Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 26/9/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Backs Four Industry Scientists for EPA Chemical Advisory Council
Sep 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The American Chemistry Council has identified four candidates it supports to expand the US EPA's new Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Will EPA Administrator Pruitt Tap Polluter-Friendly Scientists For Key Advisory Panel?
Sep 26, 2017 | The Huffington Post
By Eliott Negin
A third of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board, an influential panel that reviews the science the agency uses in formulating safeguards, could be succeeded by climate science-denying, polluter-friendly replacements when their terms expire at the end of this month. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Energy 202: Oil Industry Afraid About What Trump Might Do on NAFTA
Sep 26, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
In a call to reporters just two days after Trump's surprise election, the American Petroleum Institute, the largest U.S. oil and gas lobbying group, laid out its wish list for the new administration. -
(ACC Mentioned) Petrochemical Industry Looks for Solutions to Thinning Houston Talent Pool
Sep 26, 2017 | Houston Business Journal
By Joshua Mann
“We talk about growing with our customers. Well, if you expand, you need the workforce.” -
US EPA Issues Snurs for 37 Chemical Substances
Sep 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued significant new use rules (Snurs) for 37 chemical substances which were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). -
(ACC Mentioned) IRIS Launches Three New Assessments as Leaders Pledge 'Paradigm Shift'
Sep 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
.EPA's influential but controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) risk assessment program is starting three new chemical assessments just as its leaders are pledging a "paradigm shift," including faster assessment times and greater relevance to internal and state partners. -
Lawsuit Aims to Put Carcinogen Warnings on Starbucks Coffee
Sep 26, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A nonprofit is suing in California to force Starbucks Corp. and about 90 other companies, including grocery stores, to post warnings about a cancer-causing chemical in coffee. -
Fluoride Can Harm Children’s Intelligence, Mexican Study Finds
Sep 26, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Olga Naldenko
A groundbreaking new study found that exposure to fluoride during pregnancy can harm IQ and cognitive development in children. Fluoride is added to the tap water of two-thirds of Americans. -
Echa Clarifies Brexit Impacts on UK, EU Regulatory Obligations
Sep 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has launched a webpage that explains what will happen to the regulatory obligations of UK entities and EU member states, as well as agency operations, following Brexit. -
CBA Urges UK Government to Adopt REACH Into National Law
Sep 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
The UK Chemical Business Association says the pragmatic and most cost-effective way forward for chemical policy after Brexit, is for Britain to adopt the REACH, CLP and biocides legislation into UK law "on exactly the same institutional, functional and legislative terms as they are currently operating". -
Appalachian Pipeline Capacity to Outpace Demand — Report
Sep 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By David Iaconangelo
Appalachia gas pipeline capacity will outpace demand in the coming years, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc., even as the U.S. energy market and overseas buyers consume more gas produced in the Northeast. -
Advocates Push Court to Revive Stalled BLM Methane Rule
Sep 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Government lawyers squared off yesterday with supporters of an Obama-era oil and gas regulation the Trump administration is working to reverse. -
Exxon Finds Easy, Cost-Effective Way to Stop Gas Leaks
Sep 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Exxon Mobil Corp.'s plan to reduce its methane emissions grew out of a single tank battery in West Texas and could have a widespread impact on the energy industry. -
Texas Refineries Emitted Pollutants During Harvey-Related Shutdowns
Sep 26, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Alexandra Berzon
Chemical plants and refineries in Texas spewed exceptionally high amounts of pollutants while shutting down their vast operations for last month’s Hurricane Harvey, and again when they restarted, government filings show. -
Crude by Rail Could Hamper Future U.S. Pipeline Investments, Study Says
Sep 26, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
Even though it's more expensive, carrying oil on rail lines rather than on pipelines has some advantages that could keep pipeline investments smaller in the future, according to a new study by two professors at the University of Chicago. -
Va. Moves Closer to Joining Regional Climate Program
Sep 26, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Conversations between Virginia and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative are "beyond the introductory phase," the director of the commonwealth's air quality division said yesterday.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Backs Four Industry Scientists for EPA Chemical Advisory Council
Sep 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The American Chemistry Council has identified four candidates it supports to expand the US EPA's new Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals.
One of its favoured candidates is Richard Becker, its own senior director, science and research division. The others are:
· Steven Bennett, vice president for scientific affairs at the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA);
· Sheri Blystone, director of regulatory affairs and product safety at SNF Holding Company; and
· Stuart Cagen, a toxicologist at Shell Health.
Formation of the SACC was required by the Lautenberg Act. By statute, its purpose is to provide "independent advice and expert consultation" on the scientific and technical aspects of implementing the new TSCA.
In the final days of the Obama administration, the then EPA administrator Gina McCarthy appointed members to serve on the 18-seat board. The picks – of which less than a quarter represent industry – were criticised by the ACC.
The EPA said in a 3 August Federal Register notice that "after further consideration of the objectives and scope of SACC activities", it will be considering additional members. The notice anticipates selecting approximately six from previously published slates of candidates. The agency accepted public comments until 17 September.
"ACC believes it is critical that the SACC consist of industry representatives who have a comprehensive understanding of the technical and scientific underpinnings of the business of chemistry," the council said in its comments.
In commenting before the first group of panellists was named, a group of NGOs led by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) opposed the candidacy of Dr Cagen, as well as four industry representatives who were appointed to the committee under the Obama administration.
A group of scientists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment submitted comments in the current round, echoing the NGO criticism that the panel did not include environmental justice advocates.
The group supported 24 of the listed nominees and argued that the EPA should "collect information from each and every SACC member in an effort for complete transparency regarding any financial [conflict of interest] that potentially bias members toward undervaluing the scientific information related to health effects of industrial chemicals."
https://chemicalwatch.com/59392/acc-backs-four-industry-scientists-for-epa-chemical-advisory-council
-
Sep 26, 2017 | The Huffington Post
By Eliott Negin
A third of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board, an influential panel that reviews the science the agency uses in formulating safeguards, could be succeeded by climate science-denying, polluter-friendly replacements when their terms expire at the end of this month.
The board, which has been in existence for nearly 40 years, is traditionally populated by bona fide scientists from academia, government and industry who volunteer to serve three-year terms. This time around, as first reported byE&E News, at least a dozen of the 132 candidates vying for one of the 15 open seats reject mainstream climate science. But that’s not all. There are at least 10 other equally inappropriate candidates on the list, and not all of them are scientists, despite the fact that it’s supposed to be a panel of science advisers.
Among the 12 climate science deniers are Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo, who wrongly claims global warming is due to natural oceanic, solar and volcanic cycles; and former Peabody Energy science director Craig Idso, now chairman of his family’s Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, who insists “there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in [average earth] temperature was caused by the rise in carbon dioxide.” D’Aleo, Idso and six of the other climate-fact-challenged candidates are affiliated with the fossil fuel industry-funded Heartland Institute, which has a long history of misrepresenting science.
The other 10 unsuitable candidates consistently side with industry when it comes to protecting the public from toxic hazards, regardless of the scientific evidence, and falsely accuse the EPA of being unscientific to try to undermine its credibility.
Soot Makes You Live Longer
One of the 10, toxicologist Michael Honeycutt, failed to secure a seat on the EPA’s seven-member Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee when he was nominated for one last fall — with good reason. Over the last decade, Honeycutt, who heads the toxicology division of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, rolled back the state’s relatively weak protections for 45 toxic chemicals, including arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium, the carcinogen that made Erin Brockovich a household name.
Honeycutt also has attacked EPA rules for ground-level ozone (smog), which aggravates lung diseases, and particulate matter (PM) (soot), which has been linked to lung cancer, cardiovascular damage, reproductive problems and premature death. In October 2014, Honeycutt argued that there would be “little to no public health benefit from lowering the current [ozone] standard” because “most people spend more than 90 percent of their time indoors” and “systems such as air conditioning remove it from indoor air.” And despite the overwhelming scientific evidence directly linking fine soot particles to premature death, Honeycutt testified before Congress in June 2012 that “some studies even suggest PM makes you live longer.”
Better Living Through Chemistry
Another industry-friendly nominee, Kimberly White, is senior director of chemical products at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the country’s largest chemical manufacturing trade association. Representing the interests of 155 corporate members, including chemical companies Dow, DuPont and Olin; pharmaceutical firms Bayer, Eli Lilly and Merck; and petrochemical conglomerates BP, ExxonMobil and Shell, the ACC has delayed, weakened and blocked science-based health, environmental and workplace protections at the state, national and even international levels.
For example, the ACC has lobbied against establishing federal rules on silica dust exposure and disclosing the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. It has been instrumental in limiting community access to information about local chemical plants. And it has played a key role in quashing government efforts to regulate bisphenol A (BPA), an endocrine-disrupting chemical used in plastics and can linings; flame retardants, which have been linked to birth defects and cancer; and formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. White downplayed formaldehyde’s risks in a September 2016 blog on the ACC website.
The ACC also lobbies to weaken existing environmental safeguards. In written testimony for a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing last February, for example, White charged that the EPA uses irrelevant or outdated data and procedures when drafting new regulations.
Who Needs a Cleaner Environment?
Finally, three of the pro-polluter candidates are economists with a distinct corporate tilt: Richard Belzer, whose clients include the American Chemistry Council and ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences; Tony Cox, whose clientsinclude the America Petroleum Institute, Chemical Manufacturers Association and Monsanto; and John D. Graham, dean of Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs, who is currently doing contract work for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers on fuel economy standards and the libertarian Searle Freedom Trust on regulatory “reform.” All three emphasize the cost to industry to reduce pollution, discount scientific evidence of the risk of exposure, and ignore the benefits of a cleaner environment.
Perhaps the best known is Graham, who ran the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for five years during the George W. Bush administration. His appointment to that position was hotly contested because in his previous job, directing the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, he routinely understated the dangers of products manufactured by the center’s corporate sponsors by using questionable cost-benefit analyses.
As predicted, Graham applied that same simplistic, industry-friendly calculus at OIRA, which oversees all government rulemaking, and at the tail end of his tenure in 2006, he unsuccessfully attempted to standardize risk assessmentsacross all federal agencies. Public interest groups and the scientific community, spearheaded by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, came out in full force against the idea, and a National Research Council (NRC) committee unanimously rejected it as “fundamentally flawed.”
“Economists like Graham are frustrated because the EPA has been conservative about risk,” said Center for Progressive Reform co-founder Rena Steinzor, who wrote a stinging indictment of Graham’s government-wide proposal in a May 2006 issue of Inside EPA’s Risk Policy Report. “The EPA gives more margin to safety. That drives economists crazy. They think it leads to over-protection. But there are not many examples of chemicals that turn out to be less harmful than we thought.”
Foxes Advising the Foxes in the Henhouse?
Putting climate science deniers and industry apologists on the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) would not only undercut the panel’s legitimacy, it also would provide cover for the corporate shills now in key positions at the agency, starting with Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has the final say on who is selected, and Nancy Beck, a deputy assistant administrator who most recently worked for the American Chemistry Council, and before that, for Graham at OMB.
“The Science Advisory Board has been providing independent advice to the EPA for decades, ensuring that the agency uses the best science to protect public health and the environment,” said Genna Reed, a policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “SAB members have always been eminent scientists who are committed to the often-challenging public service of working through complex scientific topics to help guide EPA decision-making. They are the EPA’s scientific compass. The agency’s mission to safeguard our air and water will be further compromised if Administrator Pruitt winds up selecting these unacceptable candidates.”
Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Get involved! Submit a comment to EPA by Thursday!
You can submit comments about the EPA Scientific Advisory Board nomineesby email to Designated Federal Officer Thomas Carpenter no later than close of business on Thursday, September 28, at carpenter.thomas@epa.gov. (Note that public comments are subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act.)
Tell the EPA that the following candidates are unacceptable for the Science Advisory Board:
Climate-science-denier nominees: Edwin Berry, Alan Carlin, Joseph D’Aleo, Keven Dayaratna, Paul Dreissen, Gordon Fulks, Craig Idso, Richard Keen, David LeGates, Anthony Lupo, David Stevenson and H. Leighton Steward.
Pro-polluter nominees: Richard Belzer, James Bus, Samuel Cohen, Tony Cox, James Enstrom, John D. Graham, Michael Honeycutt, Walt Hufford, James Klaunig and Kimberly White.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/will-epa-administrator-pruitt-tap-polluter-friendly_us_59c9b178e4b0b7022a646d33
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Energy 202: Oil Industry Afraid About What Trump Might Do on NAFTA
Sep 26, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
So far, President Trump has given the oil and natural gas industry quite a bit of what it wants.
In a call to reporters just two days after Trump's surprise election, the American Petroleum Institute, the largest U.S. oil and gas lobbying group, laid out its wish list for the new administration.
API said it wanted Trump to reconsider the stop on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. Check. It said it wanted federal regulations to be reviewed “holistically.” Check.
One of Trump’s many job-creating promises during the campaign was to make it easier for companies to extract and deliver fossil fuels, so making good on these requests was a win-win for the White House and industry.
Although a bushelful, that may have been the low-hanging fruit. API has another ask of Trump that will be harder for the president to fulfill: preserving a key investment-dispute provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which from Trump’s perspective is a “job-killing” trade deal between Canada, Mexico and the United States.
“We’re still optimistic that at the end of the day, this will be handled appropriately,” Jack Gerard, API president and chief executive, said during a teleconference with reporters on Friday. “If it isn’t, I think all of us, including those of us in the oil and gas industry, are going to have to look long and hard at the situation.”
Here’s what API (along with many other business groups) is asking for: that Trump push to preserve a system of resolving international trade disputes called investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS.
Here’s how ISDS works: Say you’re a multinational corporation that decides to invest in a foreign nation. You put in your investment — it could be a gold mine in Indonesia or a luxury resort in Egypt — but suddenly, the foreign government issues a regulation that you think hampers your business. Under ISDS, you can sue that foreign government for the investment you think you lost.
(As the links above indicate, BuzzFeed News has a definitive investigative series on ISDS.)
ISDS is meant to inspire confidence in corporations making investments in foreign countries. But the arbitration system draws ire from many corners. Most environmentalists don’t like how ISDS hamstrings governments that are attempting to curtail pollution. And some conservatives don’t like how ISDS undermines national sovereignty by having tribunals of corporate lawyers, not judges, hear cases.
And there is where the strange bedfellows are made. ISDS is a feature of many free-trade agreements, including NAFTA. But the White House is putting together a proposal to allow the United States, Mexico and Canada to withdraw from the North American arbitration system at will, the Wall Street Journal reported in August.
But big businesses, oil and gas included, don't want the boat rocked. With the third round of NAFTA renegotiations underway as of Saturday, U.S. industrial groups are lining up to preserve the arbitration system that, according to API’s Gerard, “provides what we need in the U.S. to secure that investment overseas.”
Of particular concern to oil companies is Mexico. When NAFTA was first signed 23 years ago, Mexico had a nationalized energy sector. Since then, Mexico has begun selling off oil and gas fields. Foreign investors, including ExxonMobil, want ISDS protection if they are going to drill there.
“That in many respects has opened the door to a flood of new private investment that’s going into Mexico to help further develop their oil, gas and natural resource sector,” said Cal Dooley, president and chief executive of the American Chemistry Council and a former congressman. “It is even more important that we see ISDS be clarified in how it pertains to the energy sector in Mexico.”
William Waren, senior trade analyst at Friends of the Earth, said that energy firms are particularly assertive in using ISDS.
“Just about the biggest and most frequent plaintiffs are big oil companies.” Waren said. Given that annual profits at the largest multinational oil firms can sometimes dwarf the gross domestic products of developing nations in which they operate, those companies “are in a position to coerce smaller countries” through ISDS, Waren added. He said most of the environmental community wishes to see ISDS stripped out of trade deals altogether.
Since the United States’s own fracking boom, natural gas exports via pipeline have doubled between 2009 and 2016, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Almost all that increase in exported gas went to Mexico. NAFTA lets that gas flow across with no tariffs.
Which is why, even if you set ISDS aside, the oil and gas sector has responded forcefully to comments from the president suggesting he is willing the scrap the agreement altogether.
“Personally, I don't think we can make a deal,” Trump said at an Arizona rally in August. He added, “I think we'll end up probably terminating NAFTA at some point.”
Or as Trump tweeted about the "worst trade deal ever made" in late August after the first round of negotiations:
@realDonaldTrump
"We are in the NAFTA (worst trade deal ever made) renegotiation process with Mexico & Canada.Both being very difficult,may have to terminate?"
If persuading the president fails, the oil and gas industry can always lobby Congress, which will have to ratify any changes to NAFTA. Though it has many critics in both chambers, Congress has acted previously to protect ISDS.
For example, in 2015, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a strong opponent of ISDS, introduced an amendment designed to stymie the Obama administration from including ISDS in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed free-trade agreement for 11 nations along the Pacific Ocean.
Her effort failed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/09/26/the-energy-202-oil-industry-afraid-about-what-trump-might-do-on-nafta/59c955ab30fb0468cea81b44/?utm_term=.8ac09ee69104
-
(ACC Mentioned) Petrochemical Industry Looks for Solutions to Thinning Houston Talent Pool
Sep 26, 2017 | Houston Business Journal
By Joshua Mann
“We talk about growing with our customers. Well, if you expand, you need the workforce.”
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2017/09/26/petrochemical-industry-looks-for-solutions-to.html
-
US EPA Issues Snurs for 37 Chemical Substances
Sep 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued significant new use rules (Snurs) for 37 chemical substances which were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). This means that agency must be notified at least 90 days before anyone manufactures or processes any of the substances for a purpose designated as a significant new use by the new rules.
The notice was published on 21 September and the EPA will accept comments until 23 October. The rule will take effect on 20 November if no adverse comments are received.
All of the PMNs addressed by the notice were submitted prior to the 2016 TSCA amendments and are therefore being reviewed under the terms of the old TSCA.
Six of the substances are subject to TSCA section 5(e) consent orders, issued by the EPA. These are:
· 1-propene, 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoro-;
· pyrolysis oil product;
· substituted alkanolamine ether;
· butanedioic acid, alkyl amine, dimethylbutyl ester;
· carbon nanotube (generic); and
· nanocarbon (generic).
This means the agency requires protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate potential risks. Consent orders are only binding on the original PMN submitter. The EPA typically promulgates a Snur that mimics the 5(e) order so that all subsequent manufacturers and processors of the substance will be bound to the same requirements. The agency has continued the practice of these so-called 5(e) Snurs under the new law.
However, non-5(e) Snurs, issued in the absence of a consent order – such as for the other 31 due to go into effect in November – have been discontinued. This is because the new TSCA requires the EPA to make an affirmative finding that a substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk. Before TSCA reform, the EPA would often use these when it determined that the specific conditions of use and precautions described in a PMN would not pose an unreasonable risk, but for which additional uses may be concerning.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59393/us-epa-issues-snurs-for-37-chemical-substances
-
(ACC Mentioned) IRIS Launches Three New Assessments as Leaders Pledge 'Paradigm Shift'
Sep 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
.EPA's influential but controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) risk assessment program is starting three new chemical assessments just as its leaders are pledging a "paradigm shift," including faster assessment times and greater relevance to internal and state partners.
Leaders of the program followed up a presentation to agency science advisors with the release earlier this month of scoping documents for the three newly launched IRIS assessments for chloroform, ethylbenzene and nitrates/nitrites.
According to the assessment plans, which are slated for discussion at a Sept. 27-28 meeting of EPA's Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC), the new analyses will update existing assessments. Once completed, they will help EPA offices address the substances at hazardous waste sites, as air toxics emissions and as water contaminants.
But IRIS' draft assessment documents -- which are out for public comment until Oct. 18 -- do not appear enough for industry. A presentation of public comments submitted from the chemical industry association American Chemistry Council (ACC) outlines the group's concerns with the draft assessment plans.
ACC's slides, for example, seek more information on how chemicals are prioritized for assessment, and argues that they should be "based on clear regulatory need"; "opportunity for public comment on priorities should [be] allowed" and the multi-year agenda "should be updated regularly to illustrate when priorities change."
ACC also continues to press EPA to release its long-pending IRIS assessment handbook, a standard operating procedure document for IRIS assessors, for public comment and peer review by the CAAC. And industry questions how EPA will move away from its one-size-fits-all approach to IRIS assessments.
Kris Thayer, IRIS' new director, and Tina Bahadori, the new director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment, which oversees IRIS, told the Science Advisory Board (SAB) late last month that the three chemicals were selected as they were reviewing the 2015 list of chemicals on IRIS' multi-year agenda for assessment to ensure the chemicals remain priorities and should remain on the agenda.
Thayer and Bahadori's predecessors, Vincent Cogliano and Ken Olden, crafted the 2015 list after conversations with agency program and regional offices over which chemicals are their highest priority needs for assessments.
Of the three chemicals, IRIS staff conducted preliminary work to prepare for an ethylbenzene assessment in 2014, and Thayer and Bahadori's presentation indicates they confirmed with other agency offices that the chemical assessment is still a "current Agency need."
Several agency offices have requested the ethylbenzene assessment, including the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), multiple regional offices, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), the water office and the toxics office, according to the recently released EPA documents.
For the other two chemicals, nitrates/nitrites is on the multiyear plan, but chloroform is not. Thayer and Bahadori's slides explain that chloroform has a "small evidence base" and the plan is to conduct a "targeted update to address Agency need." OLEM, OAR and Region 4 have expressed a specific need for an inhalation reference value for chloroform, the documents say.
Systematic Review
Thayer and Bahadori touted their efforts so far implementing systematic review approaches, which have in the past been used to guide evidence-based medical research, across the IRIS program -- an approach that past IRIS leaders had sought to develop for the program at the urging of the National Academy of Sciences.
The three assessment plans that EPA released Sept. 11 are markedly different from early planning documents on other chemicals, as EPA sought to adopt systematic review approaches.
For example, the documents indicate how extensive the IRIS assessments will be, based on the requesting partners' needs. The chloroform plan says it will update the agency's existing IRIS assessment of the chemical, noting that the inhalation risk evaluation was performed in 1987, while the oral portion of the assessment published in 2001.
The chloroform document addresses a common criticism of IRIS assessments -- that they often contain a default linear cancer risk modeling, which assumes that there is no safe level of exposure to a chemical, in order to be health-protective. EPA's cancer risk guidelines direct its assessors to use this linear default approach when a chemical has a mutagenic mode of action (MOA) -- or biologic pathway for causing cancer -- or when the MOA is unknown. Regulated entities, however, have long argued that this linear approach overestimates risk.
The chloroform document notes that EPA conducted MOA analysis in 2001, concluding that "chloroform is likely carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure only under high-exposure conditions that lead to cytotoxicity and regenerative hyperplasia in susceptible tissues." Based on this MOA analysis, the reference dose (RfD), or the greatest amount EPA estimates can be consumed daily for a lifetime without experiencing adverse non-cancer health effects, "was determined to be protective with respect to cancer because, at the RfD, cytotoxicity -- a key event in the MOA for cancer -- was not observed."
The assessment document notes that the 1987 portion of the chloroform assessment, which calculated an inhalation cancer risk estimate (IUR), was not updated based on the later MOA analysis. Among the shortcomings of the 1987 assessment, the document states, is that "it incorporated a linear extrapolation approach for dose-response that implicitly assumes a risk of cancer at all nonzero exposures to chloroform (i.e., no threshold). The MOA analysis added in 2001, however, concluded that for cancer, chloroform exhibits a 'threshold' by all routes of exposure, and thus a chloroform dose that does not elicit cytotoxicity presents no cancer risk. Therefore, the assumption underlying the IUR dose-response approach (linear extrapolation with no threshold) is inconsistent with the MOA analysis."
EPA indicates that the inhalation assessment will be updated "by deriving an RfC based on available inhalation data from human or animal studies and evaluating this RfC in light of the MOA analysis posted in 2001."
In discussing the agency offices seeking the assessments, the documents explain that OLEM and Region 4 indicate chloroform is a contaminant at industrial cleanup sites, "many of which experience chloroform vapor intrusion," and the offices need risk-based screening and cleanup levels for the chemical. OAR adds that chloroform is classified by the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), and that it is "is mandated under CAA to periodically conduct risk and technology reviews (RTRs) for HAPs in which up-to-date toxicity values are needed to evaluate residual risk."
Ethylbenzene, requested by several EPA offices, is a contaminant at cleanup sites, is on the HAP list, the subject of multiple National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and "on the list of toxic pollutants under section 307 of the Clean Water Act." Ethylbenzene was also one of the chemicals that the Obama EPA included in its work plan for risk evaluation, "and may be among the next chemicals to be evaluated" as part of the toxics office's new authorities under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate existing chemicals.
For nitrate/nitrite, the assessment document notes that RfDs were developed for the chemicals in 1987 and 1991, but no other health effects were evaluated at that time. "Since 1987, a growing body of literature indicates potential associations between nitrate/nitrite exposure and other noncancer health effects. Some epidemiological studies also suggest an increased risk of cancer, especially gastric cancer, associated with dietary nitrite exposure," EPA explains in its statement of work for the chemicals.
Literature Searches
The new documents also acknowledge systematic review aims, by describing the a priori frameworks that will be used to guide the literature searches and analyses in systematic review approaches.
Systematic review is a targeted approach for answering scientific questions. Traditionally, it has been used to guide evidence-based medical research questions, but in recent years proponents have sought to adopt the approach for use in environmental health research as well. The approach has proven challenging, since the data used in environmental health decision-making is much more diverse than medical studies used in traditional systematic reviews. The benefit of the approach is its ability to organize research, target the process toward evidence-based answers, and the transparency in documenting how an assessment is developed.
Olden and Cogliano, the program's former leaders, were working to craft a systematic review approach for IRIS, based on advice from the National Academy of Sciences in 2011 and 2014 reports on the IRIS program.
But that effort is now being led by Bahadori and Thayer, who played a leading role in developing the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' systematic review approach, which was published in 2014.
One downside, however, has been the length of time the approach takes to grasp and perform, leaving some to question its viability, particularly within the already encumbered IRIS program. But Thayer believes that systematic reviews can make IRIS assessments more efficient. She pointed in particular to the use of software programs that can advance the process more quickly.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/iris-launches-three-new-assessments-leaders-pledge-paradigm-shift
-
Lawsuit Aims to Put Carcinogen Warnings on Starbucks Coffee
Sep 26, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A nonprofit is suing in California to force Starbucks Corp. and about 90 other companies, including grocery stores, to post warnings about a cancer-causing chemical in coffee.
The suit claims the companies are failing to follow California law that requires warnings about toxic chemicals. The chemical in question is acrylamide, a carcinogen that appears in the roasting process.
The coffee industry is aware of the chemical but says it exists at harmless levels.
The case has been ongoing since 2010 and restarted yesterday. A ruling in favor of the Council for Education and Research on Toxics could send a jolt through the coffee industry and California consumers.
The plaintiffs ultimately want the industry to get acrylamide out of coffee.
"I'm addicted — like two-thirds of the population," attorney Raphael Metzger said. "I would like the industry to get acrylamide out of the coffee so my addiction doesn't force me to ingest it."
Coffee companies lost the first round of the case two years ago. Several companies settled and agreed to post warnings (AP/Los Angeles Times, Sept. 25). — NB
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/09/26/stories/1060061709
-
Fluoride Can Harm Children’s Intelligence, Mexican Study Finds
Sep 26, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Olga Naldenko
A groundbreaking new study found that exposure to fluoride during pregnancy can harm IQ and cognitive development in children. Fluoride is added to the tap water of two-thirds of Americans.
The study – a joint effort by researchers in the U.S., Mexico and Canada – examined 299 pairs of Mexican mothers and children. It found that higher prenatal fluoride exposure was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the children at age 4, and again between the ages of 6 and 12.
In Mexico, fluoride exposure primarily comes from fluoridated table salt rather than fluoridated water. In the study, Mexican children's exposures were determined by testing their urine rather than their intake through water and food, so translating the findings to exposure of U.S. kids is challenging.
Adding fluoride to public drinking water has been touted as a leading public health achievement of the 20th century. But research shows that adding fluoride to drinking water, rather than toothpaste, is not the most effective way to combat tooth decay. And the new study adds to growing evidence that too much fluoride can be harmful.
In 2012, Phillipe Grandjean of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and his colleagues, conducted a systematic review of published studies on fluoride. They found that the body of evidence supports the possibility that high fluoride exposures can harm the development of children's brains and nervous systems.
"Adverse effects from fluoride additives to drinking water have not been fully considered in the past, and the new study from Mexico, along with substantial evidence from other countries, now shows that fluoride toxicity to brain development must be taken seriously," Grandjean, who was not involved with the new study, told EWG.
Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Sciences, told CNN that studies of Chinese children have reported similar findings about fluoride's effects on IQ. Fluoride can also cause discoloration of the teeth and harm bone development.
In 2011, responding to a lawsuit by EWG and other advocacy groups, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended that water utilities reduce the amount of fluoride added to tap water by more than 40 percent – down from the previous federal recommendation of 1.2 parts per million to 0.7 ppm. This new recommendation took effect in 2015.
Removing fluoride from water can be difficult, requiring reverse osmosis treatment. Given the findings of the new research, minimizing fluoride exposure during pregnancy and for young infants may be prudent. EWG recommends that baby formula be mixed with fluoride-free water, especially for infants whose diets are exclusively powdered baby formula.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/09/fluoride-can-harm-children-s-intelligence-mexican-study-finds#.Wcp9WbIjHIU
-
Echa Clarifies Brexit Impacts on UK, EU Regulatory Obligations
Sep 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has launched a webpage that explains what will happen to the regulatory obligations of UK entities and EU member states, as well as agency operations, following Brexit.
The UK’s withdrawal from the EU on 30 March 2019 will "significantly reduce" Echa’s cooperation with UK authorities and will not leave stakeholders "untouched", the agency says.
After Brexit, the UK will no longer be bound to European chemicals legislation and there will be no legal provision for Echa to cooperate with UK authorities. The "major impact", Echa says, will be the UK authorities’ loss of access to the world’s largest database on the properties of chemical substances. After Brexit, these agencies will only have access to public information on Echa’s websites.
The UK’s function as an evaluating member state will also cease. For those pending evaluations at the time of withdrawal, Echa and the European Commission – with cooperation from member state authorities – will decide how to ensure other authorities within the EU and European Economic Area (EEA) will resume responsibility. Echa says it will provide updated information and publish a list of affected evaluations in due course.
In addition, the UK will no longer take part in Echa’s Committees for Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis (Rac and Seac), its Enforcement Forum and other networks, such as HelpNet. Echa says that it will appoint in advance an alternative member to take over from Rac or Seac UK rapporteurs in its committees, and it will publish a list of such rapporteur mandates at a later date.
In June 2016, Echa made the point that third countries can be invited to participate in the work of the agency, subject to the agreement of Echa’s Management Board. And earlier this year, a report from the House of Lords European Union Committee said the UK must continue to push its "informal influence"on EU discussions on chemicals legislation following Brexit.Resources
The UK’s legal obligation to maintain a national helpdesk to provide UK-based companies with advice and assistance in fulfilling their obligations under EU chemicals legislation will also cease.
Companies that seek assistance from the Echa help desk should address the agency via the dedicated contact form, it says. As third country entities they will join others based outside the EU and the EEA to whom the help desk "regularly replies", Echa adds.
Brexit also brings changes to Echa’s recruitment process. While UK citizens can still apply for agency jobs until the exit date, in order to be eligible to work at Echa, candidates must be EU or EEA nationals. Therefore, after Brexit UK citizens will no longer qualify.
Echa says that despite the uncertainties of the Brexit process, it will continue to "seamlessly" implement chemicals legislation within the EU27 and EEA beyond the UK’s withdrawal.
It adds that it will continue to update the webpage as developments unfold.Advice for companies
Echa advises UK-based companies to follow national legislative developments, as well as the withdrawal negotiations, "which may determine" their future obligations. Businesses that are part of a supply chain which links them to others located within the EU 27 will face "some fundamental changes". Similarly, EU-based companies with UK businesses in their supply chain could face new and different UK rules on the import and use of chemical substances, the agency says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59534/echa-clarifies-brexit-impacts-on-uk-eu-regulatory-obligations
-
CBA Urges UK Government to Adopt REACH Into National Law
Sep 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
The UK Chemical Business Association says the pragmatic and most cost-effective way forward for chemical policy after Brexit, is for Britain to adopt the REACH, CLP and biocides legislation into UK law "on exactly the same institutional, functional and legislative terms as they are currently operating".
Its position echoes that of the UK's other main chemicals trade body, the Chemical Industries Association, which recently told Chemical Watch it wants the UK to remain as close as possible to REACH in its entirety, "warts and all".
In a recently finalised position paper – partly based on the results of a members survey – the CBA, which primarily represents distributors, says it wants the Brexit negotiations to ensure the UK's continued membership of the single market and customs union, or some arrangement that delivers the same benefits.
Loss of single market membership and the possibility of new tariff (or non-tariff) barriers, it says, would undermine the industry's competitiveness.
All of the large companies responding to the survey backed this position. Less predictably, says the paper, smaller firms – many of which are UK-centric, buying and supplying chemicals only in the UK – also want to retain single market membership, because they "are clearly unwilling to jeopardise future access to profitable markets".Transition period
The paper – published before prime minister Theresa May's Brexit speech in Florence last Friday – says that should Brexit talks fail to secure this outcome, the UK chemical supply chain would require a "significant" transitional period to adjust to any new trading environment.
In her speech, Mrs May proposed that the UK continue to adopt and abide by all current EU regulatory standards – but only for a transition period of around two years. After that, her government wants to be free to adopt its own standards, where necessary. There would be some form of dispute resolution mechanism created to allow this to happen while maintaining tariff-free trade between the UK and EU. She also ruled out a Norway-style solution – membership of the single market without any say in standards setting.
In response, the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, said any transition period would "require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply".
Asked how the CBA defines a "significant" transition period, CEO Peter Newport (pictured) said two years would be challenging and it would have preferred three years, given the current pace of negotiations.And after transition?
Given their desire to avoid getting enmeshed in political discussions, both the CBA and the CIA – which represents manufacturers – do not want to be drawn at this stage on what legislative and regulatory solution they would like to see adopted in the UK, after any transition period ends.
"Our members' primary objective is, and has to be, unfettered access to the EU market and in our view at this stage that has to be through the effective transposition of REACH into UK law and acceptance of 100% regulatory equivalence," said Mr Newport. "Once agreement of the Brexit terms is achieved, we would then give a considered response to any post-Brexit proposals that might be tabled by the UK government."
CIA chief executive Steve Elliott said: "The importance of accessing the EU 27 would clearly mean we stick as close as possible to REACH in transition and beyond. And many of our larger members would value the efficiency of compliance with REACH, ensuring access elsewhere due to its high bar. But companies with a trade dependency elsewhere would clearly be interested in any alternative that brings a less costly but equally rigorous compliance regime, but one for the collective CIA membership that doesn't endanger access to the EU market place."
Adopting identical REACH and CLP legislation of its own, and adopting all future EU amendments and changes under those laws would, "broadly speaking" be the best way to ensure mutual recognition of UK and EU chemicals policy standards and registrations, said Mr Newport. But a "small minority" of CBA members argue for a series of risk-based derogations from EU regulations – provisions that would allow substances to be placed on the UK market that would otherwise not comply with EU regulation.UK chemicals agency
Mr Newport said he would prefer an outcome where his members could continue to deal directly with Echa on things like substance registrations, dossier updates, new mandatory classifications and authorisation applications.
"The cost of creating a UK version of Echa, and the bureaucracy involved, seems pointless and business will dislike duplicate fee payments. Why would we go to the expense of creating a UK intermediary – an unwanted and unnecessary bureaucratic layer."
https://chemicalwatch.com/59537/cba-urges-uk-government-to-adopt-reach-into-national-law
-
Appalachian Pipeline Capacity to Outpace Demand — Report
Sep 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By David Iaconangelo
Appalachia gas pipeline capacity will outpace demand in the coming years, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc., even as the U.S. energy market and overseas buyers consume more gas produced in the Northeast.
In the short term, electric power plants will balance the market as they continue switching from coal to natural gas.
But in Goldman's analysis, researchers predict that rising gas demand simply as a function of fuel-switching tails off in time, as efficient combined-cycle power plants, wind power, solar panels and a declining number of coal retirements cut into the rise in gas demand.
Goldman lowered its Henry Hub gas price forecast to $2.75 per million British thermal units for the third quarter of 2018 and into 2019. Analysts there expect new Appalachia region pipeline additions to accelerate through 2018 and ahead of large increases in demand slated for 2019. That year, Sempra Energy's Cameron liquefied natural gas export project, more chemical production and a power plant buildout in Mexico are all expected to lift demand.
"Beyond rising gas burn, we believe that balancing the U.S. gas market in 2018-20 will require that new Appalachia pipelines remain only partially filled as they come online," Goldman analysts wrote.
The research note comes as several pipelines planned for the Northeast face unusual legal challenges that, while considered long shots by law experts, could prove transformative if they prevail.
One front, led by environmental groups, takes root from a federal appellate court ruling that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission didn't adequately consider downstream emissions in its review of Florida's Sabal Trail pipeline.
The groups are pressing FERC to incorporate the ruling in its environmental analyses of at least three other pipeline projects in the region — the Atlantic Coast, Atlantic Sunrise and Nexus projects (Energywire, Sept. 25).
Atlantic Coast and Nexus, along with the proposed Mountain Valley pipeline, have also been the target of lawsuits filed by landowners, who contest FERC's use of eminent domain authority (Energywire, Sept. 13).
In a statement, Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer called the buildout and modernization of natural gas infrastructure "absolutely mission critical" to downstream opportunities and regional competitiveness.
"With the right policies, the Appalachian Basin will continue to play a leading and growing role — both nationally and globally — in providing the energy we need to grow our economy," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/09/26/stories/1060061647
-
Advocates Push Court to Revive Stalled BLM Methane Rule
Sep 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Government lawyers squared off yesterday with supporters of an Obama-era oil and gas regulation the Trump administration is working to reverse.
In a hearing at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, environmental groups and lawyers for California and New Mexico argued that the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management illegally stalled its 2016 rule restricting venting and flaring of methane from oil and gas sites on public and tribal lands.
BLM is rethinking the Obama regulation and in June suspended key provisions of it without a public comment process. The agency paused the rule using an Administrative Procedure Act clause, Section 705, that allows agencies to postpone the effective date of rules that are caught in litigation.
Environmental groups and states that support the methane restrictions have pushed back on BLM's use of the APA provision, which they say should apply only to rules that have not yet taken effect. BLM's methane rule took effect in January, though some compliance deadlines are staggered in the future.
"We believe that Secretary Zinke's decision to suspend the Waste Prevention Rule without any opportunity for public input was clearly unlawful," Environmental Defense Fund attorney Peter Zalzal said in a statement yesterday.
The Trump administration and allies in the oil and gas industry have argued that the APA measure would be "toothless" if it weren't allowed to apply to parts of regulations that have taken effect.
"The Notice properly postpones future compliance dates rather than the Rule's initial effective date," government lawyers told the court last month. "Indeed, Section 705 would be rendered toothless if its use were limited to postponement of a rule's initial effective date."
The states and environmental groups sought summary judgment in the case, and both sides made their case yesterday before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte in San Francisco.
Supporters of the methane regulation are liking their odds in this case after the same judge last month rejected Interior's attempt to use the same APA provision to stall an Obama-era rule addressing how royalties are calculated for federal fossil fuel development (Greenwire, Aug. 31).
"Judge Laporte has already ruled on the relevant legal issue, and there is no reason to expect a contrary ruling in this case," Earthjustice attorney Robin Cooley said in an email. "As the court recognized in its prior ruling, federal agencies cannot undo years of public input and careful consideration with the stroke of a pen; they have to follow the procedures required by law."
An industry lawyer did not respond to a request for comment. Interior does not comment on pending litigation.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/09/26/stories/1060061671
-
Exxon Finds Easy, Cost-Effective Way to Stop Gas Leaks
Sep 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Exxon Mobil Corp.'s plan to reduce its methane emissions grew out of a single tank battery in West Texas and could have a widespread impact on the energy industry.
Exxon, the biggest U.S. oil and gas producer, said yesterday it will use a combination of technologies, along with stepped-up training and leak detection, to reduce the pollution at its production and transportation facilities. The program will be carried out by XTO Energy Inc., the subsidiary that handles Exxon's onshore U.S. operations.
The company hasn't said how much it expects to cut its emissions, but environmental groups said it's a significant announcement given Exxon's size.
"When the nation's largest natural gas producer makes an announcement like this — it obliterates any claim that methane reductions aren't feasible and cost-effective," said Ben Ratner, manager of corporate initiatives for the Environmental Defense Fund.
Exxon has a tangled history on emissions and climate change. The New York attorney general's office is investigating whether the company suppressed internal research showing the risks of greenhouse gas pollution.
Exxon took part in a string of studies EDF conducted in 2013 and 2014 to measure emissions from oil and gas sites.
Methane, the main component of natural gas, traps more heat than carbon dioxide when it's released into the atmosphere. EDF and other environmental groups have said for years that cutting methane emissions from the oil and gas sector is a crucial step in staving off long-term climate change.
In the second half of 2016, the company conducted an experiment at a single tank battery in the Midland Basin, which is part of the larger Permian Basin oil field.
Like a lot of oil field installations, the battery relied on a so-called high bleed pneumatic system that emitted a stream of natural gas to power valves and other control systems. XTO switched the battery to a different system that used an electrically powered compressed air system. The change virtually eliminated the tank battery's emissions, and it cost about the same as the high-bleed system, the company said.
XTO said it plans to retrofit its existing facilities with air-powered systems within three years. And it will use the same type of control systems as it begins developing 250,000 acres it purchased earlier this year in the Permian Basin (Energywire, Jan. 19).
The company is also working with several government agencies and universities, including Stanford University's Natural Gas Initiative, on new leak detection technology.
"All told, we're involved in more than two dozen methane and methane emissions reduction research projects and studies," XTO President Sara Ortwein said in a blog post.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/09/26/stories/1060061635
-
Texas Refineries Emitted Pollutants During Harvey-Related Shutdowns
Sep 26, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Alexandra Berzon
Chemical plants and refineries in Texas spewed exceptionally high amounts of pollutants while shutting down their vast operations for last month’s Hurricane Harvey, and again when they restarted, government filings show.
Many plants typically shut down when under the threat of a storm or other natural disaster, looking to prevent a wider catastrophe such as explosion. When shutting down or starting up, a process that can take hours or even days, these plants generally “flare out,” or burn off, toxic chemicals in their systems. Newer or upgraded plants often have systems that reduce emissions during flares or capture some of the substances without having to burn them off.
Some plants in southeast Texas shut down their vast systems ahead of the storm, while others were caught with flooding or loss of power and had to shut down suddenly, according to company emissions reports to the state. While plants perform limited shutdowns at various times for maintenance or malfunctions, a natural disaster can force multiple plants in the same area to shut down around the same time, causing a surge in certain cases in emissions from toxic chemicals like benzene.
The Harvey-related startups and shutdowns produced nearly four million pounds of emissions as of Monday, or about 10% of the entire state’s yearly unplanned emissions, according to company estimates to state regulators. That included about 49,000 pounds of the carcinogen benzene and around 80,000 pounds of the carcinogen 1,3-butadiene, according to the estimates. About one million more pounds of chemicals came from other malfunctions during the storm.
Some of the reports were initial estimates and could change.
Some experts and environmental advocates say that with better planning ahead of storms and better operations more generally, companies could curb some toxic polluting during extreme weather. Industry groups counter that emissions during these times usually don’t pose health risks.
The Texas Gulf Coast boasts the country’s biggest collection of oil and chemical producers. Because of its proximity to shale oil and gas, the industry has been rapidly expanding in new multibillion-dollar investments in the region even as it is seeing stronger storms and related threats.
Some residents in neighborhoods near such plants reported strong and sometimes nauseating odors to city and federal reporting hotlines.
Diana Gonzalez, a lifelong resident of the industrial city Galena Park, about 10 miles from downtown Houston, noticed a gaseous smell coming into the living room during the evening of Aug. 27, two days after the storm made landfall. She moved to another part of the house as her sister’s eyes burned.
“We were saying, ‘Do you smell it? Do you smell that?’” she recalled. “We grew up around refineries all our lives. This smell was different.”
Flooding at an Arkema Inc. chemical plant in Texas during Harvey led to a series of explosions that released chemicals into the air and spurred a lawsuit from local first responders.
Following Gulf Coast Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, government researchers found that 72% of the storm-related events that led to releases of hazardous substances in industrial settings were due to startup or shutdown operations.
The scientists recommended that plants do a better job of planning for such situations.
Some plant operators still appeared to be scrambling when Harvey hit.
“Given the predictions for Harvey, I think many of the facilities there could have shut down earlier and should not have gone through such a hurried shutdown,” said Sam Mannan, who directs the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center at Texas A&M University.
Mr. Mannan and others said, however, that companies may not have known how bad the situation would be and try not to unnecessarily shut down a facility because such processes have safety risks, and also could crimp the nation’s energy supply.
A Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. plant in Baytown, Texas, estimated a particularly large amount of emissions from the shutdown of its flooded Cedar Bayou plant, including 28,000 pounds of benzene. The final amounts could change.
A Chevron Phillips spokeswoman said the shutdown at the plant began on Aug. 27 as water levels rose.
Hector Rivero, president and CEO of the Texas Chemical Council, which represents 100 facilities along the Texas Gulf Coast, said the vast majority of facilities shut down during the storm. “Their focus is on protecting people, allowing people to get to their homes, making sure plants are safe from an potential impacts,” he said.
The companies likely won’t be fined for the pollution. Many states, including Texas, generally have exempted the enforcement of violating emission limits during malfunctions and unplanned startups or shutdowns.
Two years ago, following lawsuits by environmental groups, the Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules that would end the exemptions. Texas sued the EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn the new rules, saying the companies shouldn’t be cited for events out of their control. The case is on hold while the agency reviews a request for reconsideration.
An EPA spokeswoman said the agency is reviewing the rule to “ensure it aligns with the new administration’s policies.”
Scott Pruitt, the EPA administrator, said in an interview that recent events hadn’t altered his basic approach: that he prefers states have more flexibility in enforcing environmental rules.
Eric Wohlschlegel, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, said no changes are needed because the pollution during the storm fell “far below the concern to human health.”
Public-health experts aren’t so sure. They say that some of the potential health effects are unknowable, because from Aug. 25 to Aug. 31, after Harvey made landfall and while plants were shutting down or malfunctioning, Texas suspended its air-testing monitors to protect them.
State officials reported on an agency website that they found the air was mostly safe after testing began again on Sept. 1. Still, on that day, one air monitor in Houston detected ozone levels that were the highest of 2017 in Texas.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-refineries-emitted-pollutants-during-harvey-related-shutdowns-1506436968
-
Crude by Rail Could Hamper Future U.S. Pipeline Investments, Study Says
Sep 26, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
Protestors may have slowed the Dakota Access Pipeline.
But the nation's vast railroad network, and its foray into transporting crude oil since the shale boom began, likely meant investors had to make the controversial pipeline smaller than it could have been, researchers say.
Even though it's more expensive, carrying oil on rail lines rather than on pipelines has some advantages that could keep pipeline investments smaller in the future, according to a new study by two professors at the University of Chicago.
If the cost of putting oil on the rail lines had increased by just $1 a barrel, for example, the Dakota Access Pipeline could have had an additional daily capacity of somewhere between 29,000 and 74,000 barrels.
That correlation comes as rail transportation has become a more flexible option for oil companies than pipelines, which require companies to sign shipping contracts of a decade or longer. Crude by rail levels lag oil price movements by only six months to 18 months.
"It doesn't mean pipelines are going away, but now that rail is a thing, it puts a constraint on how willing you are to build a pipeline," said Ryan Kellogg, a University of Chicago professor and researcher at the university's Energy Policy Institute.
By the end of the shale boom in 2014, crude by rail had reached 750,000 barrels a day. Not only because pipelines still didn't reach some remote shale plays, Kellogg argues, but because oil companies in some cases preferred the rail line flexibility. Pipelines take billions of dollars in upfront investments, which require lenders and long-term contracts.
"When oil prices are low, you don't see a lot of crude moving around on rail cars," Kellogg said. "But if prices go up again, you'll start to see rail come back."
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Crude-by-rail-could-hamper-future-U-S-pipeline-12229040.php
-
Va. Moves Closer to Joining Regional Climate Program
Sep 26, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Conversations between Virginia and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative are "beyond the introductory phase," the director of the commonwealth's air quality division said yesterday.
The statement comes amid a flurry of state climate action. Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) issued an executive order in May directing state regulators to explore potential partnerships with existing cap-and-trade programs (Climatewire, May 17).
The ink on McAuliffe's order had barely dried before RGGI, a cap-and-trade program encompassing nine Northeastern states, announced a proposal last month to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent between 2021 and 2030 (Climatewire, Aug. 24).
Virginia could now join the RGGI fold, with state officials focused on how to link the commonwealth with the compact's carbon-cutting regimen.
"We would attempt to follow the RGGI rule, the new RGGI rule, as closely as possible," Mike Dowd, director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's Air Division, said in an interview yesterday on the sidelines of a RGGI meeting here. "Obviously we don't want to go forward with a rule that RGGI says is dead on arrival. So before we go ahead with our rule, we want to make sure we've crossed our T's, dotted our I's with RGGI, make sure everyone is cool with the rule, what we're doing, things like that."
Virginia's addition to RGGI's ranks would represent a major victory for the greens (Climatewire, July 10). The commonwealth's annual emissions are nearly equal to RGGI's largest emitter, New York. It would also be the first RGGI state with a significant coal mining industry.
But several hurdles remain before Virginia can join the carbon-cutting compact. RGGI's existing members auction off a set number of carbon allowances and use the proceeds on energy efficiency measures and other programs. But conducting an auction would require approval of Virginia's Republican-led Legislature, which is unlikely to look kindly on a proposed carbon-cutting partnership.
So Virginia officials are instead looking at how to link to RGGI by allocating carbon allowances.
"We're talking about allocations, we're thinking about set-asides, we're thinking about where the cap will start. Those are the discussions now that we're having," Dowd said.
An even bigger hurdle is the outcome of this fall's gubernatorial election. Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, has pledged to uphold McAuliffe's order. A poll released yesterday by the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University gave Northam a 6-point lead over Republican Ed Gillespie, who has called the order a "job-killing" regulation.
The election takes place against the backdrop of mounting state climate action. RGGI's carbon cap had been scheduled to stop declining in 2020. The proposal unveiled in August calls on setting a cap of 75 million tons in 2021, which would then decline by 3 percent annually through 2030. It also would readjust the number of carbon allowances power plant owners can hold in reserve and withhold allowances when compliance costs fall below projected levels.
Each of RGGI's nine members now must approve the tightened cap, a process that could take up to a year.
Virginia is not the only state looking to join RGGI. Expansion prospects loomed over the meeting yesterday in Baltimore, where compact officials gathered to discuss the proposed tightening of the region's carbon cap.
At one point, a New Jersey official listening to the meeting online asked a question about how RGGI proceeds are spent. The Republican and Democratic candidates running to succeed Gov. Chris Christie (R) in this fall's gubernatorial election have pledged to rejoin the program.
Later, another questioner asked if New Jersey officials had been in contact with RGGI.
"We're aware of the political statements that have been made by candidates running for governor," said Lois New, a RGGI representative and acting director of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Office of Climate Change. "That's as far as it's gone. They haven't approached us."
Conversations with Virginia are more advanced. Virginia officials have said they want to release a proposal for linking with RGGI by November. The speed of those conversations was evident yesterday.
In opening remarks to the gathering, Maryland Secretary of the Environment Ben Grumbles praised RGGI's reforms while acknowledging the presence of Virginia officials in the crowd.
"It is truly a strengthening of the RGGI program, and we think it's also going to lead to a broadening of this program," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/09/26/stories/1060061655
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested