Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 9/8/2017
-
(ACC Blog) U.S. and Chemical Industry Prepare for Another Major Hurricane
Sep 7, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Bill Erny
As the second major storm of this year’s hurricane season makes its way toward the U.S. coast, ACC member companies with operations in Florida, as well as other southeastern states are taking Hurricane Irma extremely seriously and have begun preparations for its landfall. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Picks Bush-Era EPA Official for Air Chief
Sep 8, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
President Donald Trump has nominated Bill Wehrum, the acting head of EPA's air office during the Bush administration, to lead the Trump administration's efforts to undo Obama-era air and climate policies. -
Don't Forget TSCA CBI Substantiations are Due September 19th
Sep 7, 2017 | National Law Review
By Thomas C. Berger, David G. Sarvadi and Adrienne M. Timmel
Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims asserted in any Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) submissions made between June 22, 2016 and March 21, 2017 must be affirmatively substantiated by September 19, 2017, unless they fall within one of seven classes of information... -
(ACC Mentioned) France Ready to Vote ‘No’ on EU's Glyphosate Renewal Plan
Sep 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
France will not support a proposal extending the European Union's authorization of glyphosate through 2027 and will work with farmers to find alternatives to the herbicide, according to the prime minister's office. -
U.S. Chemical Risk Program Gets Mixed Review
Sep 7, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s program for evaluating the human health risks associated with exposure to chemicals in the environment—the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)—is under attack by Republican lawmakers. -
Novel Enforcement Case Driving GOP Effort To Overhaul EPA's IRIS Program
Sep 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Republicans on the House science committee are citing novel EPA and state enforcement efforts at a Louisiana chemical plant, based on a cancer risk estimate for chloroprene from the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)... -
Nearly 100 Cancer-Causing Contaminants Found in U.S. Drinking Water
Sep 7, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
EWG’s just-released Tap Water Database shows that a startling number of cancer-causing chemicals contaminate the nation’s drinking water. -
Tribes Urge EPA Review of Five Chemicals Found in Landfills
Sep 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Native American tribes want the EPA to examine how five potentially problematic chemicals end up in open landfills and whether that means the substances should be regulated. -
Rising Chemical Export Requests Could Spur Delays, EU Agency Says
Sep 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The addition of new chemicals under an international export convention is challenging the European Chemicals Agency with a rising tide of export requests, potentially causing delays for chemicals companies. -
NGOs Welcome Efsa's Approach to BPA Review
Sep 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
NGOs and review experts have welcomed the European Food Safety Authority's proposed protocol for a fresh hazard assessment of bisphenol A (BPA), according to comments submitted during a public consultation. -
(ACC Mentioned) Harvey May Pinch Some Gulf Coast Refining, Chemical Projects
Sep 8, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Jarrett Renshaw and Ernest Scheyder
Oil and petrochemical plants along the U.S. Gulf Coast intend to go ahead with plans for near record spending on expansions next year, despite Hurricane Harvey driving up labor costs and slowing work, experts said. -
Climate Rule Rollback Expected This Fall
Sep 7, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration's proposal to scrap or replace the embattled Clean Power Plan is expected to roll out this fall, U.S. EPA said today. -
Trump's Trade Barrier Push Threatens U.S. Energy Profits, Critics Say
Sep 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Trade expansion poses the biggest potential boon to U.S. energy companies, yet the Trump administration's rhetoric threatens that prospect, said several speakers at an event to discuss NAFTA renegotiations. -
Senators Urge Pruitt to Enforce EPA Methane Rule
Sep 8, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
A group of Democratic senators is urging U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to fully enforce an Obama-era rule curbing methane emissions at oil and gas operations. -
Interior Nominee Seeks Collaboration on Land Management
Sep 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A nominee for a top role managing energy and other federal land resources said he would collaborate with state, local, tribal, private, and environmental advocacy interests to try to smooth out land management policies. -
DOI Should Be Allowed to Collect Royalties Owed to the Taxpayer
Sep 7, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Ryan Alexander
Having failed to strike the Bureau of Land Management’s methane waste rule in the spring using the Congressional Review Act, some members of Congress are still looking for ways to kill the rule even before the Department of Interior has a chance to act on it -
US Methanol Breaks Ground for West Virginia Plant
Sep 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Upstart US Methanol Corp. welcomed local and state leaders this week to a groundbreaking ceremony in Kanawha County, WV, for its first methanol production plant, which would use Appalachian shale natural gas to manufacture the product. -
(ACC Mentioned) Hurricane Irma’s Chemical Fallout Could Be Worse than Harvey’s
Sep 8, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Jack Kaskey, Ryan Collins and Bryan Gruley
Before flames and smoke leaped into the sky over the Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas, last week, Jolyn Masters was hunkered down at home on a Hurricane Harvey-flooded street a mile away. -
(ACC Mentioned) Texas Chemical Plant Sued For Millions, First Responders Charge Gross Negligence
Sep 8, 2017 | International Business Times
By David Sirota, Josh Keefe, Jay Cassano and Alex Kotch
Seven first responders filed a lawsuit Thursday against a chemical company whose Houston-area facility exploded after Hurricane Harvey. -
Arkema Blasts Highlight Safety Agency Facing Ax Under Trump
Sep 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A federal agency that could unravel why Arkema's Texas chemical plant exploded after Hurricane Harvey is a tiny office with 40 employees that the Trump administration has proposed to kill. -
Senate Panel Votes to Fund UN Climate Agency
Sep 7, 2017 | The Hill- E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A Senate committee voted Thursday to contribute $10 million to the United Nations’ climate change agency. -
How Not to Run the E.P.A.
Sep 8, 2017 | New York Times
By Christine Todd Whitman
I have been worried about how the Environmental Protection Agency would be run ever since President Trump appointed Scott Pruitt, the former attorney general of Oklahoma, to oversee it.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) U.S. and Chemical Industry Prepare for Another Major Hurricane
Sep 7, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Bill Erny
As the second major storm of this year’s hurricane season makes its way toward the U.S. coast, ACC member companies with operations in Florida, as well as other southeastern states are taking Hurricane Irma extremely seriously and have begun preparations for its landfall.
In preparation for Irma, ACC has initiated contact with member companies in the storm’s potential path to facilitate cooperation with relevant federal regulators and emergency response officials, as we do in advance of any major weather event.
Weathering the storm
Our industry’s first priority when preparing for a hurricane is supporting employees and their families and helping to ensure their safety and that of our neighbors.
Preparedness and process safety are key elements of Responsible Care®, the industry’s global environment, health, safety and security program. Compliance with Responsible Care, including third party audits and certification, is mandatory for all ACC members.
ACC member companies have comprehensive and well-rehearsed emergency plans that are activated in close coordination with local, state, and national authorities; other businesses; and distribution networks in the path of storms.
As part of their plans, companies may reduce operations, shutdown a facility, evacuate personnel in advance of a hurricane. To ensure that this is done as safely as possible, special regulations and emissions limits apply to periods of start-up and shut-down.
In addition to emergency planning and procedures, chemical facilities are designed and built with safety features to help withstand the impact of a major storm. Specific construction elements can include reinforced manufacturing equipment that helps improve the overall structural integrity of a facility in accordance with industrial building standards for hurricanes. Dikes and levees are incorporated to reduce the risk of chemical releases.
Recovering from the storm
After a storm passes, specially trained teams visit the site to evaluate damage before response crews or other employees are allowed to return. Once it is deemed safe to return, employees begin the delicate process of restarting operations, which can take several days depending on the size of the facility.
Restoring chemical production following a storm can be further complicated by damage to the local infrastructure making it difficult for employees to access the facility or block the flow of key supplies, like electricity and natural gas. Furthermore, damage to ports, roads and rail lines can prevent or delay the delivery of chemicals that are essential to producing important everyday necessities like fuel, clean drinking water and life-saving medicines.
Of course, helping communities and employees get back on their feet is just as important as restoring manufacturing operations. Recovering from a hurricane is no small feat for communities and typically requires a tremendous amount of resources.
This is certainly going to be the case with recent Hurricane Harvey due in large part to the massive and unprecedented flooding that resulted from this historic storm. As they have done in the past, ACC member companies are working with the Red Cross, the United Way and numerous local organizations to provide assistance and much-needed supplies. This industry-wide effort includes companies and facilities from all parts of the nation. ACC members stand ready and prepared for a similar large scale effort once Irma passes.
While the timing and path of hurricanes can be unpredictable, we know that future storms are inevitable. ACC and our member companies are committed to applying the lessons learned from Harvey, Irma and other past storms to help protect the safety of their employees and neighbors and assist in the recovery when the next storm hits.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/09/u-s-and-chemical-industry-prepare-for-another-major-hurricane/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Picks Bush-Era EPA Official for Air Chief
Sep 8, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
Pesident Donald Trump has nominated Bill Wehrum, a George W. Bush-era EPA official who since has represented a variety of energy industry interests, to run EPA's powerful air office.
POLITICO reported in July that Wehrum was expected to receive the nod.
As head of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, Wehrum will play a key role in undoing many of the Obama-era regulations most opposed by Republicans, including the Clean Power Plan, the 2015 ozone standard and forthcoming vehicle emissions rules. Wehrum has been critical of EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, even after the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling saying EPA did have such authority.
He served as a counsel to Jeff Holmstead, Bush's first-term air chief, before replacing Holmstead in an acting capacity from 2005 to 2007. Bush nominated Wehrum to the job permanently, but Democrats blocked his nomination from proceeding in the Senate.
Wehrum spent the past decade as a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm Hunton & Williams. His clients have included the American Petroleum Industry, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the American Chemistry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Forest & Paper Association.
WHAT'S NEXT: The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will review Wehrum's nomination in what is certain to be a contentious process.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/2017/09/trump-picks-bush-era-epa-official-for-air-chief-092637
-
Don't Forget TSCA CBI Substantiations are Due September 19th
Sep 7, 2017 | National Law Review
By Thomas C. Berger, David G. Sarvadi and Adrienne M. Timmel
Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims asserted in any Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) submissions made between June 22, 2016 and March 21, 2017 must be affirmatively substantiated by September 19, 2017, unless they fall within one of seven classes of information exempt from substantiation under section 14(c)(2) of TSCA. If it is questionable whether an exemption applies, one may consider formally invoking the exemption by September 19th given the lack of significant guidance on the scope of these exemptions.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), if no substantiation for a claim has been received by this date, the Agency will provide the affected business 30 days' notice and a "final opportunity" to substantiate the claim. CBI claims that are not substantiated at the end of the 30 days will be considered withdrawn, and "the information may be made public with no further notice to the affected business." Waiting for EPA to issue such notice and then submitting the substantiation may limit a company's opportunity to bolster its justification if EPA rejects the initial substantiation. A second notice is not required by statute prior to disclosure. A proper submission by September 19th eliminates this risk.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/don-t-forget-tsca-cbi-substantiations-are-due-september-19th
-
(ACC Mentioned) France Ready to Vote ‘No’ on EU's Glyphosate Renewal Plan
Sep 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
France will not support a proposal extending the European Union's authorization of glyphosate through 2027 and will work with farmers to find alternatives to the herbicide, according to the prime minister's office.
The world's most widely used herbicide and a major ingredient in products from Monsanto Co., BASF Corp., and DuPont is facing lawsuits in California and the United Nations’ International Agency for Research on Cancer recently labeled it “probably carcinogenic.” Two European agencies contradict those findings, however, and the American Chemistry Council attacked IARC's study as “flawed.”
France will vote no when the European Commission considers a proposal Oct. 4 to renew through 2027 glyphosate's soon-to-expire authorization by the European Union, Ecology Minister Nicolas Hulot said Aug. 30 at a conference of organic farmers.
A spokeswoman for Prime Minister Edouard Philippe told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 6 that the French plan to vote “no” fits into President Emmanuel Macron's campaign promise to set a national schedule for gradually eliminating pesticides. “The French position is clear: We are against the proposal. After the vote, we will see what can be done. We will work, in particular through the minister of agriculture, to come up with alternatives,” she said.
No Viable Alternative
French farmer groups say glyphosate is an extremely versatile weedkiller and there is no viable, cost-effective alternative.
Eric Thirouin, deputy secretary-general of the FNSEAthe national federation of agriculture business syndicates—told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 7 that the substance has been “generic” since Monsanto's patent expired about a decade ago, reducing its cost. Withdrawing it could cost the sector close to 1 billion euros ($1.19 billion) a year, he said.
If farmers can't use glyphosate, they will have to go back to using fossil-fuel–powered equipment to weed their fields before planting, significantly increasing not only labor and fuel costs, but the carbon dioxide impact of crops, Thirouin said.
Eliminating glyphosate also could undermine what's known as France's 4 pour 1,000 (4%) initiative aimed at boosting food security and fighting climate change by sequestering carbon dioxide in the soil—an initiative originally proposed at the Paris climate summit, he said.
Tthat initiative maintains that a 4 percent annual growth rate of the soil carbon stock would make it possible to stop the current increase in carbon dioxide. This is possible because planted soil absorbs more carbon dioxide than bare soil.
Glyphosate is critical to these efforts, Thirouin said. A spokeswoman for Agriculture Minister Stéphane Travert said the office is not commenting at this time. Macron's press office did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
A Monsanto spokesperson declined to respond to a request for comment by Bloomberg BNA.
Conflicting Studies
Glyphosate, and Monsanto's products in general, are politically charged subjects in France. Environmental groups are insisting that Macron follow through on Hulot's promise to vote no. In particular, they point to the study by the Lyon, France-based IARC.
Anne Kolton, a communications official at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA in a Sept. 7 email that both the European Chemicals Agency and the European Food Safety Authority “have concluded glyphosate is safe.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, France's Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, and the World Health Organization have come to similar conclusions, she said.
“France's abrupt decision also ignores significant, demonstrated shortcomings that have been identified in the International Agency for Research on Cancer's flawed classification of glyphosate as a carcinogen,” she said.
The French prime minister's spokeswoman said the government does not have plans for other proposals less drastic than simply rejecting the license renewal, such as renewing for a shorter period, which was done in 2016 for one year. New proposals on the substance would require new negotiations by the European Commission, she said.
Thirouin said votes of large, more populous European Union member states will weigh heavily in the Oct. 4 vote. So a vote against it by France, one of the EU's largest members, could sink the proposal. Germany, facing an election in the fall, may abstain from voting, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=120179684&vname=dennotallissues&fn=120179684&jd=120179684
-
U.S. Chemical Risk Program Gets Mixed Review
Sep 7, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s program for evaluating the human health risks associated with exposure to chemicals in the environment—the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)—is under attack by Republican lawmakers.
At a hearing on Sept. 6, Republican leaders on two subcommittees of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space & Technology criticized EPA for not making changes to IRIS as suggested in 2014 reports by the National Academies’ National Research Counciland the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Democrats at the hearing, however, praised EPA for significantly improving the IRIS program in a short amount of time. They questioned why no one from EPA, GAO, or the National Academies was invited to testify at the hearing to discuss changes EPA has made in recent years. Several Democrats pointed out that EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board sent a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt just days before the hearing, commending the agency for improving the IRIS program.
Earlier this year, the Trump Administration initially proposed to zero out funding for IRIS in EPA’s fiscal 2018 appropriations but later sought money for the program. Lawmakers held the hearing to assess whether the program should continue.
At the hearing, James Bus, a toxicologist with the consulting firm Exponent, raised concerns about EPA’s failure to incorporate mode of action information, or how chemicals cause toxic effects, into its IRIS assessments. Such information “is essential to establishing the human health relevance of toxicity observed in cell- or animal-based toxicity findings,” he said. Bus also chided EPA for relying on low-quality studies, particularly in its assessment of trichloroethylene. That assessment led to increased remediation costs in the hundreds of millions or possibly even billions of dollars, he claimed.
Kenneth Mundt, principal with the consulting firm Ramboll Environ, criticized EPA for not disclosing which studies the agency is relying on in its reassessment of formaldehyde. EPA is revising its formaldehyde IRIS assessment because of criticisms made in a 2011 National Academies report.
Thomas Burke, a professor of risk sciences at Johns Hopkins University, spoke in support of the IRIS program at the hearing. Burke emphasized the importance of IRIS assessments to state and local officials, as well as to first responders in disasters such as hurricanes.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i36/US-chemical-risk-program-mixed.html
-
Novel Enforcement Case Driving GOP Effort To Overhaul EPA's IRIS Program
Sep 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Republicans on the House science committee are citing novel EPA and state enforcement efforts at a Louisiana chemical plant, based on a cancer risk estimate for chloroprene from the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), to make the case for their efforts to de-fund or overhaul the program, starting with a budget rider that would eliminate any IRIS funding in fiscal year 2018.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), chairman of the House science committee's environment subcommittee, is offering an amendment to H.R. 3354, EPA's appropriations bills for fiscal year 2018 that is pending on the House floor, which would bar EPA from using any funds for IRIS.
In his opening remarks at a joint Sept. 6 hearing on the program, Biggs pointed to the Denka facility as an example where “determinations by IRIS have been inappropriately used to make regulatory decisions.”
“The previous administration took action against a chemical manufacturer in Louisiana based on a faulty IRIS determination, even though that particular company was currently in compliance with all emissions regulations put forward under the Clean Air Act,” he said.
“The fact that IRIS has been subjected to continued scrutiny of its scientific processes and continued requests for Information Quality Act reviews should send a clear signal that the program is failing and is in serious danger of irrevocably subverting its mission,” he added.
Biggs appeared to acknowledge that he does not expect the amendment to be enacted, saying that he hoped the hearing would “provide Congress with information to better inform actions that this Committee may take” to overhaul the program. “We all want to ensure the protection of American citizens from the potentially harmful impacts of chemicals,” he said. “If IRIS is the appropriate program to do that, we in Congress must ensure that it is properly organized and makes informed decisions."
The facility at issue, owned by the Denka Performance Elastomer Company (DPE), is the subject of enforcement action by EPA and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ).
Concerns with the Denka plant originated with EPA's 2015 release of its 2011 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) data showing high levels near the plant of the likely carcinogen chloroprene. The chemical is a feedstock for the neoprene the plant produces.
EPA and LDEQ are using NATA to target the plant's emissions -- a novel use of the air toxics data to support specific compliance action rather than broader strategic efforts.
EPA and Region 6 spokespeople told Inside EPA last year that the agency is stepping up air monitoring at the plant and working on voluntary emissions cuts based on NATA data. There appear to be no other potential sources of chloroprene anywhere else in the region, leading to the focus on the DPE plant.
IQA Petition
But Koki Tabuchi, Denka's president and CEO, formally petitioned EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in June to “withdraw and correct” errors in EPA's 2010 IRIS assessment of the chemical chloroprene, which he blamed for the enforcement action that could force the facility to shut down.
“The errors in the 2010 IRIS Review threaten the very survival of DPE's neoprene production facility in LaPlace, Louisiana,” Tabuchi wrote in a June 26 letter to Pruitt, which was entered into the hearing record.
The letter accompanied a request for correction (RFC) per the Information Quality Act (IQA), which the company filed with EPA in June. No agency response to the request has been posted to EPA's website.
Tabuchi charged that EPA and LDEQ “pressed DPE to reduce emissions to achieve an extraordinarily miniscule ambient air target concentration of 0.2 [micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3)] for chloroprene on an annual average basis … based on a risk assessment that applied the erroneous and scientifically unsubstantiated [inhalation unit risk (IUR)] from the 2010 IRIS” assessment.
Released in September 2010, EPA's chloroprene assessment classifies the chemical as a likely human carcinogen and sets a risk estimate for cancer potency when chloroprene is inhaled daily over a lifetime of 5x10^-4 per microgram per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3)^-1. This IUR is the basis for the 0.2 ug/m^3 emissions level.
The company charges that the NATA data, together with the IRIS assessment, was responsible for an enforcement action that led it to sign an Administrative Order of Consent it entered into with LDEQ last January that commits it to reducing its chloroprene emissions by 85 percent from its 2014 emissions at an estimated cost of $18 million, plus ongoing operating costs.
Industry groups have long pushed the IRIS program to evaluate its risk estimates against data, such as from cancer registries, and Denka employs this argument in its request. The company notes that the IRIS assessment and NATA data “erroneously identifies DPE’s facility as associated with the highest offsite cancer risks of any chemical facility in the United States. This does not comport with data from the Louisiana Tumor Registry, which indicates that St. John the Baptist Parish has one of the lower cancer rates of any parish in the state."
Further, the company protests EPA's public announcements about the NATA data, arguing that they have “created unnecessary public alarm” and that EPA's enforcement office is investigating the facility's regulatory compliance status.
Cancer Risk Estimate
Denka's petition also includes an appendix authored by consultants with Ramboll-Environ, Inc., which the company relies on to argue that EPA's cancer risk estimate for chloroprene is 156 times more stringent than it should be. “Ramboll Environ's expert scientific opinion is that the appropriate risk-based ambient target should be 156 times larger, or 31.2 ug/m^3. There is no agency rule or even proposed rule requiring the attainment of the 0.2/m^3 target, yet EPA has advised DPE, LDEQ and the public that the 0.2 ug/m^3 is the appropriate target,” the company's letter states.
Denka's request urges EPA to correct the IRIS assessment by reducing the IUR; to re-classify chloroprene's carcinogenicity; and to withdraw its non-cancer risk estimate, known as a reference concentration (RfC).
The request argues that the IRIS assessment's classification of chloroprene as a likely human carcinogen is “based on erroneous interpretations of available data, particularly in the rejection of the primary conclusions of the leading epidemiological study of chloroprene that showed no linkage between worker exposure to chloroprene and the incidence of cancer. Chloroprene should instead be classified as a chemical for which there is evidence only suggestive of human carcinogenicity.”
Should EPA reduce chloroprene's cancer classification to suggestive evidence, the agency's 2005 cancer risk assessment guidelines provide guidance on whether staff should conduct a quantitative risk assessment, given the limited evidence of carcinogenicity compared to other agents with stronger evidence of carcinogenic potential.
The Ramboll consultants met with IRIS staff last year, arguing at that time that the assessment should be updated because "[e]pidemiological evidence may have been misinterpreted."
These meetings, however, failed to result in the update the company requested, Denka notes in the letter to Pruitt, because “EPA officials advised DPE that EPA's 'queue is full.'”
One of the Ramboll consultants who performed the review of the IRIS assessment for Denka, Kenneth Mundt, was one of the two Republican witnesses at the Sept. 6 hearing, along with James Bus, a toxicologist with the consulting firm Exponent. There were no EPA witnesses.
IRIS Enhancements
Democrats at the hearing pushed back against Republican calls to overhaul the program, citing in part a recent letterfrom EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), praising IRIS recent progress. The chartered SAB at its meeting late last month voted to send a letter of support to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt after hearing a presentation from new IRIS leaders about their efforts so far and plans for the program.
“It is also perplexing that the Majority is hosting a hearing to emphasize industry-held criticisms of the IRIS program at a time when the independent organizations that have investigated the IRIS program are citing its notable improvements,” Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), ranking Democrat on the environment subcommittee, said in her opening remarks.
“'SAB has observed significant enhancements in the IRIS program over the past few years, with impactful changes over the past year, and marked progress over the past six months,'” Bonamici quoted the SAB letter. “'The changes are so extensive and positive that they constitute a virtual reinvention of IRIS.'”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/novel-enforcement-case-driving-gop-effort-overhaul-epas-iris-program
-
Nearly 100 Cancer-Causing Contaminants Found in U.S. Drinking Water
Sep 7, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
EWG’s just-released Tap Water Database shows that a startling number of cancer-causing chemicals contaminate the nation’s drinking water. Of 250 different contaminants detected in tests by local utilities, 93 are linked to an increased risk of developing cancer.
We analyzed the tap water data for 48,000 water utilities nationwide for the years 2010 to 2015, and found that more than 80 percent of the utilities detected contaminants linked to cancer in levels exceeding health-protective guidelines. According to a recent studypublished in the journal Cancer, counties with the highest rates of pollution also have higher cancer rates, and contaminated drinking water likely plays a role in this.
Here’s a list of the five most pervasive drinking water contaminants linked to cancer nationwide:
1. 1,4-Dioxane
Found in the drinking water supplies for 90 million Americans, this contaminant can come from hazardous waste sites, industrial spills and discharges from municipal wastewater plants. It is linked to liver, gall bladder and respiratory system cancers.
2. Arsenic
Found in the drinking water supplies of 70 million people, this notorious poison is a naturally occurring mineral that causes bladder, lung and skin cancers.
3. Chromium-6
The “Erin Brockovich” chemical contaminates drinking water for 250 million people, and can come from industrial pollution or natural sources. Chromium-6 is linked to stomach cancer.
4. Disinfection byproducts
Detected in the drinking water served to more than 250 million Americans, these contaminants form when disinfectants such as chlorine interact with plant and animal waste in source water. Disinfection byproducts have been linked to bladder, liver, kidney and intestinal cancers, and may harm fetal development.
5. Nitrate
Nitrate is a fertilizer chemical that comes from agricultural and urban runoff, as well as discharges from wastewater treatment plants and septic tanks. High levels of nitrate in drinking water have been linked to colon, kidney, ovarian and bladder cancers. EWG has defined a health guideline for nitrate at 5 parts per million, or ppm, based on studies by scientists at the National Cancer Institute and other independent researchers. This health guideline protects against cancer and harm to fetal growth and development. In 2015, 7 million Americans received tap water with levels of nitrate greater than 5 ppm. The federal drinking water regulations allow up to 10 ppm nitrate in drinking water.
Arsenic, chromium-6 and nitrate are also common in private wells. The federal government does not require private well water monitoring, so it falls to individual homeowners to test the water in their wells.
The odds of having one of these contaminants in your water above the established health-protective guidelines are high, but it’s not all doom and gloom. For all of these contaminants except 1,4-dioxane, there are water filters certified to remove the chemical from water. Simple countertop filters will reduce but not eliminate many contaminants. In the case of 1,4-dioxane, reverse osmosis will not remove it completely, but can reduce the amount of the chemical. If you have any of these contaminants in your water, check out EWG’s Water Filter Buying Guide.
Follow the links below for filters that remove:
· Arsenic
· Chromium-6
· Disinfection byproducts
· Nitrate
No American should have to settle for drinking water that puts them and their loved ones at risk. EWG urges concerned citizens to reach out to their local officials and press for answers to vital questions on water quality.
Until federal and state regulators take action to protect Americans from drinking harmful contaminants in tap water, EWG will be on the front lines, arming people with the information they need to protect themselves and their families from water contamination, and advocating for better safeguards for water quality and human health.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/09/nearly-100-cancer-causing-contaminants-found-us-drinking-water#.WbJuKLIjHIU
-
Tribes Urge EPA Review of Five Chemicals Found in Landfills
Sep 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Native American tribes want the EPA to examine how five potentially problematic chemicals end up in open landfills and whether that means the substances should be regulated.
Congress required the Environmental Protection Agency to consider intended, known, or reasonably foreseen disposal practices as one of the “conditions of use” that could lead to chemicals needing to be regulated because they are posing health and environmental risks, Dianne Barton, chairwoman of the National Tribal Toxics Council, said during a Sept. 7 EPA webinar on the five chemicals.
Yet no information on the disposal of the five problematic chemicals was in the preliminary use documents the EPA prepared for the five chemicals, Barton said. Meanwhile, tribal communities are exposed to the five chemicals in consumer products disposed in open landfills, she said.
The EPA is identifying ways the five chemicals—which are found in plastics, rubber, wiring and other products—are exposed to people and the environment.
The agency will combine use and exposure information it is gathering with any new information it may get that could alter the agency's preliminary conclusion that the chemicals persist in people and other living organisms, bioaccumulate up the food chain, and are toxic. The agency will then decide whether it must reduce exposures to the five chemicals as required by the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The amendments required the EPA to propose—no later than June 19, 2019—a regulation to reduce risks and exposures from certain persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBT). The risks and exposures must be reduced “to the extent practicable,” the amended law said. The agency must issue a final rule no more than 18 months after it proposes one.
The EPA is accepting through Dec. 9 use and exposure information along with details that could offer new insights into the chemicals’ PBT characteristics.
The PBT characteristics of the chemicals have prompted many industrialized countries to limit their uses or ban them outright. Companies also have voluntarily phased out production of some of the compounds, but some are inadvertent byproducts of chemical manufacturing, and substitutes may not be available for some uses.
Manufacturers
Akzo Nobel N.V., for example, has told the EPA it made or imported one of the five chemicals—phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1)—in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. This particular phenol is used as a flame retardant, lubricant, hydraulic fluid, and for other industrial purposes, according to EPA information.
Akzo Nobel reviewed its uses of that phenol in 2015 and restricted it to only those applications where substitutes aren't available and the use is proven safe, Andrew Wood, senior spokesman, told Bloomberg BNA.Maria Doa, director of the EPA chemical control division, said the agency would consider the availability of substitutes as it considers whether and how to regulate any of the five chemicals that could move further down the fast track lane to restricted uses or other regulations.
Other chemical manufacturers that made or imported one or more of the PBT compounds include Albemarle Corp., ICL North America, Lanxess, the SI Group, Inc., and Shell Chemicals, the petrochemicals arm of Royal Dutch Shell.
An American Petroleum Institute official said that trade association will provide the EPA information about ongoing flame retardant uses its members have for two of the five chemicals—phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1) and 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl) phenol), an antioxidant that can be used as fuel, oil, gasoline, or lubricant additive.
Chemicals
The EPA webinar was its first public meeting to discuss its plans to review the five chemicals that potentially qualify for the fast track to regulation as established by amended TSCA. EPA staff described the agency's plans to determine the extent to which the five chemicals are still in use or in products, and the amounts of the chemicals that may end up in people's bodies or in the environment. The five chemicals and the uses the EPA has identified are:
• decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDE; CAS No. 1163-19-5), a flame retardant for textiles, plastics, wiring insulation, and building and construction materials;
• hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD; CAS No. 87-68-3), used as a solvent to make rubber compounds and as hydraulic, heat transfer, or transformer fluid;
• pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP; CAS 133-49-3), used to make rubber more pliable for industrial uses;
• phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1); and
• 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl) phenol (CAS No. 732-26-3).
Production Volumes
The national aggregate production volume—which includes importation—of decaBDE dropped between 2012 and 2015 due to a voluntary phaseout to which several major manufacturers agreed. The chemical's production dropped from a range of 10 million and 50 million pounds in 2012 to less than 25,000 pounds in 2015.
The total production of phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1) remained at a range between 1 million and 10 million pounds all four years, according to information its manufacturers provided the EPA.
The EPA withheld the production and importation volumes of two of the chemicals—PCTP and 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl) phenol—because so few companies made or imported them that releasing the production volume could reveal proprietary information.
No company reported making or importing HCBD. The countries that have adopted the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants agreed in May to reduce the unintentional release of that chemical, which is a byproduct of the production of solvents such as perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and carbon tetrachloride. HCBD also is used to make rubber, chlorofluorocarbon, and lubricants, and it may be used to recover chlorine gas in chlorine production plants, according to EPA information.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=120179671&vname=dennotallissues&fn=120179671&jd=120179671
-
Rising Chemical Export Requests Could Spur Delays, EU Agency Says
Sep 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The addition of new chemicals under an international export convention is challenging the European Chemicals Agency with a rising tide of export requests, potentially causing delays for chemicals companies.
According to the agency, the number of notifications—which chemicals exporters are required to submit under the European Union's Prior Informed Consent Regulation (PIC, Regulation (EU) 649/2012)—increased by 74 percent since 2014 to nearly 8,000 in 2016. The number of companies filing notifications rose from 390 to 1,177.
The export notifications are on the rise because new substances are being added to Annex I of the PIC Regulation and companies are becoming more aware of their obligations under the law.
“The expectation is that more chemicals will be added to Annex I,” leading to a greater workload in the future, the agency said in a Sept. 6 statement to Bloomberg BNA.
Limited Staff
The agency said it has only seven full-time staff working on the implementation of the PIC Regulation and will request that EU institutions allocate additional resources when its budget for the 2018-2020 period is discussed.
Jasper Jansen, communications manager with Dutch chemicals company AkzoNobel, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 6 that it was required to file notifications for exports of some hazardous substances and “overall, we are satisfied” with the system set up by the chemicals agency to handle the notifications.
European Chemicals Agency Director Geert Dancet said in a statement Sept. 6 that unless the agency received new resources, however, it “cannot guarantee the same level of quality as we have achieved so far.”
When exporters want to export a listed chemical, they have to notify their national authority no later than 35 days before the export. The national authority then has 10 days to check the notification and pass it onto the EU chemicals agency. About 5 percent of these notifications are delivered late, according to the agency. ECHA then has 10 days to get in touch with the authority in the importing country to notify them of the export; about 1percent of these notifications are now running late.
According to a report it published Sept. 6, the agency has already experienced some delays in processing export notifications and passing them onto importing countries and with authorities in EU member countries forwarding notifications to the European Chemicals Agency.
Annex Contains 200 Substances
The EU PIC Regulation implements the Rotterdam Convention on the PIC Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade in the bloc, which seeks to ensure that companies only export certain hazardous substances to countries that have previously consented to their import.
The regulation's Annex I contains 200 substances for which consent must be sought from authorities in the importing country, or for which an export notification must be filed with the European Chemicals Agency.
According to the chemicals agency's website, the greatest number of notifications for exports out of the EU are submitted for chloroform, benzene and 1,2-dichloroethane, which is used in applications such as the production of polymers, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides.
Companies that manufacture the substances in the EU include AkzoNobel and Germany's BASF. BASF told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 6 it was unable to comment on the PIC export notification procedure.
The U.S. signed the Rotterdam, or PIC, Convention, but never ratified it. Since 157 countries and regions are parties to the treaty, however, U.S. chemical and pesticide manufacturers exporting to those parts of the world must comply.
—With assistance from Pat Rizzuto.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=120179683&vname=dennotallissues&fn=120179683&jd=120179683
-
NGOs Welcome Efsa's Approach to BPA Review
Sep 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
NGOs and review experts have welcomed the European Food Safety Authority's proposed protocol for a fresh hazard assessment of bisphenol A (BPA), according to comments submitted during a public consultation.
The hazard assessment focuses on whether scientific evidence published since 2013 still supports a temporary tolerable daily intake(TDI) for BPA of 4µg/kg of body weight/day.
The draft protocol details a systematic process for assessing most published research while sticking to a traditional 'narrative' approach for some papers, such as those on genotoxicity and toxicokinetics.
"The ambition to use systematic methods, where possible, is laudable and if successful can be expected to greatly advance the validity and transparency of the findings of the hazard assessment," said Paul Whaley from Lancaster University, who is also associate editor for systematic reviews at the journal Environment International.
However, he is concerned that including narrative methods may undermine the systematic review approach. He would expect a systematic review journal to reject the protocol as "overcomplicated and compromised by the ad hoc introduction of inadequate approaches".
In its submitted comments, the US-based Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) applauded the use of systematic review, which, it said, is "based on well-defined methods, transparent decision-making, and is designed to inform hazard identification".
The organisation understands that there are currently no systematic review frameworks for evaluating toxicokinetics and in vitro studies. However, it would like to see systematic review methods used in these areas where possible. These should include systematic literature searches, defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and analysis of the risks of bias, it suggests.
TEDX welcomed the fact that the protocol focuses on exposures at low doses so as to be relevant to human health. "We anticipate that these efforts will expedite regulatory decision making for BPA and perhaps model a process for future chemicals of concern," it said. Finally, the organisation urged Efsa to consider evaluating BPA replacements as soon as possible.
The US Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) also welcomed the draft protocol, as it follows the essential steps of systematic review "to a large extent". However, it would also like the protocol to include details of how the results will be reported. "Ultimately, the protocol and the report should allow independent reproduction, at least of the systematic review components," it said.
Significant improvement
"This guidance is a significant improvement over prior evaluations of BPA proposed or completed by Efsa", the US Endocrine Society said. However, it points out that prior reviews of pre-2013 literature did not use the same criteria. "The entirety of the literature must be examined under this new protocol," it said.
Efsa originally decided to develop the new protocol to ensure that its panel on food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing aids, known as CEF, is fully prepared to re-evaluate BPA safety for consumers.
It later received an additional mandate from the European Commission to look again at the the risks to public health related to BPA in foodstuffs.
The Commission is drafting a regulation that would lower the specific migration limit for BPA from plastic FCMs and would apply the same limit to food contact varnishes and coatings. In its letter to Efsa, the Commission said: "It is essential that well-defined and transparent scientific criteria concerning the selection of the new scientific studies are laid down in advance of the re-evaluation."
The deadline for submitting comments was 3 September. Efsa will present and discuss the protocol at a public scientific meeting in Brussels on 14 September.
Submitted comments are not yet publicly available, but will be published in a technical report when Efsa's CEF endorses the revised protocol, most likely at the end of the year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58518/ngos-welcome-efsas-approach-to-bpa-review
-
(ACC Mentioned) Harvey May Pinch Some Gulf Coast Refining, Chemical Projects
Sep 8, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Jarrett Renshaw and Ernest Scheyder
Oil and petrochemical plants along the U.S. Gulf Coast intend to go ahead with plans for near record spending on expansions next year, despite Hurricane Harvey driving up labor costs and slowing work, experts said.
Harvey largely spared oil and petrochemical plants along the U.S. Gulf Coast from significant damage but thousands of homes and businesses were not as fortunate. Refiners and recovery projects will complete for the same labor, driving up costs or causing labor shortages.
Industrial investment in the Gulf Coast is expected to hit $51.9 billion next year, near the 2015 peak, requiring an army of pipefitters, ironworkers and other craftsman, said Industrial Information Resources (IIR), which tracks labor supply for refiners and other industrial companies.
"We had a labor shortage before Harvey, but now it's significantly worse," said IIR's Anthony Salemme. "It's going to spread to soft crafts like painters and insulators."
Investments have soared in recent years because the shale revolution fed off an existing infrastructure. The region's deep water ports and expanding pipeline and storage networks offer an easy outlet to global markets. It also boasts a welcoming regulatory climate and skilled workforce.
Since 2010, $85 billion worth of petrochemical projects have started or been completed across the United States, nearly all of them in the Gulf Coast region, according to the American Chemistry Council.
But the concentration along the Gulf of Mexico leaves these facilities and supporting networks exposed to the brutal force of tropical storms and hurricanes, as Harvey laid bare last month.
The storm shut roughly a quarter of the nation's refinery capacity and more than a dozen petrochemical plants halted operations. Ports were closed and key fuel pipelines serving the Midwest and U.S. Northeast were partially or completely shut, driving up pump prices as fears of fuel shortages took hold.
Preliminary assessments suggest that storm's hit to the region is not deterring companies from going ahead with existing projects. But global commodities buyers such as Ineos Group [INEOSG.UL] and Reliance Industries Ltd that relied on existing facilities shut by the storm may now consider putting some warehouses and stock elsewhere.
"The robustness of the supply chain is brought a little more under attention," said David Witte, a senior vice president at consultants IHS Markit. "They may be looking at it differently."
Construction costs also could slow some work.
INVESTMENT PLANS
There is no sign that major new projects are under threat. Several with plans on the drawing board, including BASF SE, DowDuPont Inc and Exxon Mobil Corp are sticking to growth plans. Others said they will repair Harvey's damage before making any decisions on long-term strategy for the region. Exxon earlier this year said it would invest $20 billion to expand Texas refining and petrochemical operations in Beaumont, Corpus Christi and Baytown. All three communities were damaged by Harvey. As part of that expansion, Exxon and Saudi Basic Industries Corp are proposing an about $10 billion chemical plant in Corpus Christi, near where Harvey made landfall. The project is moving forward, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri declined to comment. DowDuPont is also undeterred from an ongoing $4 billion expansion project that includes new capacity in Freeport, Texas, on the coast. "Hurricane Harvey does not change our perspective on the region being a great location for our investments," spokeswoman Rachelle Schikorra said in a statement. Royal Dutch Shell Plc, which is expanding its operations in the Gulf, also has proposed new investments in western Pennsylvania, near the natural gas-rich Marcellus formation.
The plant will help Shell capture a larger share of the U.S. market for polyethylene, more than half of which is concentrated in northern states. It took Shell years to make the decision to build the plant.
Pennsylvania has started to position itself as a second U.S. refining region, even though new plants are years away from opening. The state lacks the specialized refining workforce and proximity to open water - and the Panama Canal - that make the Gulf Coast area still so appealing.
The U.S. Gulf Coast will remain an attractive investment area, said Shell spokesman Curtis Smith and other energy officials.
"What this storm has demonstrated is the resilience of the energy system," said Torgrim Reitan, who runs Statoil ASA's U.S. operations. "Even a Harvey can't take out this capacity."
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/09/08/business/08reuters-storm-harvey-energy-infrastructure.html
-
Climate Rule Rollback Expected This Fall
Sep 7, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration's proposal to scrap or replace the embattled Clean Power Plan is expected to roll out this fall, U.S. EPA said today.
In a status report to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, government lawyers said they expect EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to sign a proposed rule reconsidering the Obama-era climate measure this fall.
The proposal is currently at the White House Office of Management and Budget, where the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is conducting an interagency review process. OIRA will then send the proposal back to EPA for any revisions before the agency finalizes its plan. The proposal will then be published in the Federal Register and be open for public comment.
The agency's court filing also notes that a recent classification of the proposal as a "long term action" in the Trump administration's Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions was a mistake, as that classification applies only to actions expected to take more than a year to complete.
The D.C. Circuit last month froze litigation over the Clean Power Plan for the second time, declining to weigh the merits of the case for now while EPA rethinks the rule (Energywire, Aug. 9). The agency's reconsideration process officially began this spring, after President Trump issued an executive order designed to support energy independence.
EPA has kept details of the proposal under wraps, but many observers expect the agency to develop a narrow replacement rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Alternatively, the agency could choose to simply scrap the Clean Power Plan and not replace it (Climatewire, Aug. 24).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/09/07/stories/1060060015
-
Trump's Trade Barrier Push Threatens U.S. Energy Profits, Critics Say
Sep 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Trade expansion poses the biggest potential boon to U.S. energy companies, yet the Trump administration's rhetoric threatens that prospect, said several speakers at an event to discuss NAFTA renegotiations.
President Donald Trump has so far chosen to prop up the U.S. oil and gas industry by rolling back environmental regulations, but that rollback will only save energy behemoths like ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron Corp., “pennies on the dollar,” David Goldwyn, chairman of the Atlantic Council's Energy Advisory Group, said at the Sept. 7 event.
Trump's attacks on Mexico, typified by a call to build a border wall on Mexico's tab, may derail cross-border pipeline projects already underway, Jeff Schott, a trade specialist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said. In fact, the administration's pledge to crack down on free trade, typically regarded as duty-free trade, with Mexico and other countries, jeopardizes huge opportunities for U.S. companies, experts said.
“If there is any concern about some destabilization in the bilateral relationship, investors will pull back, slow down, or even reverse investments,” Schott, who also advises the U.S. Trade Representative, said.
Renegotiating NAFTA
The U.S., Canada, and Mexico concluded Sept. 5 the second round of North American Free Trade Agreement renegotiations in Mexico City. Top trade officials from the three countries are now scheduled to meet for a third round in Ottawa at the end of this month.
At the outset of negotiations in mid-August, Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, said the U.S. aims to improve trilateral energy relations, but didn't elaborate on ways to achieve that.
Mexico was virtually excluded from energy negotiations in NAFTA, which entered into effect in 1994. Mexico's Constitution prevented foreign development of domestic resources, but sweeping constitutional changes in 2013 ended the state-owned Mexican fossil fuel company Petróleos Mexicanos’ (Pemex) 75-year monopoly in the energy sector.
And in early December 2016, Mexico awarded deepwater development rights to Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Total SA, and China-owned CNOOC Ltd. in its competitive oil auction.
The preservation of that access is a top priority for U.S. companies, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) told Bloomberg BNA after speaking at the event, sponsored by the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank that focuses on international affairs. McCaul led a congressional delegation to Mexico in June.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=120179675&vname=dennotallissues&fn=120179675&jd=120179675
-
Senators Urge Pruitt to Enforce EPA Methane Rule
Sep 8, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
A group of Democratic senators is urging U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to fully enforce an Obama-era rule curbing methane emissions at oil and gas operations.
The lawmakers took issue with the agency's announcement that it would make enforcement decisions on a "case-by-case basis," after a federal court revived the standards (Energywire, Aug. 22).
In a letter to Pruitt, the Democrats said the statement suggests EPA is attempting to skirt compliance after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit quashed the agency's planned delay.
"With EPA's efforts to immediately halt enforcement of the Methane Rule rebuffed by the courts, its announcement that enforcement will now proceed on a 'case by case basis' suggests that EPA will attempt to accomplish by an ad hoc enforcement approach what it could not accomplish through its unlawful stay," they wrote.
Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Tom Carper of Delaware, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Al Franken of Minnesota, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Tom Udall of New Mexico signed the missive.
"Under your tenure, EPA has done an about-face on the need to regulate methane emissions, rejecting the conclusions of a careful and inclusive rulemaking process, apparently at the behest of a few regulated industries that already had the opportunity to provide comments during the rulemaking," they wrote Pruitt.
The senators said the move was a "sharp break" from the enforcement policies EPA has applied for decades under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
They also said EPA appears to be turning its back on a policy requiring the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to provide a well-reasoned justification for taking no enforcement action.
The Democrats requested Pruitt provide them with answers and documents to quell their concern that the agency is acting in the interest of industry profits and not public health.
They requested Pruitt explain what standards he's using to determine EPA's "case by case" enforcement of the methane rule, whether the "No Action Assurances" policy remains in effect, and, if so, explain how EPA's actions are consistent with the policy.
The lawmakers requested Pruitt respond to that and other questions no later than Sept. 28.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/09/08/stories/1060060065
-
Interior Nominee Seeks Collaboration on Land Management
Sep 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A nominee for a top role managing energy and other federal land resources said he would collaborate with state, local, tribal, private, and environmental advocacy interests to try to smooth out land management policies.
Joseph Balash, nominated to be an Interior Department assistant secretary, referred frequently to his experience as a state regulator during his Sept. 7 nomination hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
While working at the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, his department reduced a backlog of permit applications for oil and gas work on public lands by more than 50 percent after conducting a study to identify the problems, he said.
“I would seek to perform a similar review and result at the Department of the Interior,” Balash told Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) asked Balash during the hearing about his views on oil, gas and coal royalties. Balash said there were times while he was at the Alaska Department of Natural Resources that the department increased the minimum bids required for oil leases and increased annual rental rates. The department also sometimes reduced royalty rates.
“It really does depend on the circumstances at the time,” Balash said, citing such variables as market prices, geologic challenges, and access to infrastructure.
Opposition Outside Committee
If Balash is confirmed as assistant secretary for land and minerals management, he will oversee the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement.
No one testified in opposition to Balash at the nomination hearing. However, the Alaska Wilderness League has announced its opposition to the nomination, saying Balash was part of an effort by the Alaska government to convince Interior to allow seismic surveying in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Obama administration rejected that petitionn.
The Alaska Wilderness League also said Balash supported legislation that would expedite drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and opposed the EPA's Clean Water Act restrictions on the proposed Pebble Mine near Alaska's Bristol Bay, which were imposed during the Obama era. The Trump administration proposed withdrawing the water restrictions on what would be a massive gold, copper, and molybdenum mine.
A committee vote on the Balash nomination has not been scheduled. He will be talking more with senators and undergoing more scrutiny of his record in the interim. The position requires Senate approval.
Experienced as Land Manager
Balash has appropriate experience for the Interior job, Kara Moriarty, president of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, told Bloomberg BNA.
Alaska owns more than a quarter of the land in the state, which gave Balash a very large portfolio of natural resources when he was commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. He knows how to work with a large group of diverse stakeholders to resolve issues, Moriarty said.
“We haven't always been on the same side of issues, but the one thing I've always respected about Joe is he respects the process,” Moriarty said. She described him as very thoughtful and deliberate.
“He made sure that the state's interests were always protected every step of the way,” she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=120179672&vname=dennotallissues&fn=120179672&jd=120179672
-
DOI Should Be Allowed to Collect Royalties Owed to the Taxpayer
Sep 7, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Ryan Alexander
Having failed to strike the Bureau of Land Management’s methane waste rule in the spring using the Congressional Review Act, some members of Congress are still looking for ways to kill the rule even before the Department of Interior has a chance to act on it. The House of Representatives will vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) that would prevent the agency from using any funds to enforce the new rule. We think it would be a mistake to prevent funding for DOI to collect royalties owed to the taxpayer.
Taxpayers for Common Sense has supported efforts to update rules that limit the amount of natural gas lost – intentionally or not – during drilling on federal lands. This is a valuable resource that everyone wants to see brought to market instead of vented or flared, i.e, wasted, into the air. Moreover, taxpayers own this resource, and it is in our interest to make sure companies are acting responsibly to capture it, sell it, and pay royalties on it – just like they would on private land.
The problem of natural gas being released or escaping during drilling has been well-documented over the years. In 2010, the Inspector General for the Department of the Interior recommended the agency clarify its requirements for royalty-free use of gas.
That same year, the Government Accountability Office found that as much as 40 percent of natural gas vented or flared could have been economically captured with the use of available off-the-shelf technology and that the regulations did not address significant sources of lost gas. The following year, it put Management of Federal Oil and Gas Resources on its list of “high risk” government programs — those with “greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.”
In 2014 alone, $444 million worth of natural gas was vented or flared from federal and tribal lands, almost all of it royalty-free. On average, the royalty value of the lost natural gas is roughly $50 million a year, an amount that will likely increase as production continues to grow and natural gas prices increase from their historic lows. And the problem continues to get worse, not better. The amount of gas lost in 2013 from taxpayer-owned lands was double the amount lost in 2009.
The old rules which were put in place in during the Reagan administration, are grossly outdated. They were written before techniques like hydraulic fracturing even existed. Much of the gas capture technology the rule requires has been on the market for years. States like Colorado passed similar rules years ago in response to increasing losses of natural gas, and companies are already complying with those requirements.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke says he will try to rewrite the methane waste rule. Congress should let him do that. The government has a chance to get more natural gas to the market and increase revenue for federal and state governments. Making that job harder is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Ryan Alexander is president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/349660-congress-should-allow-interior-to-rewrite-blms-methane
-
US Methanol Breaks Ground for West Virginia Plant
Sep 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Upstart US Methanol Corp. welcomed local and state leaders this week to a groundbreaking ceremony in Kanawha County, WV, for its first methanol production plant, which would use Appalachian shale natural gas to manufacture the product.
With the ability to produce 200,000 metric tons of methanol per year, the Liberty One facility is expected to start operations in the second half of 2018. The plant was broken down in Brazil and moved to the new site in Institute near Charleston, where Dow Chemical Co. has a facility.
In addition to marketing its methanol throughout the U.S. Northeast, nearby chemical companies, such as Chemours Co., are also expected to take advantage of supplies from the plant.
Methanol is used in a wide-array of products including antifreeze and solvents. It’s also an important product for the petrochemical industry, which is expected to grow in the region once ethylene and polyethylene production begins at ethane crackers that have been proposed or are under construction in the region.
US Methanol also plans to eventually construct another plant in the state. The company was founded in 2014 and chose West Virginia because of the region’s abundant natural gas supplies and the current site’s barge, rail and truck access.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111663-us-methanol-breaks-ground-for-west-virginia-plant
-
(ACC Mentioned) Hurricane Irma’s Chemical Fallout Could Be Worse than Harvey’s
Sep 8, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Jack Kaskey, Ryan Collins and Bryan Gruley
Before flames and smoke leaped into the sky over the Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas, last week, Jolyn Masters was hunkered down at home on a Hurricane Harvey-flooded street a mile away. Then came a knock. A National Guard evacuation boat was waiting because of what was expected at Arkema.
For the next three days, Masters called a company hot line for information about the nine trailers containing volatile chemicals on Arkema’s property. “I was on a first-name basis with one of the ladies,” Masters said.
By the time she returned home on Labor Day, the trailers had burned. Nobody had died. But Masters couldn’t offer comfort to people living near chemical plants as Hurricane Irma bears down. “This wasn’t anything foreseeable,” she said. “So I wouldn’t even know what to tell those people.”
What happened in Crosby could happen in Florida, with more disastrous results. It could happen in Homestead, near a pair of nuclear generators; or at plants near Tallahassee that produce potentially explosive ammonia; or rural communities with an expanse of phosphate mines not far from the Gulf Coast.
While Crosby appears to have avoided serious tragedy, Arkema executives admitted they were unprepared. The potential dangers stored within chemical plants remain unclear because regulators have acquiesced to industry demands that such information be kept secret for fear of terrorism. And Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt delayed for two years Obama-era rules requiring companies to be more transparent about what’s in plants and their plans to keep them safe.
“One of the best ways to better prepare for these emergencies is to know what you’re dealing with,” said Bill Hoyle, a former senior investigator with the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, an independent agency. “What are the chemicals? How much of the chemical is there and what’s the potential impact? I am sure the people evacuated in Crosby had no idea they were in a vulnerability zone.”
The incident at the 43-year-old plant owned by Arkema SA of Paris, France, provided some of Harvey’s most dramatic pictures -- and a fortunate anticlimax. But an analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Arizona, showed that the Houston area’s hundreds of refineries and petrochemical operations released almost 1 million pounds of air pollutants in Harvey-related spills and flares, including benzene, sulfur dioxide, toluene, and xylene. The effects might not be known for months.
Before Harvey, the American Chemistry Council industry group issued a statement saying, "Chemical companies know well to avoid the dangers of being unprepared." This week, spokeswoman Anne Kolton said in an email that the group’s members "are taking Hurricane Irma extremely seriously."
Mishandling Hazards
The Arkema plant generates about $30 million in annual revenue, less than 1 percent of its parent’s total. It was among 55 Houston-area facilities named as potentially harmful in a 2015 Houston Chronicle investigation done with Texas A&M University. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration this year fined the plant $91,274 for 10 safety violations, including some that involved mishandling of hazardous materials.
As with Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the Fukushima, Japan, nuclear disaster in 2011, water defied Arkema’s efforts to protect the facility in the town of 2,300 about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northeast of Houston. When reporters asked how the company prepared, Arkema president Richard Rennard said, "Certainly we didn’t anticipate having six feet of water in our plant."
The big problem was 19.5 tons of organic peroxides, used as catalysts in plastics manufacturing, which must be kept cool or they will ignite. When Harvey cut power, Arkema turned to generators that flooded; as at Fukushima, they were below the level of the rising waters.
Arkema had shut down the plant as Harvey barreled into Texas. It moved the peroxides away from chemicals like sulfur dioxide to the nine trailers with their own cooling systems. When those failed, Arkema told the world that explosions would ensue.
The first blast came early Aug. 31. Emergency workers were overcome by fumes, with police officers vomiting and gasping for air, according to a lawsuit filed against Arkema on Thursday by seven first responders. After a second explosion the next day, Masters received a call from Arkema saying yet another was coming. A few minutes later: boom!
Rennard said, “I’m not sure what more we could have done to provide additional layers of security to provide power to the site.” He said no dangerous chemicals had been released.
"This is a fire," he told reporters. “We are watching physics at work."
Safety Cuts
The Chemical Safety Board -- which was slated for elimination in a Trump administration budget proposal -- said it would investigate. Masters and her neighbors returned to the evacuation zone. Residents were cautioned to drink bottled water and wear surgical masks. The EPA said aerial monitoring detected no high levels of toxins in the air.
Florida should be so fortunate. Its petrochemical footprint isn’t nearly as large as Houston’s, but a map prepared by the nonprofit group Environment Florida shows scores of plants, storage depots, refineries, wastewater treatment facilities and EPA Superfund sites that could release hazardous materials.
Port Tampa Bay alone handles ammonia, unleaded gasoline, sulfuric acid and ethanol. The port was operating Thursday, but will halt shipping if the Coast Guard forecasts gale-force winds of at least 39 miles per hour hitting within the 24 hours to come.
Jennifer Rubiello, state director for Environment Florida, said in an email that industrial sites are poorly regulated and "even well-regulated sites can and do fail." She said she couldn’t pinpoint Florida’s riskiest because operators aren’t required to disclose emergency plans.
Florida Power & Light Co. operates two nuclear-power generators 25 miles south of Miami at the mainland’s southernmost tip. They were built in the early 1970s, when engineers couldn’t imagine how rising seas could increase storm surges, said Bill Newton, deputy director of the Florida Consumer Action Network.
Fukushima’s nuclear plants melted down after tsunami’s surge cut power to cooling pumps, and Irma could do the same at Florida Power’s Turkey Point plants, Newton said. “You lose the cooling, you lose the whole thing,” he said.
Peter Robbins, a spokesman for the utility, said that comparing Turkey Point to Fukushima is "irresponsible."
The Florida plant was built to withstand Category 5 storms, and absorbed a direct hit from Hurricane Andrew 25 years ago, Robbins said. Equipment to mitigate flooding was added after Fukushima, and the plant and backup generators are 20 feet above sea level. Operations will stop before any storm impact, he said.
Then, there are the mines. Central Florida contains the nation’s largest deposits of phosphate, a key fertilizer ingredient. Mosaic Co. of Plymouth, Minnesota, digs the ore from 200,000 acres and breaks it down with sulfuric acid, creating a byproduct called phosphogypsum that contains small amounts of radioactive uranium and radium. Because the phosphogypsum market is tiny, about 1 billion tons is piled in more than 20 stacks around the mines, according to Florida Polytechnic University researchers.
Drinking-Water Threat
Runoff can contaminate drinking and fishing waters from stacks that are inadequately contained, said Jaclyn Lopez, director for the Center for Biological Diversity’s Florida office. Spills precipitated by Hurricane Francis in 2004 killed marine animals. Last year, millions of gallons of contaminated water sluiced into an aquifer after a sinkhole opened beneath a Mosaic stack.
“It’s hard to say what the implications of 15 to 20 inches of rain would be,” Lopez said. “It opens new pathways into the environment.”
Ben Pratt, a spokesman for Mosaic, said the company has begun hurricane preparations at the phosphate facilities and has not yet decided whether to shut down.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in an interview that staff are being dispatched to monitor Irma’s impacts, and he’s not stinting on manpower. "If someone needs 10 people, send them 20," he said. "If they need 20, send them 40."
Workers are evaluating about 80 Superfund sites from Miami to North Carolina, and the agency is working with owners to secure them, he said.
Back in Crosby, Masters said Arkema handled its problem as well as could be expected. Other locals aren’t as positive, she said, but, “even the people that disagree are still both out there helping the neighbor pull carpet out of their house.”
— With assistance by Ania Nussbaum, and Jennifer A Dlouhy
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-08/hurricane-irma-s-chemical-fallout-could-be-worse-than-harvey-s
-
(ACC Mentioned) Texas Chemical Plant Sued For Millions, First Responders Charge Gross Negligence
Sep 8, 2017 | International Business Times
By David Sirota, Josh Keefe, Jay Cassano and Alex Kotch
Seven first responders filed a lawsuit Thursday against a chemical company whose Houston-area facility exploded after Hurricane Harvey. The lawsuit against Arkema and three of the company’s executives is seeking over $1 million in monetary relief, and alleges that the company did not adequately warn law enforcement and public health agencies about hazardous materials at the chemical plant. Those allegations come after Arkema and its lobbying group, the American Chemistry Council, lobbied to kill a federal rule designed to require companies to better coordinate and inform first responders about the toxic compounds at chemical plants. The rule would have taken effect in March.
The EPA’s rule, which included a series of other safety provisions, was ultimately delayed to February 2019 by the Trump administration, with the support of top Texas Republican lawmakers — many of whom received large campaign donations from the chemical industry.
The suit filed in Harris County court asserts that after explosions at the Arkema’s Crosby plant emitted a cloud of gas, company officials “repeatedly denied that the chemicals were toxic or harmful in any manner to the people, and first responders, in the community.” Yet, the complaint says the fumes sickened the first responders, and charges Arkema with “gross negligence” and “malice.”
“Immediately upon being exposed to the fumes from the explosion, and one by one, the police officers and first responders began to fall ill in the middle of the road,” says the lawsuit, which was filed by members of local agencies including law enforcement and the fire department. “Calls for medics were made, but still no one from Arkema warned of the toxic fumes in the air. Emergency medical personnel arrived on scene, and even before exiting their vehicle, they became overcome by the fumes as well. The scene was nothing less than chaos. Police officers were doubled over vomiting, unable to breathe. Medical personnel, in their attempts to provide assistance to the officers, became overwhelmed and they too began to vomit and gasp for air.”
In a statement, Arkema said its employees did "everything they could to protect the public."
"We reject any suggestion that we failed to warn of the danger of breathing the smoke from the fires at our site, or that we ever misled anyone," the company said. "To the contrary, we pleaded with the public, for their own safety, to respect the 1.5 mile evaucation zone imposed by the unified command well prior to any fire. We will vigorously defend a lawsuit that we believe is gravely mistaken."
The American Chemistry Council, which counts Arkema as a member, said in a statement to IBT that “industry had significant concerns with many of the modifications because it was not clear that they would improve the safety and security of chemical facilities or neighboring communities.”
The first responders’ complaint concludes that the company did not properly store its chemicals, did not “have adequate procedures in place to protect the safety and welfare of the community in the event of a catastrophe” and failed “to provide the public and first responders accurate information on the chemicals at risk of exploding.”
Company Pushed To Block Rule Requiring More Information Sharing With First Responders
The allegations about information are particularly relevant to Arkema and its lobbying group’s successful effort to kill the EPA’s chemical plant safety rule, just months before the disaster in Texas.
Under that rule, which was originally proposed by the Obama administration in 2013 in response to adeadly explosion at a West, Texas, fertilizer plant, owners of chemical plants would have had to increase coordination with local first responders. In particular, the rule stated companies would have to ensure that “local response organizations are aware of the regulated substances” at plants covered by EPA rules once a year.
Companies, like Arkema, operating plants covered by the laws would have also had to annually disclose to local emergency responders the amounts of the chemicals, the risks from the plant, and the “resources and capabilities at the facility to respond to an accidental release of a regulated substance.”
After several years of development, the EPA finalized the rule in January in the last days of the Obama administration, with final implementation of the rule scheduled for March 14. But after a petitionfrom a coalition of chemical and fossil fuel companies, as well as years of lobbying, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt delayed implementation of the rule to June 2017, and then delayed implementation again until February 2019.
Plant operators would have had one year to implement parts of the rule that would have improved coordination with local emergency responders. It is unclear whether the first responders who filed the lawsuit Thursday would have had improved knowledge of the toxic chemicals they allege caused them physical injury. However, enactment of the rule would have prompted companies to begin the process of complying with its first responder provisions.
“Never Heeded The Warnings”
The Crosby facility has a history of safety violations. In 2006, the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality fined Arkema $3,950 for failing to appropriately store a pallet of organic peroxide, which led to a warehouse fire. In 2011, the company paid a $16,240 penalty for failing to maintain equipment at proper temperatures.
The new lawsuit against Arkema also raises questions about the company’s preparation for natural disasters, arguing that “Arkema, Inc. never heeded the warnings and ignored the foreseeable consequences of failing to prepare” for the kind of storms that regularly hit the Houston area. Indeed, a fter the explosions, Arkema Vice President Daryl Roberts claimed, “We’ve never experienced anything that would have given us any indication that we could have that much of water.” But in the company’s 2014 Risk Management Plan and a 2013 hazard analysis, Arkema identified concernsincluding “equipment failure; loss of cooling, heating, electricity; floods (flood plain); hurricane; other major failure identified: power failure or power surge.”
The company also warned its investors of the risk of chemical explosions in its 2016 annual report, warning that “facilities may be subject to risks of accidents, fires, explosions and pollution due to the very nature of their operations and to the level of hazard, toxicity or flammability of certain raw materials.”
One thing the company may have already prepared for: lawsuits from sickened first responders.
In its 2016 financial filings, the company declared that its operations may “present significant risks to the health or safety of neighboring communities and to the environment” -- and that the company “could be held liable following injury or damage to property or people, notably due to exposure to hazardous substances being used, produced or destroyed” at its facilities.
UPDATE 5:42 p.m. —This story was updated to include a statement from Arkema, sent by the company after the story was published.http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/texas-chemical-plant-sued-millions-first-responders-charge-gross-negligence
-
Arkema Blasts Highlight Safety Agency Facing Ax Under Trump
Sep 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A federal agency that could unravel why Arkema's Texas chemical plant exploded after Hurricane Harvey is a tiny office with 40 employees that the Trump administration has proposed to kill.
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be the only federal agency able to answer why the Crosby, Texas, chemical plant storing organic peroxides exploded several times following extensive flooding from the hurricane. And while the board has already convinced lawmakers to try to keep the agency open for fiscal 2018, the new investigation could showcase its unique role to both the public and a White House that has given no indication it will support the board's work in coming years.
The CSB has a statutory mandate to investigate the root cause of chemical incidents, a broader task than that of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, both of which regulate the plant. CSB investigators arrived at the plant Sept. 5.
“The implications of Harvey on the chemical industry in the Gulf kind of show the importance of the Chemical Safety Board and the role that it can play in preventing these kind of incidents, or worse, that happened at Arkema,” Jordan Barab, former OSHA deputy director, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 6. “We're going to be seeing a lot more of these extreme weather events, particularly in the Gulf region,” and chemical companies will have to figure out how to adapt.
Former CSB Member Gerald Poje told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 6 the Arkema incident raised significant questions about whether Texas or the company should have done more to ensure safety.
Poje said the state should figure out what it could have done to ensure plants like Arkema did not make the impacts of the storm worse “with a monumental human-caused disaster.”
OSHA and the EPA are unlikely to investigate because there is no evidence Arkema was out of compliance with their regulations during the hurricane, Mark Farley, a partner at the law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP in Houston, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 6.
OSHA said in a statement it was “premature to speculate” if previous process safety management violations at the plant contributed to the explosions. The plant also is not known to have violated any EPA chemical security regulations, but the agency could issue fines if violations are found.
CSB has a broader mandate, Farley said, to determine if government and industry need to “do something different, especially when such highly hazardous chemicals are involved.”
Arkema spokesman Stan Howard said in an email to Bloomberg BNA Sept. 6 the company plans to cooperate with CSB.
Unique Role in Investigating
As part of the investigation, CSB staff will attempt to determine the root cause of the chemical explosions, which could stem from both lax company procedures and gaps in regulation that don't account for the hazards present at the plant and similar sites. CSB investigators typically seek evidence like samples of failed equipment, company records, and other data to reconstruct what occurred.
While Arkema may conduct its own internal review to determine what happened, only CSB's report is required to be made public.
This gives the CSB “a vital role in safety and health, both for workers and the public,” Jim Frederick, assistant health and safety director at the United Steelworkers union, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 6.
In other high-profile cases in which CSB has been involved, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, the board's probe of the blowout led to recommendations for offshore drilling operators and federal regulators to tighten a variety of standards to “shift from correcting individual ‘errors’ identified post-incident to a systematic approach for managing human factors.”
The board could recommend regulatory fixes, including things that are “often uncomfortable to politically powerful people” and are unlikely to be examined by OSHA and EPA under the Trump administration, James Goodwin, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, told Bloomberg BNA.
The investigation's findings “will be relevant well beyond the facility, responders, planners, and community directly impacted by the incident,” Timothy Gablehouse, government affairs director at the National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials, said in an email to Bloomberg BNA.
While the CSB may examine how existing regulations affected the Crosby plant, Farley said other agencies are not likely to change them at this time because it does not align with administration policy.
“Certainly this administration is not inclined to undertake additional regulatory efforts, especially where it's not clear that they are necessary,” Farley said.
‘Proactive’ Approach, Cooperation
Chemical Safety Board Chairperson Vanessa Sutherland said last week investigators had “a number of document requests” for the company. The CSB can obtain non-public information from Arkema by administrative subpoena if necessary, and seek legal action against the corporation if it refuses to comply.
Arkema Inc. defused the situation without injuries to its employees or the public, but only through a multi-day evacuation that strained emergency responders and rattled residents of Crosby, who were kept 1.5 miles from the plant over safety fears. The company said in a Sept. 3 statement it “took proactive action” to conduct a controlled burn of six remaining containers of the chemicals, and local officials lifted an evacuation zone early Sept. 4.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=120179664&vname=dennotallissues&fn=120179664&jd=120179664
-
Senate Panel Votes to Fund UN Climate Agency
Sep 7, 2017 | The Hill- E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A Senate committee voted Thursday to contribute $10 million to the United Nations’ climate change agency.
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 16 to 14 to approve an amendment by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) to restore funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change in the State Department appropriations bill.
The payments that the United States had made annually since joining the convention in 1992 had been slated to be eliminated.
Merkley said at the committee meeting Thursday to vote on the bill that the amendment “fits in with Secretary [Rex] Tillerson’s desire that we both continue to monitor the changes in the world’s climate and that we keep a seat at the table.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) also spoke in support of the amendment.
“This is important,” she said. “You know, the world’s at risk.”
The U.N. agency is responsible for international climate agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The United States never joined Kyoto, and President Trump pledged earlier this year to pull out of Paris.
Trump called for an end to U.N. climate funding in his first budget proposal earlier this year. Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney called that and other climate change funding wasteful.
“As to climate change, I think the president was fairly straightforward — we're not spending money on that anymore; we consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that,” Mulvaney said.
The House’s version of the State funding bill does not fund the U.N. climate agency, so the two chambers will have to negotiate regarding the final outcome.
All of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Democrats voted for the Merkley amendment except Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.). They were joined by Republican Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Susan Collins (Maine). Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) did not vote.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/349693-senate-panel-votes-to-fund-un-climate-agency
-
Sep 8, 2017 | New York Times
By Christine Todd Whitman
I have been worried about how the Environmental Protection Agency would be run ever since President Trump appointed Scott Pruitt, the former attorney general of Oklahoma, to oversee it. The past few months have confirmed my fears. The agency created by a Republican president 47 years ago to protect the environment and public health may end up doing neither under Mr. Pruitt’s direction.
As a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush to run the agency, I can hardly be written off as part of the liberal resistance to the new administration. But the evidence is abundant of the dangerous political turn of an agency that is supposed to be guided by science.
The E.P.A.’s recent attack on a reporter for The Associated Press and the installation of a political appointee to ferret out grants containing “the double C-word” are only the latest manifestations of my fears, which mounted with Mr. Pruitt’s swift and legally questionable repeals of E.P.A. regulations — actions that pose real and lasting threats to the nation’s land, air, water and public health.
All of that is bad enough. But Mr. Pruitt recently unveiled a plan that amounts to a slow-rolling catastrophe in the making: the creation of an antagonistic “red team” of dissenting scientists to challenge the conclusions reached by thousands of scientists over decades of research on climate change. It will serve only to confuse the public and sets a deeply troubling precedent for policy-making at the E.P.A.
The red-team approach makes sense in the military and in consumer and technology companies, where assumptions about enemy strategy or a competitor’s plans are rooted in unknowable human choices. But the basic physics of the climate are well understood. Burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. There is no debate about that. The link is as certain as the link between smoking and cancer.
A broad consensus of scientists also warn of the influence of the warming climate on extreme weather events. Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the enormous wildfires in the Western United States and widespread flooding from monsoons in Southeast Asia are potent reminders of the cost of ignoring climate science.
As a Republican like Mr. Pruitt, I too embrace the promise of the free market and worry about the perils of overregulation. But decisions must be based on reliable science. The red team begins with his politically preferred conclusion that climate change isn’t a problem, and it will seek evidence to justify that position. That’s the opposite of how science works. True science follows the evidence. The critical tests of peer review and replication ensure that the consensus is sound. Government bases policy on those results. This applies to liberals and conservatives alike.
There are two sides, at least, to most political questions, and a politician’s impulse may be to believe that the same holds true for science. Certainly, there are disputes in science. But on the question of climate change, the divide is stark. On one side is the overwhelming consensus of thousands of scientists at universities, research centers and the government who publish in peer-reviewed literature, are cited regularly by fellow scientists and are certain that humans are contributing to climate change.
On the other side is a tiny minority of contrarians who publish very little by comparison, are rarely cited in the scientific literature and are often funded by fossil fuel interests, and whose books are published, most often, byspecial interest groups. That Mr. Pruitt seeks to use the power of the E.P.A. to elevate those who have already lost the argument is shameful, and the only outcome will be that the public will know less about the science of climate change than before.
The red-team idea is a waste of the government’s time, energy and resources, and a slap in the face to fiscal responsibility and responsible governance. Sending scientists on a wild-goose chase so that Mr. Pruitt, Rick Perry, the energy secretary, who has endorsed this approach, and President Trump can avoid acknowledging and acting on the reality of climate change is simply unjustifiable. And truly, it ignores and distracts from the real imperative: developing solutions that create good jobs, grow our economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change.
Policy should always be rooted in unbiased science. The E.P.A. is too important to treat like a reality TV show. People’s lives and our country’s resources are at stake. Mr. Pruitt should respect his duty to the agency’s mission, end the red team and call on his agency’s scientists to educate him. No doubt they’re willing and eager to impart the knowledge they’ve dedicated their lives to understanding.
If this project goes forward, it should be treated for what it is: a shameful attempt to confuse the public into accepting the false premise that there is no need to regulate fossil fuels.
Christine Todd Whitman, president of the Whitman Strategy Group, was the E.P.A. administrator from 2001 to 2003 and the governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/how-not-to-run-the-epa.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested