chemicals — and it is the solemn duty of policymakers entrusted with protecting the public – to carry out their responsibilities under our nation’s public health and environmental laws to protect all Americans.

EDF is urging EPA Administrator Pruitt to immediately reinstate the critical Chemical Disaster Rule safeguards that he has suspended, and we are asking all Americans to join us. Please contact EPA and tell them you support these protections.
(This post was co-authored by EDF’s Peter Zalzal)
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017/08/31/epa-safeguards-and-the-arkema-chemical-plant-disaster-information-you-should-know/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) As Waters Recede in Houston, Attention Turns to Chemical Facilities

Sep 1, 2017 | CNN

By Rene Marsh and Eli Watkins

What began as a story about flooding, environmentalist groups say, has become about preventable environmental disaster.
Coastal Houston is the site of a large concentration of chemical plants, refineries, superfund sites and fossil fuel operations. Some have suffered damage from Hurricane Harvey, releasing toxic compounds into the environment, and environmentalists, in turn, are pointing the finger at politicians and industry leaders who have sought to ax regulations.
Specifically, they're criticizing the Environmental Protection Agency for delaying a chemical plant safety rule once President Donald Trump took office. In part, the rule would have ensured first responders knew what chemicals they may come in contact with and how to handle those chemicals in an emergency response situation.
The intention was to help prevent and mitigate chemical accidents.
"The rules that were delayed were designed to reduce the risk of chemical releases," said Peter Zalzal, special projects director and lead attorney at Environmental Defense Fund. "This kind of situation underscores why we shouldn't be rolling these rules back."
Earlier this year, legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate that would repeal an EPA rule.
A report in the International Business Times noted the bill was cosponsored by a hefty handful of Texas Republican House members, and the companion bill in the Senate had the backing of both Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz.
Many who cosponsored the legislation, IBT noted, have accepted donations from the chemical industry, the American Chemical Council and Arkema, Inc.
Arkema
Thursday morning, the Arkema chemical manufacturing and storage facility outside of Houstonburst into flames, and black smoke billowed out after Harvey's floodwaters knocked out equipment used to keep the plant's volatile chemicals cool. Fifteen sheriff's deputies were taken to the hospital for inhaling the irritants and a mandatory evacuation is in place for all residents living within 1.5 mules of the chemical plant in southeast Texas.
What is Arkema?
The Crosby, Texas, plant produces liquid organic peroxides used primarily in the production of common consumer products ranging from headlights assemblies for the automotive industry, to PVC for pipes, packaging and siding.
Arkema and its industry trade organization, the American Chemistry Council, had filed comments objecting to several of these key components of the proposed Obama-era chemical safety rule. The stricter rules for chemical plants like Arkema would have taken place March 14, but following the industry opposition, EPA chief Scott Pruitt delayed the Obama-era rule until 2019.
In a statement to CNN, the EPA said the agency's Risk Management Plan rule for chemical plants like Arkema is in effect, and "is an important safety rule that requires facilities that use extremely hazardous substances to develop plans that identify potential effects of a chemical accident, identify steps a facility is doing to prevent an accident, and spell out emergency response procedures, should an accident occur."
But the Obama-era amendments to the existing rule were stricter and were intended to strengthen the existing rule. The amendments revised several accident prevention requirements as well as what must be communicated to local authorities and the public.
To that, the EPA said: "None of the major amendments would have been effective until March 2018 and most well after that. The agency's recent action to delay the effectiveness of the 2017 amendments had no effect on the major safety requirements that applied to the Arkema Crosby plant at the time of the fire."

The Chemical Safety Board said in a statement that it would investigate the Arkema explosion.Plants around the area
Many of these plants and refineries are located in low-income communities.
The Sierra Club created a map detailing some of the major operation the group says pose heightened threats to the 25 counties most affected by Harvey.
Sierra Club organizer Bryan Parras grew up in Houston and said as long as he could remember, industrial operations filled the city, posing environmental and health risks.
"These sites have caused devastation for my family, my friends and my neighbors for years, polluting our air and water with deadly toxins," Parras said. "Hurricane Harvey didn't create the problem my community faces, but it has magnified it."

CNN reached out to Arkema and is awaiting comment.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/01/politics/environmental-regulation-hurricane-harvey-houston/index.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Arkema Chemical Plant Had Help in Blocking EPA Safety Regulations

Aug 31, 2017 | Digital Journal

By Karen Graham

Two blasts at the Arkema SA chemical plant in Crosby, Texas, about 25 miles northeast of Houston, shook the area early Thursday, sending billowing plumes of black smoke into the sky. The company warns there could be more explosions.

The chemical plant was forced to shut down operations when floodwater six-feet deep inundated the facility. Organic peroxides used in the plant's manufacturing process started heating up after the facility's main source of power was lost.
Then, the power from the plant's backup generators was lost. Without refrigeration, the chemicals start to degrade with the end-result being an explosion or fire. At this point, Tuesday night, all plant employees were evacuated along with any residents within a 1.5-mile radius of the plant.
"We want local residents to be aware that product is stored in multiple locations on the site, and a threat of additional explosion remains," Arkema said in a statement, reports CNN. "Please do not return to the area within the evacuation zone until local emergency response authorities announce it is safe to do so."
The twin blasts on Thursday occurred because organic peroxides overheated. Wednesday evening, Rich Rowe, Arkema’s president, and CEO said that any explosion or fire damage will be minimal, saying the fire is “nothing that would pose any long-term harm or impact,” while environmental damages would be small.

Organic peroxides are harmful
However, 15 first responders this morning ended up being taken to hospital emergency rooms after coming into contact and breathing the thick, black smoke. And while plant and city officials are saying they believe the smoke is non-toxic, in a statement, Arkema says the thick black smoke "might be irritating to the eyes, skin, and lungs."
The company also says there is a small possibility that the organic peroxide, which is used in the production of plastic resins, will get into flood waters. Arkema says if the compounds do get into the water they will not explode or ignite. But the response they are giving the public may not be complete.
While the main hazards related to organic peroxides are their fire and explosion hazards, they may also be toxic or corrosive. Depending on the material, route of exposure (inhalation, eye or skin contact, or swallowing) and dose or amount of exposure, they can harm the body. Corrosive organic peroxides can also attack and destroy metals.
Arkema had lawmaker's help in blocking safety rules
In an interesting twist to this story, it has come to light that Arkema, a French Company successfully lobbied to get federal regulators to "delay new regulations designed to improve safety procedures at chemical plants," according to federal records reviewed by International Business Times.

The regulations were set to go into effect this year but they were blocked by the Trump administration after some heavy lobbying by Arkema and its affiliated trade association, the American Chemistry Council. They have poured tens of millions of dollars into our federal elections. Their success was due to being backed by top Texas Republican lawmakers who received big campaign donations from chemical industry donors.
Arkema has six chemical plants in Texas and has received over $8.7 million worth of taxpayer subsidies from the state. But here's something worth thinking about - OSHA fined the Crosby, Texas plant over $90,000 last year for 10 "serious" violations.
And while Texas Governor Greg Abbott has given chemical companies legal cover to hide the locations of their EPA-regulated chemicals, the Associated Press is reporting the plant also houses large amounts of toxic sulfur dioxide and highly flammable methylpropene. Arkema is required to submit a risk management plan to the agency, and this would have subjected the company to the strengthened safety rules. But EPA chief, Scott Pruitt blocked the rules that would have gone into effect on March 14.
In a letter to the EPA in August of 2016, which would not have made a difference when the rules went into effect in March this year, Arkema said the rule’s requirement of independent risk management audits “will likely add significant new costs and burdens to the corporate audit process.” The company also expressed their dislike for the rule’s “Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis” (STAA) requirements.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/arkema-chemical-plant-had-help-in-blocking-epa-safety-regulations/article/501331

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists Say Texas Facility Fire Backs Need for Obama RMP Rule

Sep 1, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

Environmentalists say the fire at a Texas chemical facility caused by Hurricane Harvey backs the need for the Obama-era rule strengthening EPA's facility accident prevention program with new requirements for hazard analysis and streamlined release of facility data, though an industry source says the existing rule is adequate.
“This kind of thing will continue to happen as long as we delay taking steps to make these facilities safer, and the steps in the rule would make facilities safer,” an environmentalist attorney tells Inside EPA. “This is not the last hurricane that Texas is going to see."
And two Democratic senators are urging the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) to investigate the Arkema, Inc. fire and issue recommendations to harden industrial facilities against future storms.
“The proximate cause of the explosion was almost certainly the catastrophic flooding caused by the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Cory Booker (D-NJ) say in an Aug. 31 letter to CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland.
“However, we believe that measures to better plan for extreme weather, especially given the likelihood that such events will increase in frequency and severity due to climate change, could lead to better resiliency and ability to prevent, reduce or mitigate their consequences.”
Such calls are likely to grow after the Aug. 31 incident at Arkema's facility in Crosby, TX, where a container of organic peroxides ignited after flood waters overwhelmed backup power systems needed to safely store the substances used to make pharmaceuticals and construction materials. An additional eight containers may also be at risk of fire or explosion.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials initially called a plume from the fire “incredibly dangerous,” and several first responders were admitted to local hospitals earlier in the day complaining of irritation from exposures.
But EPA and company officials sought to downplay the concerns. “It's not a chemical release that is happening,” Arkema's Richard Rennard said in a news conference. “What we have is a fire.”
EPA backed the company's position later in the day, but cautioned against exposure to smoke from the fire. “At this time, we are responding to a fire, not a chemical release,” EPA says, adding that agency staff are monitoring air quality in the area. “As with all smoke, people can limit the potential for adverse health effects by limiting their exposure. This includes staying indoors with doors and windows closed and running the air conditioning (if possible) with the fresh intake closed.”
In an earlier statement, the agency sought to emphasize that any releases were not hazardous. Smoke from the fire did not contain “concentrations of concern for toxic materials” at this time, the agency said in a statement.
But Environmental Defense Fund issued a statement noting that in 2006, the facility was subject to penalties because of a fire due to inappropriately stored organic peroxides, which led to discharge of 3,200 pounds of volatile organic compounds “along with other harmful pollutants.”
RMP Rule
But environmental and other groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Environmental Justice Health Alliance, charge that the Arkema chemical fire shows the need for an Obama EPA rule updating the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety rule with new requirements, which the Trump administration has delayed and plans to revise.
The attorney and other environmentalists say that provisions of the Obama EPA's Jan. 13 final rule that would bring new requirements for hazard analysis and streamlined release of facility data to first responders and the public would protect against future incidents that pose risks to workers, first responders and fence-line communities.
“This situation is a good demonstration of just how important chemical safety policies are, and in particular, the EPA RMP program is crucial for emergency responders getting information about the kind of chemicals that are dangerous around them,” UCS' Gretchen Goldman says.
The sources acknowledge that the compliance dates of the Obama-era rule are far enough in the future that the update would not have prevented the Arkema fire, though they say the protections are needed to prevent future accidents.
But industry officials downplayed the need for any new regulatory requirements. In a statement, the American Chemistry Council said that its voluntary Responsible Care health and safety program, along with existing regulations, are adequate to address concerns.
“Chemical facilities are designed and built with major storms in mind,” it said, adding that “Dikes and levees are incorporated to reduce the risk of chemical releases.” The group also noted that EPA and other regulators currently allow “controlled releases” during storm events.
An industry attorney explicitly rejected the need for the Obama RMP rule to be implemented, saying it is largely “symbolic,” and that facilities that comply with the existing RMP rule and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) already ensure that first responders and the public are informed of accidents.
The attorney also said that the Harris County Local Emergency Planning Committee, established under EPCRA, is one of the strongest in the country, though the source acknowledged facilities still pose some risk even when companies comply with adequate regulations.
“If people did what they were supposed to have done under RMP and EPCRA that's everything you need to do to advise the public and local emergency responders,” the industry attorney says, adding that the update rule would not require facilities to tell emergency responders information the responders do not already know.
Nonetheless, the industry attorney said environmental groups will likely cite the Arkema fire in their pending challenge to the Trump EPA's June 14 final rule delaying the Obama RMP update to allow for revision.
While arguments in the case are expected to hinge primarily on EPA's authority to significantly delay the final rule, advocates will also likely point to the fire to show a need for the update.
Still, the industry attorney says that environmentalists will have to show that EPA was arbitrary and capricious in delaying the update rule, and if EPA is able to demonstrate that staff responded to environmentalists' comments on the proposed delay the agency will likely prevail.
The Obama EPA's Jan. 13 final RMP rule sought to update the agency's Clinton-era RMP regulation with new requirements for facilities to conduct independent audits, analyze safer alternatives, and improve emergency response planning and streamline release of facility data to the public.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt opposed the rule while attorney general of Oklahoma, faulting provisions for streamlining release of facility data as worsening terror threats. Then, with Pruitt in charge, EPA June 14 issued a final rule delaying the update 20 months from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019 to allow time to revise the Obama-era rule.
Environmental groups including UCS, Sierra Club and Air Alliance Houston, sued the following day in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit arguing that the delay violates a Clean Air Act three month limit on delaying rules for revision, and that the rule is needed to prevent risks from facility accidents that continue to occur.
A panel of the court Aug. 30 rejected petitioners' request to stay the delay rule, pending review, or vacate it entirely. But the court granted petitioners' request to expedite the case and a briefing schedule is due in the coming weeks.
Arkema Facility
Environmentalists say that the Arkema facility is already covered under RMP because of the presence of other chemicals, including sulfur dioxide, a release of which could pose risks 23 miles from the facility to 1.2 million people. Uncertainty over the potential risks of the facilities' chemical holdings and the first responders' need for medical attention both back the need for the Obama-era rule, environmentalists say.
The environmentalist attorney says that the rule's new requirement for a process hazard analysis would prompt a holistic review that would consider the potential for organic peroxides to ignite other chemical holdings, as well as of risks from the potential for hurricane flooding to knock out existing safety protocols.
“Having better backup power here would have drastically changed the situation,” the environmentalist attorney says, adding that such measures would be considered in a review of safer processes. “Safer alternatives is an open-ended look at how to make things safer and compared to the liability, [companies would] find it is practical to make a lot of upgrades.
The Arkema facility is in a region that environmental and environmental justice groups have long targeted as posing significant risks to nearby residents, given emissions from numerous industrial facilities and the risk of facility accidents.
For example, UCS cited the Houston area in a pair of reports issued in 2015 and 2016 warning of threats from sea waters to oil refineries and from a slew of industrial plants to residents through either emissions or catastrophic release.
EJHA in an Aug. 31 statement charges that risks from chemical exposures from releases during Hurricane Harvey will continue to emerge. “Refineries and petrochemical operations in Houston, almost too numerous to count, have been venting a toxic mix of hazardous air pollutants those trapped by rising floodwaters are forced to breath. The long-term health consequences of this toxic air pollution are unknown,” the statement says. “Adding insult to injury, the Trump Administration’s failure to adequately protect communities from hazardous industrial facilities which, under the stress of Harvey, pose an acute risk of explosion or poison gas release.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-say-texas-facility-fire-backs-need-obama-rmp-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Burning Texas Plant Was Just Fined for Mishandling ‘Explosive Chemicals’

Aug 31, 2017 | Daily Beast

By Kelly Weill and Stephen Paulsen

The Crosby, Texas chemical plant burning in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey was cited with eight “serious” safety violations last year for failure to prevent the “catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals.”
Arkema Incorporated, the plant’s parent company, claimed it did everything it could to prevent the fires, but safety inspectors this year fined Arkema this past spring. And people living within a 1.5-mile mandatory evacuation zone didn’t know what chemicals were stored at the plant, thanks to a 2014 decision by then-Attorney General Greg Abbott, which classified once-public reports on hazardous chemicals. Abbott is now governor.
Arkema and its Crosby facility have racked up over a dozen violations and “informal enforcement actions” over safety and environmental problems over the past five years, according to records from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The latest OSHA case closed in May 2017 and cost Arkema an initial penalty of more than $100,000. Eight of the ten violations fall under the category of “process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals,” meaning Arkema was breaking rules meant to prevent the “catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals,” according to the OSHA appendix of regulations.
Those flammable chemicals, which the company has described as “peroxides,” need to remain refrigerated to prevent from degrading. When floodwaters knocked out the plant’s primary and backup cooling systems, the company warned that the plant would blow. Arkema CEO Rich Rowe told reporters Wednesday there was “no way to prevent” the explosion.
At least some experts have disagreed. Sam Mannan, a chemical engineer and director of the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Center at Texas A&M University, told the Houston Chronicle he would be surprised if Arkema didn’t have a plan for precisely this situation. Still, Mannan told Bloomberg, “I don’t know if anybody is ready for this level of flooding."
Neil Carman, Clean Air Director for the Texas branch of the Sierra Club, told The Daily Beast that after “dealing with these issues with 40 years,” he had “never seen anything like this.”
“This is unprecedented,” Carman added. He complained that Arkema hadn’t released its Risk Management Plan, which would show, he said, “the radius around the plant in which people could die.”
“This is outrageous and it should not be covered up,” he said. “The industry doesn’t want the public to know the dangerous nature of the chemicals they’re storing and managing.”Arkema’s main phone line was busy Thursday, and the company could not be reached for comment.
The Crosby plant wasn’t the only one cited by regulators: its plant in Houston was also hit by violations from OSHA. In a 2012 letter, OSHA said Arkema’s storage plants lacked “design calculations for the worst case scenario.”
A spokesman for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said he didn’t want to “speculate” if Arkema could have prevented the fires. Following the fire, TCEQ warned of irritation, headaches and “decreased lung function” as a result of the fire, advising people to stay indoors with windows, doors and air-conditioning vents closed.
Arkema claims to have safety procedures that reduce neighbors’ health risks. The company is a signatory to the American Chemical Council’s Responsible Care program, a voluntary program that Arkema touts on its website. The program promotes health and safety measures for the plants and their neighbors. but the opt-in, self-reporting nature of the program has led critics to question its effectiveness.
A 2015 report by the Center for Effective Government focused on Arkema and six other Responsible Care-compliant chemical plants, and found that those plants sometimes led the nation in safety violations, according to a compilation of government inspection records from 2012 to 2014. During that time period, Arkema racked up 78 violations at its various U.S. plants, the report found.
In a response to the report, the ACC pointed out that Responsible Care-compliant companies undergo independent audits once every three years.
On its website, Arkema highlights its Responsible Care pledges, including a commitment to “community awareness and emergency response”. But when it came to informing community members of the chemicals stored in the Crosby plant, Arkema was less transparent.
In a Wednesday conference call with reporters, Arkema’s CEO for North American operations Richard Rowe was mum on the plant’s contents, despite their imminent explosion.
“Are you going to provide an updated, the most current Tier Two chemical inventory for the facility to the media,” Houston Chronicle reporter Matt Dempsey asked Rowe on the call, referring to a detailed report on the plant’s chemical holdings.
“I don’t know that we see the need to do that,” Rowe replied after a pause. “They’re all involved with the peroxides we’re discussing.”
The reports were previously public record, until Abbott as attorney general yanked public access to the reports in 2014, making them available only to officials and emergency responders. Abbott justified classifying the information “because it reveals the location, quantity and identity of hazardous chemicals … likely to assist in the construction of an explosive weapon,” WFAA reported.
Even before the reports were made private, neighbors of chemical plants sometimes struggled to learn what agencies oversaw the facilities, Texans reported after a disastrous explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas killed 15 people in 2013.
The state’s loose reporting regulations have led to a patchwork approach to public safety, with state or federal authorities sometimes unaware of the chemicals stored in Texas plants. The Department of Homeland Security, which was supposed to track dangerous chemicals shrugged off responsibility for the state of Texas, delegating inspections to local authorities after the West explosion, the New York Times reported at the time.
However, EPA records as recent as 2016 reveal that Arkema stores a number of suspected or known carcinogens at its Crosby facility, including cumene and benzoyl chloride.
The EPA says there are 1,278 households within a five-mile radius of the plant, including 909 people below the poverty line. Almost 20 percent of residents in the area lack a high school education.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/burning-texas-plant-was-just-fined-for-mishandling-explosive-chemicals

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) REVEALED: Burning Houston Chemical Plant Successfully Lobbied Trump to Strike Down Safety Rules

Aug 31, 2017 | Raw Story

By Brad Reed

Arkema, the company that owns the chemical plant in Crosby, Texas, that suffered at least two separate explosions on Thursday, successfully lobbied the Trump administration to delay new safety rules for chemical plants that were due to take effect this year.
The International Business Times reports that Obama-era regulations of chemical plants that were supposed to take effect this past March 14 “were halted by the Trump administration after a furious lobbying campaign by plant owner Arkema and its affiliated trade association, the American Chemistry Council, which represents a chemical industry that has poured tens of millions of dollars into federal elections.”
In killing the new rules, the industry had the help of several Texas Republican lawmakers, including Sen. John Cornyn, Rep. Joe Barton, Rep. Pete Olson, Rep. Pete Sessions and Rep. Kevin Brady. Democratic Texas Rep. Gene Green also lobbied to have the new regulations killed.
Arkema directly objected to the new proposed rules in a letter it sent to the EPA this past May, in which it said the rules “will likely add significant new costs and burdens to the corporate audit process.”
According to the International Business Times, Arkema specifically took issue with new “Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis” (STAA) rules that would have, among other things, encouraged companies to “simplify covered processes in order to make accidental releases less likely or the impacts of such releases less severe.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/revealed-burning-houston-chemical-plant-successfully-lobbied-trump-to-strike-down-safety-rules/

Return to headline | Return to top
Chemical Plant Explosion Revives Fight Over Shelved Safety Regulations

Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sam Pearson

Police and firefighters responding to an explosion at a flooded Arkema chemical plant in Texas would have known more about the facility's risks under an updated chemical safety rule shelved by the Trump administration, critics contend.
Updates to the Environmental Protection Agency's risk management program would have required coordination between chemical facilities and local responders prior to an emergency. Despite more than 24 hours’ notice from Arkema SA that the Crosby, Texas, plant, was likely to explode, 15 Harris County sheriff's deputies had to be treated at a local hospital after inhaling fumes from the plant after a series of explosions that began early Aug. 31.
The goal of the updated chemical safety regulation is for local responders to “know the particular risk involved at this particular plant and take the precautions to prevent this precise type of injury,” Mathy Stanislaus, former assistant administrator for land and emergency management at the EPA during the Obama administration, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 31.
The plant was evacuated along with residents nearby after it lost its electrical supply and backup generators during Hurricane Harvey. Local officials said Aug. 31 the organic peroxides released were of low risk to the public.
Facilities storing hazardous chemicals are required to file a formal plan stating how they would handle an unplanned release of those materials, but the existing regulations don't require the company to take any specific actions to prevent it.
Chemical Safety Board Chairperson Vanessa Sutherland said Aug. 31 the agency will investigate what happened. Sutherland said the CSB won't learn more until investigators can access the site, which cannot happen right now because of the ongoing emergency response.
OSHA inspected the plant Aug. 9, 2016, records show, and issued 10 citations for serious violations, nine of which involved management of highly hazardous chemicals. The violations included failing to train employees every three years, not maintaining written procedures for equipment and failing to test and inspect equipment. OSHA proposed fines of $107,918, but the company paid $91,724 in penalties and abated the hazards, the agency said.
Rule Would Have Aided Responders
The Obama administration tried to update the EPA program, the Risk Management Plan, to set new requirements for information sharing, emergency preparedness for first responders, and reporting for certain chemical facilities. Despite the name, a company's risk management plan doesn't account for everything in detail, Sean Moulton, open government program manager at the Project on Government Oversight, told Bloomberg BNA.
Arkema's risk management plan from 2014, the most recent available, shows it identified the risk of hurricanes, floods, power failures, and power surges, Moulton said, but that didn't in itself require an effective prevention strategy.
Some of that could have changed under the new rule, advocates contend, but EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt delayed the plan until February 2019. A panel of federal judges Aug. 30 declined to block the rollback, freeing chemical facilities from complying with the new standards.
An EPA spokeswoman did not respond to a request to comment from Bloomberg BNA Aug. 31.
Regulations Worked at Arkema
Though critics say the Obama-era regulations would have better prepared first responders, Michael Reer, an attorney at Harris, Finley & Bogle in Fort Worth, Texas who advises companies on risk management compliance, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 31 the existing regulations were working.
“Employees and residents were promptly and safely evacuated, and the operator appears to have begun implementing a crisis management plan,” Reer said.
The plant was also subject to the Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, which screens high-risk facilities and reviews security plans to prevent sabotage or illegal entry, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's process safety management standards, which protects the plant's workers from chemical hazards. DHS doesn't say which plants are in its program, but Arkema officials said the agency was involved in calculating the 1.5-mile evacuation zone and in establishing a command post to monitor the plant.
Arkema Defends Efforts
While the incident added to headaches for Houston-area first responders, the broader regulatory implications of the plant's failure are unclear.
At a news conference Aug. 31, Richard Rennard, Arkema's president of acrylic monomers, told reporters the company provided multiple layers of generators, all of which failed.
“I'm not sure what more we could have done to provide additional layers of security on site,” Rennard said.
Stanislaus said the amended risk management program would have required companies like Arkema to conduct root cause analyses when near-miss events occur.
“Frankly, the lack of power is not an excuse,” Stanislaus said, because the company should have had a way to maintain backup power during the storm. He said the flood should be “a wake up call for the industry to work with local responders.”
Safety Board Involvement?
Some questions could be answered during the U.S. Chemical Safety Board's investigation. The board, a nonregulatory agency charged with investigating high-risk chemical incidents, can request company documents, inspect the plant and subpoena the company if necessary.
The agency may eventually issue a report identifying the root cause of the explosions and how other facilities can prevent losing control of chemical stockpiles during large floods and power losses.
Mark Farley, a partner at the law firm Katten Munchin Rosenman LLP in Houston, told Bloomberg BNA the CSB may also use the incident to reexamine how reactive chemicals should be managed. The agency issued a study of the issue in 2002.
On a list of desired safety changes, the CSB calls for including reactive chemicals under the EPA's risk management plan and OSHA's process safety management regulations.

The CSB may also want to examine to what extent Arkema communicated with local responders prior to the storm, Farley said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119884635&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119884635&jd=119884635

Return to headline | Return to top
Texas Explosions Signal Chemical Plants Pushed to Limits by Storm

Sep 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Jack Kaskey and Ania Nussbaum

In its devastatingly slow crawl up the industrial Gulf Coast, Hurricane Harvey is proving to be the biggest test yet of the safety and vulnerabilities of the U.S. chemicals industry.
A Houston-area chemical plant was hit by explosions overnight after floods caused by Harvey knocked out power supplies needed to refrigerate volatile peroxides. Fifteen police officers were treated at the hospital for smoke irritation from the plant, though earlier evacuations of the site and surrounding community prevented more serious injuries. The plant is owned by French chemical company Arkema SA.
The remaining chemicals will eventually burn, Richard Rennard, an Arkema division president, told reporters Aug. 31. “It is not anything we think is a danger to the community at all,” Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said in a news conference early in the day.
The incident underscored the risks confronting the industry after dozens of chemical plants shut down in the path of the storm from South Texas to Louisiana, knocking out more than half of U.S. production of some of the most-used chemicals and plastics.
With its crucial access to ports for shipping and receiving, the Gulf Coast is the epicenter of the nation's chemical industry, where many of the materials indispensable to modern society are produced. The plants provide the basic building blocks for making everything from cars and computers to household furnishings and appliances.
The massive industrial centers also deal with complex chemical processes that pose hazards from lethal explosions to toxic spills when things go wrong. The danger is greatest when plants are shutting down and starting up.
“That is when bad things happen,” said Ramanan Krishnamoorti, the chief energy officer at the University of Houston.
Uncharted Territory
Gulf Coast chemical plants are designed to withstand hurricane force winds and floods, but Harvey has put the industry into uncharted territory, Sam Mannan, director of the Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center at Texas A&M University, which studies plant safety.
Though plants have been dealing with a multitude of problems and there have been no serious injuries, the crisis is far from over. It will take weeks, if not months, for all the plants to assess damage, make repairs and restart operations in the wake of the floods.
“This whole thing is testing how well we have thought through our safety systems and programs and how robust the plants are,” said Mannan. “I don't know if anybody is ready for this level of flooding.“
Harvey made landfall on Aug. 25 and has brought torrential rain and historic flooding along the Gulf Coast, knocking out almost a quarter of U.S. refining capacity. While Harvey's shut down of U.S. crude processing capacity has grabbed headlines and led to spiking gasoline prices, less known is the storm's outsize impact on chemical production.
“It seems like Harvey came with a plan to follow the chemical industry on the Gulf Coast,” Mannan said.
Production Halted
About 61 percent of U.S. ethylene production has been shut due to Harvey, according to PetroChemwire. The storm has closed about 51 percent of U.S. capacity for making polyethylene, the world's most used plastic resin, according to Kevin McCarthy, an equity analyst at Vertical Research Partners. As much as 65 percent of polypropylene production and one-third of chlorine output may shut or running at reduced rates, according to IHS Markit. Prices already have been rising.
“The combination of Harvey's path, duration and rainfall total is wreaking havoc with the supply side of the U.S. chemicals industry on an unprecedented scale,” McCarthy said. “We certainly haven't seen anything quite like it in our 18 years of following chemical stocks on Wall Street.”
One complicating factor post-Harvey is the urban sprawl gradually engulfing chemical plants, according to Andrea Sella, a professor of inorganic chemistry at UCL university in London. “Because accidents are unusual, planners can come to underestimate the severity of what are likely to be quite rare events,” he said by email.
Arkema's site in Crosby, which is about 25 miles from downtown Houston, is situated in an area with no hospitals, schools, correctional facilities, recreational areas or industrial and commercial areas in the vicinity, according to the Colombes, France-based company.
Explosions, Smoke
Two explosions and black smoke were reported at 2 a.m. local time, after the plant lost power and backup generators in the storm's flood, the company said in a statement on Thursday. Arkema stores organic peroxides at several locations on the site. Sheriff Gonzalez said 13 of the 15 deputies treated for smoke exposure had been released from the hospital.
The best course of action is to let the fire burn itself out, the company said. The chemicals made at the plant are used to make plastics.
“At Crosby, we prepared for what we recognized could be a worst-case scenario,” Rich Rowe, who overseas Arkema's U.S. operations, said in a statement. “We had redundant contingency plans in place.” The flood waters, which reached 6 feet inside the plant, have begun to recede, Rennard, the company president, said Aug. 31.

—With assistance from Jessica Shankleman.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119884639&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119884639&jd=119884639

Return to headline | Return to top
New Hazard in Storm Zone: Chemical Blasts and ‘Noxious’ Smoke

Aug 31, 2017 | New York Times

By Julie Turkewitz, Henry Fountain and Hiroko Tabuchi

A series of explosions at a flood-damaged chemical plant outside Houston on Thursday drew sharp focus on hazards to public health and safety from the city’s vast petrochemical complex as the region begins a painstaking recovery from Hurricane Harvey.
The blasts at the plant, owned by the French chemical company Arkema, came after its main electrical system and backups failed, cutting off refrigeration systems that kept volatile chemicals stable. While nearby residents had been evacuated, 15 public safety officers were treated at a hospital after inhaling smoke from chemical fires that followed the explosions.
The Arkema plant has been identified as one of the most hazardous in the state. Its failure followed releases of contaminants from several other area petrochemical plants and systemic breakdowns of water and sewer systems in Houston and elsewhere in the storm-struck region.
The explosions — more are expected, the company said — will bring fresh scrutiny on whether these plants are adequately regulated and monitored by state and federal safety officials.
The chemical plant accident came as devastation from Harvey, now a tropical depression moving into the Mississippi Valley, continued to spread across the region. The known death toll from the storm and flooding remained at 39, the authorities said.
Record-breaking floods swept through Beaumont, Tex., 100 miles east of Houston, damaging the water system and leaving the city’s 120,000 residents without clean water.
Faced with that prospect, one hospital, Baptist Beaumont, began to transport most of its 193 patients to other hospitals outside the city. “We’re doing this before we’re in crisis mode,” a spokeswoman said.
Beaumont city officials said they would not be able to assess the damage to the water system until floodwaters began to recede, and that efforts were being made to distribute bottled water. But Harvey dropped nearly four feet of rain in the area, and most roads into the city remained impassable.
“Right now, Beaumont’s basically on an island,” a police spokeswoman said.
While many areas continued to face the threat of rising waters, and rescues from flooded homes were continuing, many Houston residents began to return home for the first time in nearly a week to assess the damage.
Vice President Mike Pence and several cabinet officials arrived in Corpus Christi, Tex., around midday on Thursday before heading to nearby Rockport to survey the devastation left by the storm, speak with victims and survey the cleanup effort.
“The American people are with you,” Mr. Pence told a crowd gathered outside a Rockport church.
Tom Bossert, the official leading the White House’s response to the disaster, estimated that 100,000 homes in Texas and Louisiana had been damaged or destroyed, and said that President Trump would soon seek billions in aid.
Mr. Bossert said that rescuers would provide aid to the estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants in the Houston area, and that federal officials would not round up those whose only offense was entering the country illegally. But undocumented immigrants would likely not be eligible for long-term aid, he said, including subsidies to replace damaged housing.
Last week, with the forecast of an approaching hurricane, executives at Arkema decided to shut down the plant in Crosby, about 30 miles northeast of Houston, as a precaution. Most of the 60 workers were sent home on Friday; only a “ride-out” crew of 11 stayed behind.
The flooding brought on by the weekend’s torrential rainfall knocked out electrical power to the plant on Sunday. Backup generators were inundated as well.
The plant produces chemicals that need to be kept cold to avoid becoming unstable and explosive. With refrigeration equipment not functioning, cold-storage warehouses that held the chemicals began to warm.
Fearing that the chemicals might explode, the workers as a last resort transferred them to nine refrigerated trailers on the property. All but one of the refrigeration units on those trailers eventually failed, the company said.
With no way to prevent explosions, the workers abandoned the site late Tuesday.
Company officials said they had been prepared for a major storm, but nothing of the magnitude that hit.
“Certainly we didn’t anticipate having six feet of water in our plant,” Richard Rennard, an Arkema executive, said at a news conference Thursday. “And this is really the issue that led to the incident we are experiencing now.”
M. Sam Mannan, a professor of chemical engineering at Texas A&M University and the author of a study on Texas chemical plants that listed the Arkema plant as one of the most hazardous in the state, said he could understand why company officials did not foresee such extreme flooding.
Still, the dangers of the chemicals they produce should have prompted them to plan for the worst, he said.
“They knew they were dealing with an unstable chemical that they need to keep refrigerated,” he said. “So the question becomes, could they have done something else?”
Arkema was among many chemical companies that fought regulations issued by the Obama administration to tighten safety at facilities nationwide. The rules, which included provisions to require companies to coordinate more closely with emergency responders, were developed after a series of high-profile accidents, including a blast at a fertilizer plant in Texas City, Tex., that killed 15 people in 2013.
But in June the Trump administration delayed enforcement of the regulations until at least early 2019. That followed lobbying against the rules by the chemicals industry, including Arkema, which argued that they were too costly and would jeopardize trade secrets.
Amy Graham, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Agency, said in an email that the original risk management plan remained in effect. “The agency’s recent action to delay the effectiveness of the 2017 Amendments had no effect on the major safety requirements that applied to the Arkema Crosby plant at the time of the fire,” she said.
The chemicals produced at the Arkema plant, called organic peroxides, present high risks because of their vulnerability to heat.
But the plant is far from alone in its hazards. There are at least three others in the region that produce the same chemicals, and 500 or more other facilities, big and small, that churn out a dizzying array of compounds. Many are hazardous.
“They make everything here,” said Ed Hirs, an energy expert at the University of Houston. “Some of them make comparatively benign things. Other make really nasty things.”
The plants all face challenges now. Most, like the Arkema plant, were shut down protectively before Harvey hit, and have remained closed because of high water. Some have reported damage from the storm, like sinking tank roofs and loss of power, which have led to the release of millions of pounds of hazardous chemicals into the air over the past week.
There will be more challenges in the coming weeks and months as the floodwaters recede and closed facilities are made operational again. Some equipment might not be in safe condition, experts said.
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, an independent federal agency, has issued a notice detailing precautions that should be taken as plants are restarted. The process is complex, the board said, “because numerous activities are occurring simultaneously and many automatic systems are run under manual control.”
The organic peroxides made at the Arkema plant, which employs about 60 people, are used as catalysts in plastic manufacturing. The Texas A&M study said that the plant held up to half a million pounds of one the chemicals, cumene hydroperoxide.
The explosions occurred at about 2 a.m. local time Thursday in two of the storage trailers, sending black smoke into the air as the material burned. The company said that with no refrigeration in six other trailers, those would likely explode soon as well.
Mr. Rennard, the Arkema executive, said that the smoke produced by the blasts and fires was “noxious” and irritating to the eyes, lungs and possibly skin. Residents within a mile and a half of the plant remained under a mandatory evacuation order.
Mr. Rennard said that workers would not enter the site until the floodwaters had receded significantly.
The E.P.A. said that airborne measurements taken at the scene Thursday showed no immediate health threats.
“E.P.A. has emergency response personnel on the scene and the agency is currently reviewing data received from an aircraft that surveyed the scene,” Scott Pruitt, the agency’s administrator, said in a statement.
The Obama-era rules would not necessarily have prevented the explosions, and peroxide itself is not on the list of chemicals the regulations cover. But the plant previously disclosed that it stores two other chemicals, sulfur dioxide and isobutylene, that are covered by the rules.
In pushing back against them, Arkema said it was worried about security. “We have significant concerns with providing security-sensitive information where disclosure of such information could create a risk to our sites and to the communities surrounding them,” Susan Lee-Martin, an Arkema engineer, wrote in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency in March 2016.
Those rules — which would require companies to undergo third-party audits of their safety measures, make more information available to emergency responders and study more effective ways to keep hazards in check — could help make future accidents less likely, said Gordon Sommers, an attorney at the environmental group Earthjustice.
One critical upgrade at chemical plants that might have been spurred by the new rules would have been developing better backup power systems that could withstand flooding and other disasters, Mr. Sommers said.
“It’s a very good illustration of why rules are important,” he added. “It’s certainly not the last hurricane Texas is going to face. It’s not the last time there’s going to be accidents at chemical plants.”
The Arkema plant has faced regulatory scrutiny in the past, paying some $1.2 million in fines for workplace safety, health, environmental and other violations since 2010, according to Violation Tracker. The plant has been in violation of the Clean Water Act for six out of the past 12 quarters, E.P.A. records show.
The plant has also faced state penalties, including two for improper storage of organic peroxides. In one instance, in 2006, the improper storage led to a fire that released 3,200 pounds of volatile organic compounds and other pollutants into the air.
Julie Turkewitz reported from Houston, and Henry Fountain and Hiroko Tabuchi from New York. Reporting was contributed by Richard Pérez-Peña, Niraj Chokshi and Jonah Engel Bromwich from New York; Lisa Friedman from Washington; and Rick Rojas from Beaumont, Tex.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/us/texas-chemical-plant-explosion-arkema.html?_r=0

Return to headline | Return to top

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

Environment News

Judge Won't Let EPA Delay Texas Haze Deadline

Aug 31, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Alex Guillen

A federal judge today rejected the Trump administration’s request to delay taking action on Texas pollution that contributes regional haze, saying the state has had plenty of time to act before now.
Texas was supposed to have filed a plan to curb the pollution by 2007, but has yet to do so. A 2012 consent decree between EPA and environmentalists requires the agency to issue a federal plan by Sept. 9. EPA last week asked to push the deadline back through the end of 2018, arguing that the agency and the state have had more “productive” negotiations since the Trump administration took office.
But Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court in D.C. said she will not give the agency or Texas more time.
“Texas has been under the statutory obligation to comply with the Clean Air Act since at least 2007, and it has been on notice of EPA’s finding that it had failed to comply with the requirement to submit a state implementation plan since 2009. So there has been quite a period of time during which ‘cooperative federalism’ could take hold,” she wrote.
“Texas has had ample time to develop, submit, and negotiate a compliant state implementation plan if that was its actual preference.” Jackson added. The Clean Air Act does promote cooperation between the federal government and the states, but it also requires EPA to take action if states don't step up, she said.
In a footnote, Jackson noted the awkward timing given the devastation Texas has suffered from Hurricane Harvey, but said her hands were tied.
WHAT’S NEXT: EPA has indicated it can issue a federal plan by the Sept. 9 deadline.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested