Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/2
-
Resiliency: The Electric Grid’s Only Hope
Oct 3, 2017 | House Science, Space, and Technology Committee
Location: 2318 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Part II: Powering America: Defining Reliability in a Transforming Electricity Industry
Oct 3, 2017 | House Energy and Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn / 2:00 PM -
Business Meeting to Consider Various Nominations
Oct 3, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location : 366 Dirksen / 10:15 AM -
Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Rail Stakeholders’ Perspectives
Oct 4, 2017 | House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Location : 2167 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump to Tout Cost Savings of Rollbacks
Oct 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
President Trump will deliver a speech this morning on his administration's efforts to cut red tape and roll back regulations. -
(ACC Mentioned) Activists Sue Over Revamped U.S. Chemical Law
Oct 2, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Chemical industry representatives joined environmental activists in June to celebrate the one-year mark of a major overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act—the law that governs the sale and use of chemicals in the U.S. -
(ACC Mentioned) Updates in TSCA Framework Rules Litigation Cases
Sep 30, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Lauren M. Graham
On September 25, 2017, Petitioners Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (collectively Petitioners) in Ninth Circuit Case Nos. 17-72260 and 17-72501 (regarding review of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework rule... -
(ACC Mentioned) New Warning to Consumers: Avoid These Flame Retardants
Sep 29, 2017 | Consumer Reports
By Jeneen Interlandi
In a move hailed by consumer advocates, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued an emphatic new warning: Consumers, especially pregnant women and young children, should avoid products containing organohalogen flame retardants (OFRs)... -
Top Official Doubts Call To Address Scientific Controversies In IRIS Analyses
Sep 29, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The new chief of EPA's influential risk analysis program is downplaying calls from some agency science advisers to acknowledge scientific controversies around substances' hazards in its assessments, saying doing so would bring more criticism on the program due... -
Brexit Tracker Finds UK Chemical Industry at 'High Risk'
Oct 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The UK chemical industry is at a "high level" of risk from the country's departure from the European Union, according to monitoring by a coalition of Green NGOs. -
Senate GOP Sets Path for Alaska Refuge Drilling
Sep 29, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Republicans introduced a budget proposal Friday that could pave the way for allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for the first time in decades. -
Shell to Transform Skyline With 200 Structures As Pennsylvania Cracker Construction Gets Underway
Sep 29, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Major equipment and structures will be erected over the next year for Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC’s multi-billion dollar ethane cracker plant in western Pennsylvania, company officials said Thursday at the Shale Insight conference in Pittsburgh. -
As Perry Pushes Oil and Gas, He Finds Opposition on Left and Right Coasts
Sep 30, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Energy Secretary Rick Perry delighted in poaching companies from California while he was governor of Texas. -
Permian Pipelines Key to Production Growth: Fuel for Thought
Oct 2, 2017 | Platts
By Ashok Dutta
When Willie Chiang, chief executive officer of Plains All American, rose to address an audience at the Houston Petroleum Club in mid-September, his message was clear: crude production from the Permian Basin will continue to grow and timing will be a critical factor to build pipelines. -
Health and Safety Rules Targeted as Trump Begins to Slash Red Tape
Oct 1, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Julia Harte
When disaster hits the chemical plants in Port Arthur, Texas, triggering fires like those that flared in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, Hilton Kelley is the man fielding panicked calls from neighbors unsure whether they should evacuate their homes. -
States Want Access to Chemical Trade Secrets Before Spills
Oct 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
States could soon respond quicker to chemical accidents armed with information EPA has. But first, they'll have to prove they can protect chemical makers’ trade secrets. -
Top 10 Toxic Chemicals Coming From California Refineries Identified
Sep 29, 2017 | CBS San Francisco
By Hannah Albarazi
If you live or work in California, you probably spend time near one of the state’s 17 refineries, and you may have wondered what refining chemicals end up in the air you breathe. -
Rail Industry Slow on Safety Upgrade for Fleets Carrying Oil and Ethanol
Oct 1, 2017 | DeSmog
By Justin Mikulka
A new government report finds that only 9 percent of all the rail tank cars transporting flammable liquids last year met the stricter safety requirements of regulations set in 2015, which were meant to reduce oil train explosions and accidents. -
EPA Silent as Ozone Decision Deadline Looms, States Say
Oct 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
States said the EPA remained mum just days before it was required to announce which areas of the country exceed federal ozone pollution standards and must clean up their air. -
Week Ahead: EPA Poised to Deliver Major Ozone, Climate Decisions
Oct 2, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to deliver major regulatory decisions on ozone and climate change in the coming week.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Resiliency: The Electric Grid’s Only Hope
Oct 3, 2017 | House Science, Space, and Technology Committee
Location: 2318 Rayburn / 10:00 AM
Witnesses:
• Dr. William Sanders, department head, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois
• Mr. Carl Imhoff, manager, Electricity Market Sector, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
• Dr. Gavin Dillingham, program director, Clean Energy Policy, Houston Advanced Research Center
• Mr. Walt Baum, executive director, Texas Public Power Association
-
Part II: Powering America: Defining Reliability in a Transforming Electricity Industry
Oct 3, 2017 | House Energy and Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn / 2:00 PM
WITNESSES
Mr. Paul Bailey
CEO, American Coalition for Clean Coal ElectricityMr. Marty Durbin
Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, American Petroleum InstituteMr. Tom Kiernan
CEO, American Wind Energy AssociationMs. Maria G. Korsnick
CEO, Nuclear Energy InstituteMr. John Moore
Director, Sustainable FERC Project, Energy & Transportation Program, Natural Resources Defense CouncilMs. Abigail Ross Hopper
President and CEO, Solar Energy Industries AssociationMs. Kelly Speakes-Backman
CEO, Energy Storage AssociationMr. Steve Wright
General Manager, Chelan County PUD, on behalf of National Hydropower Association -
Business Meeting to Consider Various Nominations
Oct 3, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location : 366 Dirksen / 10:15 AM
The purpose of the business meeting is to consider the following nominations:
· Mr. Bruce J. Walker, of New York, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy (Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability); and
· Mr. Steven E. Winberg, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy).
-
Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Rail Stakeholders’ Perspectives
Oct 4, 2017 | House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Location : 2167 Rayburn / 10:00 AM
Witnesses:
Mr. Edward Hamberger, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of American RailroadsMr. Charles "Wick" Moorman, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak
Ms. Linda Darr, President, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association
Mr. Stephen Gardner, Executive Vice President, Planning, Technology, and Public Affairs, Amtrak
Mr. Tom DeJoseph, Senior Advisor of Industry Relations, Loram Maintenance of Way
Mr. Larry Willis, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump to Tout Cost Savings of Rollbacks
Oct 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
President Trump will deliver a speech this morning on his administration's efforts to cut red tape and roll back regulations.
The speech will highlight the "themes of regulatory reform and the benefits that reform can have for ordinary Americans and hardworking individuals," Neomi Rao, head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said during a Friday call with reporters.
"The president has made regulatory reform a key part of this administration," Rao said. "We view regulatory reform as linked to some very important goals, including promoting economic growth, job creation and spurring innovation."
Since January, the administration has completed four regulatory rulemakings and 10 deregulatory rulemakings, resulting in $300 million worth of cost savings, Rao said.
Trump is widely expected to tout his Jan. 30 executive order, which requires agencies revoke two regulations for every new one (Greenwire, Jan. 30).
Following the speech, 10 agencies will hold listening sessions to discuss their regulatory efforts. The discussions may focus on compliance with another executive order establishing reform task forces.
Participating agencies are the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Treasury, and the Small Business Administration.
U.S. EPA — which has been at the center of much of the administration's anti-regulatory rhetoric — will not host a listening session (E&E News PM, Sept. 28).
'De-Reg Day'
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said Administrator Scott Pruitt will attend the event and "looks forward to taking part in De-Reg Day on Monday alongside President Trump and the rest of the administration."
A senior administration official said on background that EPA has already held 11 listening sessions and "solicited comments extensively."
Still, several sources said they were surprised the agency wasn't holding another session, given Pruitt's penchant for deregulation.
"If I were Trump, I certainly wouldn't have any doubts about Pruitt's agenda when it comes to regulations," said James Goodwin, senior policy analyst with the Center for Progressive Reform.
A former legal foe of the agency, Pruitt moved to roll back an unprecedented number of environmental rules during his first four months in office.
Out of the 131 Obama-era actions the new administration eliminated in its spring 2017 regulatory agenda, 49 were from EPA (Greenwire, Aug. 2). By comparison, 17 eliminated rules were from the Department of Transportation.
DOT issued a call for public input on its review of existing regulations. The notice says the department is "reviewing its existing regulations and other agency actions to evaluate their continued necessity, determine whether they are crafted effectively to solve current problems, and evaluate whether they potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources."
The departments of the Interior and Energy didn't respond to requests for comment on their listening sessions in time for publication.
'Vague and void of detail'
Regulatory policy experts aren't holding their breath for Trump to deliver any specifics during today's speech.
Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate with Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said he doesn't expect the president to rely on many statistics.
"I'm anticipating that he's going to cite the number of regulations that he's repealed, and also how much that's saving the economy," Narang said. "That's assuming he gets into stats at all. His public comments about regulations have been so vague and void of detail."
One number that could feature prominently, though, is zero. That's how much agencies are supposed to spend on all new regulations in fiscal 2017 and fiscal 2018, according to the Jan. 30 order and subsequent Office of Management and Budget guidance.
The "one in, two out" component has grabbed headlines and turned heads in Washington, D.C. But the regulatory budget component has garnered much less attention — until, possibly, today.
"It's easier to talk about how for every new regulation, we want to repeal two," said Yogin Kothari, Washington representative with the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "But in terms of the regulatory budget, I think that's going to start to creep up more."
Another number that could come up today is 14. That's how many rules the Republican-controlled Congress wiped from the books earlier this year using the Congressional Review Act (E&E Daily, May 12).
But Trump shouldn't take full credit for axing so many Obama-era regulations using the CRA, Goodwin said. "He's probably going to include the Congressional Review Act stuff, which in point of fact he can only claim partial credit for, because a lot of the heavy lifting was done by Congress," said Goodwin.
Left and right
In anticipation of Trump's speech, a new regulatory coalition launched in recent days. The Coalition for Regulatory Innovation aims to promote "accountability, transparency and scientific integrity" in the rulemaking process, according to its website.
While the coalition calls itself bipartisan, it has received backing from some of the biggest industry groups that stand to benefit from deregulation, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council and North America's Building Trades Unions.
Spokesman Patrick O'Connell said the coalition aims to transcend partisan divides. "Broadly speaking, the goal of the coalition is to bring a number of industries together to find commonsense reform that both Democrats and Republicans could support," O'Connell said.
"We're not against regulations," he said. "But we want to make sure that they're not overly complex or burdensome. We're just looking for more consistency and clarity from the people who write them."
Left-leaning groups are also gearing up to launch campaigns today that emphasize how regulations benefit the environment, the economy, and public health and safety.
Public Citizen, a libertarian think tank founded by Ralph Nader, is readying press releases and fact sheets that showcase the stories of everyday Americans harmed by deregulation.
The Center for Progressive Reform and the Coalition on Sensible Safeguards have issued press releases and blog posts attacking the notion that regulations kill jobs — a frequent talking point on the right (Greenwire, Aug. 22).
Right-of-center groups, however, are staying mum. The Heritage Foundation and Freedom Partners, two prominent conservative think tanks that sometimes weigh in on regulatory matters, didn't return multiple requests for comment for this story.
Clyde Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at the right-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute, acknowledged in a voicemail left for E&E News that he received one of the 300 invitations to the speech.
"I think the big takeaway from this is that this is the makings of a regulatory budget," said Crews.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/10/02/stories/1060062251
-
(ACC Mentioned) Activists Sue Over Revamped U.S. Chemical Law
Oct 2, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Chemical industry representatives joined environmental activists in June to celebrate the one-year mark of a major overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act—the law that governs the sale and use of chemicals in the U.S. But as summer drew to an end, so did environmentalists’ support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules that lay the foundation for how the agency will implement the amended law.
Numerous environmental and public health groups filed six lawsuits against EPA on Aug. 10 and 11, asking federal appeals courts to review the agency’s two rules for prioritizing and evaluating chemicals for their risks to human health and the environment. The court has consolidated the cases into two sets.
In addition, one of the groups, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), also challenged a third rule that requires chemical manufacturers and importers to notify EPA of chemicals produced during the past 10 years so that the agency knows what chemicals are in the U.S. marketplace.
At issue are changes EPA made to the three rules after the Obama Administration proposed them in January. The Trump EPA finalized the rules in late June. Environmentalists argue that the agency made the modifications to fulfill chemical industry requests.
Many elements of the three rules are “contrary to law and fail to reflect the best available science,” says Richard Denison, a lead senior scientist with EDF.
EDF and other petitioners are concerned about the agency’s decision not to consider all uses of a chemical, including reasonably foreseeable uses, in its risk evaluations. EPA proposed to do so under the Obama Administration. But in its final risk evaluation rule, the agency states that it does not need to consider all possible uses of a chemical. EPA plans to evaluate only the uses intended by the manufacturer and will regulate other uses separately.
“A determination that a chemical does not present unreasonable risk is to be made on the chemical as a whole, not individual uses,” Denison argues.
The environmental advocacy groups Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments are challenging EPA’s risk evaluation rule for similar reasons. The groups are concerned about EPA using its discretion to determine which uses of a chemical will be considered in risk assessments. Allowing EPA to pick and choose which uses to consider can skew the overall risk posed by a chemical, the groups say.
“NRDC and other public health and environmental groups, as well as the American people, won’t tolerate the chemical industry calling the shots at the expense of our health and safety,” NRDC says. “Our lawsuit is one way we’re making sure that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and his chemical-industry cronies don’t destroy our best chance to make TSCA work since it was enacted 40 years ago.”
NRDC, EDF, and a coalition of business and advocacy organizations called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families are challenging EPA’s rule on prioritizing chemicals for risk evaluation. Although few details about the lawsuits are available, the coalition states, “The rules fail to provide the protections against unsafe chemicals that Congress required in the critical priority-setting and risk evaluation provisions of the new law, which are intended to ensure that unreasonable risks to health and the environment are fully assessed and eliminated.”
The final rules bring back “some of the failures of the original law,” says Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, referring to the outdated 1976 TSCA. The coalition and other environmental groups are particularly concerned about the limited amount of toxicity testing EPA plans to require of manufacturers. “The rules send a strong signal that EPA will require little, if any, testing to fill data gaps on candidate chemicals for prioritization and risk evaluation,” Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families says.
EDF’s Denison is also concerned that EPA is recreating a set of contradictory requirements in the 1976 TSCA. Under the old law, the agency generally could require testing only if the agency had evidence of risk. The amendments to TSCA enacted last year gave EPA new authority to require toxicity data from manufacturers when there are insufficient data to make a safety determination.
“The proposed rules sought to ensure that EPA could use its enhanced authority to develop that information where needed far enough ahead of having to make prioritization decisions and risk determinations that it could still meet the law’s aggressive deadlines,” Denison says. “Yet the final rules seem intent on undermining all this. They seek to cut off early information development and then argue that, given the deadlines, there isn’t time for anything other than very short-term testing.”
EDF is also challenging EPA’s inventory notification rule. The group claims that the rule creates loopholes for companies regarding confidential business information that limit the public’s ability to know what chemicals are on the market.
“The rule would allow companies to assert and maintain claims that do not meet the law’s requirements,” EDF says. “As a result, EPA will be concealing information about chemicals in violation of the public’s right to know.”
EDF and other petitioners allege that the three framework rules were rewritten by Nancy Beck, a political appointee who joined EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention in May. Before joining EPA, Beck served as a senior official with the chemical industry group American Chemistry Council (ACC).
“The final rules largely destroyed the careful balance that characterized the efforts to reform TSCA,” Denison says. “In many respects, the final rules governing how EPA will identify and prioritize chemicals and evaluate their risks now mirror the demands of the chemical industry, reflected in comments they had submitted earlier—some of which Beck herself had coauthored.”
A slew of industry groups, including ACC, support the final framework rules. They are taking an unusual course in litigation and are moving to side with EPA in the lawsuits.
The activists’ lawsuits “are without merit and could jeopardize EPA’s ability to prioritize chemicals for risk evaluation and conduct those risk evaluations of high-priority substances within the strict but achievable time frames” that the law demands, ACC says. “We are disappointed that litigation was pursued as it consumes resources of EPA and stakeholders that could otherwise be dedicated to advancing prioritization and risk evaluations of chemicals in commerce,” the group continues.
EPA is facing a November deadline to file a written defense of its prioritization rule. Dates have yet to be set for cases involving the other two rules. EPA asked the court on Sept.14 to further consolidate the cases related to the prioritization and risk evaluation rules by moving them all under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which is based in Virginia.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i39/Activists-sue-over-revamped-US.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Updates in TSCA Framework Rules Litigation Cases
Sep 30, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Lauren M. Graham
On September 25, 2017, Petitioners Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (collectively Petitioners) in Ninth Circuit Case Nos. 17-72260 and 17-72501 (regarding review of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework rule Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation) filed a joint opposition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) motion to transfer to the Fourth Circuit and hold cases in abeyance. On September 14, 2017, EPA filed a motion for these Ninth Circuit cases to be moved to the Fourth Circuit where there is currently another challenge to a TSCA framework rule (Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, et al. v. EPA, Case Nos. 17-1926, et al.; Petition for Review of Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under TSCA). Petitioners oppose EPA’s request for the case to be moved to the Fourth Circuit, stating that “Congress expressly gave Petitioners the right to select a forum” and “eleven of the fifteen Petitioners elected to file their petition in [the Ninth Circuit] … now believe that both sets of petitions should be consolidated in this Court.” The Motion to Intervene of American Chemistry Council, et al. on EPA’s behalf is still pending. On September 25, 2017, EPA filed a response to the motion to intervene stating that they took no position on it. The Petitioner’s briefs in both cases are still due October 30, 2017.
On September 28, 2017, in Fourth Circuit Case Nos. 17-1796, et al. (referenced above), the court granted the Motion to Intervene on EPA’s behalf of American Chemistry Council, et al. A new briefing schedule has still not been set.
On September 29, 2017, in D.C. Circuit Case No. 17-1201 (EDF v. EPA; Petition for Review of TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirement), EPA filed a motion to extend deadlines in scheduling order, stating that “in light of the potential for other parties to file additional petitions in this Court until October 24, 2017, the parties now jointly request that the Court extend all deadlines in the Court’s September 5, 2017, order by an additional 35 days.” The court has not ruled on EPA’s request yet; if it denies it, the briefing schedule will begin on October 5, 2017.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/updates-tsca-framework-rules-litigation-cases
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Warning to Consumers: Avoid These Flame Retardants
Sep 29, 2017 | Consumer Reports
By Jeneen Interlandi
In a move hailed by consumer advocates, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued an emphatic new warning: Consumers, especially pregnant women and young children, should avoid products containing organohalogen flame retardants (OFRs), a class of chemicals found in a long list of products, including children’s toys, mattresses, furniture, and the plastic casings of electronic devices.
Compounds in this chemical group have been linked to a list of serious human health problems, including cancer, reproductive problems, decreased IQ, learning deficits and hyperactivity in children, impaired memory function, and hormone and immune disorders.
The CPSC warning comes just one week after the agency voted to take steps toward banning OFRs altogether in children’s products, furniture, and plastic casings for electronics. That process, however, is likely to take years. In the meantime, the CPSC is calling on manufacturers to voluntarily eliminate these compounds from consumer products and urging both retailers and consumers to “obtain assurances” from companies that their wares are OFR-free.
The new measures resulted from a petition filed in 2015 by 10 environmental and consumer advocacy groups, including Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports. Proponents say the measures represent a significant win for consumers, especially in a marketplace flooded with untested chemicals and an era marked more by deregulation than consumer protection.
“This is the country’s preeminent safety regulator stepping up and saying it’s concerned about the risks posed by an entire class of flame-retardant chemicals,” says William Wallace, a Consumers Union policy analyst. “It’s a strong signal to manufacturers to get moving on phasing these substances out.”
It’s also a clarion call to consumers: By demanding OFR-free products, they can drive meaningful improvements in marketplace safety.
Risks Outweigh Benefits
Organohalogens have been used for decades in a wide range of consumer products to stop or slow the spread of fire. But a growing body of research indicates that the health risks posed by these chemicals outweigh any fire-repelling benefit. Some studies suggest that not all the products that contain flame retardants necessarily need to. What’s more, scientists and advocates say that, in furniture especially, the chemicals don’t do much to reduce fires anyway because the small amounts used in any individual product are generally not enough to quell large or spreading flames.
OFRs can leach out of consumer products, accumulate in household dust, and be absorbed, ingested, or inhaled by humans. “We know that all chemicals in this class will escape into the environment and into people,” Linda Birmbaum, director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Science, told regulators at a public hearing. “We know that they migrate continuously from everyday household products into the air around us.”
Studies suggest that more than 97 percent of U.S. residents have measurable quantities of OFRs in their blood. Children, who tend to come into more contact with household dust, have been found to have three to five times as much of the compounds in their system as adults living in the same households. Children are also more vulnerable to the health risks associated with these chemicals because their organs are still developing. Several OFRs have already been forced off the market after they were found to have accumulated in people at dangerous levels.
A Battle Brewing
The six-member CPSC was split over the new guidelines. Two members opposed, among other things, the decision to group all OFRs together. There are more than 200 such chemicals, and only a handful of them have ever been studied. But several scientists argued, and those who carried the measure agreed, that it would be impossible to test every suspect compound individually. “Unfortunately, scientific research can not keep pace with the flood of new chemicals in commerce,” Birmbaum says. Without including the entire class, one outlawed OFR could just be replaced by another, equally dangerous one. (This practice is so common that there’s a term for it: regrettable replacements.)
For its part, the American Chemistry Council disputed the assertion that OFRs are more dangerous than helpful. “Today’s actions are misguided and could jeopardize the safety of products in the future,” the trade group said in a prepared statement. They also noted that the new guidance is nonbinding and vowed to “actively communicate” with the manufacturing sector to promote continued use of OFRs while regulatory agencies consider an outright ban.
Eva Gartner, an attorney with the environmental group Earth Justice (which also signed the petition that pushed for the new guidelines), says that industry’s stance makes consumer voices even more urgent. “Policymakers and manufacturers will hear from industry that these chemicals are fine to keep using,” she says. “It’s important that they hear from retailers and consumers as well, that OFR-containing products are no longer acceptable in these products.”
How to Protect Yourself
Without new labeling laws or a complete ban on OFRs, it’s still very difficult for consumers to find out which products contain these chemicals and which don’t. But that doesn’t mean you can’t protect yourself. Consumer advocacy and environmental groups recommend the following steps to keep your family as safe as possible:
Check children’s product labels. Choose products whose labels read “contains no added flame retardants.” And avoid products made with polyurethane foam, which tends to contain high concentrations of OFRs. (Children’s products labeled as meeting the California flammability standard are also likely to contain OFRs.)
Check furniture labels. A California law requires all new upholstered furniture sold in the state to include a visible label that makes clear whether flame retardant chemicals were added. Consumers outside the state should also look for this label. If you can’t find it, ask a salesperson or contact the manufacturer directly for more information.
Keep it clean. Wash your hands to keep dust particles from latching on and then being consumed in food. Use a vacuum with a HEPA filter. And wet-dust and wet-mop on a regular basis. A 2016 study done by researchers at George Washington University found 45 potentially harmful chemicals, including flame retardants, in household dust.
Get tested. If you want to know what’s in a product you already own, you can send a sample of it to Duke University, where researchers will analyze it free.
https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/avoid-these-flame-retardants-cpsc-warning/
-
Top Official Doubts Call To Address Scientific Controversies In IRIS Analyses
Sep 29, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The new chief of EPA's influential risk analysis program is downplaying calls from some agency science advisers to acknowledge scientific controversies around substances' hazards in its assessments, saying doing so would bring more criticism on the program due to its heated political position.
But Tina Bahadori, the new director of EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), which oversees the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), told the advisers Sept. 28 that she personally agrees that IRIS assessments could better describe all arguments pertaining to scientific controversies and she would be willing to do so if it would not encourage additional attacks on the program.
“I agree with you,” Bahadori told Lorenz Rhomberg, a member of the agency's Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) during the meeting. “I'd like to implement that recommendation but I'd like to do it without too much blood on the floor,” she added.
Bahadori's comments came near the end of a two-day meeting of the CAAC, a subgroup of the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) that is charged with advising the IRIS program and peer reviewing its assessments. As at an SAB meeting late last month, CAAC members generally spoke positively of the changes Bahadori described as underway at IRIS, even as they sought to better understand the details.
Bahadori and Kris Thayer, the new director of the IRIS program, discussed progress they have made training staff in the use of systematic review methods and software tools, and other changes they are planning for the influential but often controversial program.
Systematic review is an investigation method EPA is adopting at the urging of the National Academy of Sciences and other advisors, with the goal of increasing the transparency and rigor of the assessment process. Systematic review is an approach to gathering literature and evaluating it first developed in conducting evidence-based medical reviews, which in recent years practitioners have sought to adapt for environmental risk assessment.
Staff also presented preliminary scoping documents for three new IRIS assessments they are commencing on chloroform, ethylbenzene and nitrate/nitrites.
Rhomberg, a principal of Gradient Corp. and a member of the CAAC, noted that even after implementing systematic review in IRIS assessments, there will still be controversies, because some scientific issues within risk assessment are not settled, and various experts have differing opinions over how they should be handled within an assessment.
But Rhomberg noted that while the new approaches would be more transparent in showing how EPA has made certain decisions, in some cases “there's still going to be difficult things. I think assessments would be more credible if they acknowledge” that there are questions that don't have answers. In such cases, Rhomberg suggested, IRIS assessments should say, “'We're taking this stance now, because there's this issue, but this is how it would come out if we're wrong' ... how the answer would be different if the other arm of the argument were right.”
No Rewards
Bahadori said that academically, she agreed with Rhomberg's suggestion. “But you understand the space the IRIS program operates in. As soon as there's the slightest signal of compromise, what it does is it brings in an array of experts … who will immediately undermine our process … Understand we have not been rewarded when we're conciliatory.”
Bahadori described letters that she says she receives on a regular basis, complaining about various IRIS assessments, which the authors view as “hyperconservative, immersed in whatever it is we do that makes us public health protective and that everything we do, our numbers are too low. … The letters, they're all from one side of the equation. The minute they smell blood I'm done.”
As a result, Bahadori said that she would have to balance those competing issues.
Ken Ramos, the CAAC chairman, suggested a middle ground approach. “Where you are required to make a recommendation, and there really is too much uncertainty, saying that up front is probably better than not,” he said.
And another panelist, Hugh Barton, a research fellow at Pfizer, also backed Rhomberg's suggestion. “If one had the flexibility to describe the uncertainty, one could give a more straightforward discussion [of the arguments] and the consequences” of selecting one over another, he said, adding that he thought EPA's cancer risk assessment guidelines allow for such discussions in assessments.
“It does raise the problem you raised: which number do you use?” he acknowledged.
Bahadori also said that staff are also looking at “where we can anticipate those kinds of complexities,” and package a draft assessment that can go forward to peer review to get feedback on whatever the issue is.
Another panelist, Abby Li, a consultant with Exponent, encouraged Bahadori to advance efforts to narrow the focus of IRIS assessments as much as possible to the studies, exposure levels or health effects that will drive the risk assessment. “Understand that the IRIS mandate is not a risk management mandate,” Bahadori replied, and encouraged Li to “be vocal about your comment.”
Bahadori explained that even within EPA, some of the changes that she and Thayer are proposing to the IRIS program don't have complete support within EPA “because the traditional paradigm doesn't want exit strategies or stopping rules, and they have no problem that an IRIS assessment may take 12 years because they want every endpoint [evaluated]. We're trying to change that viewpoint, because are we being public health protective if we get nothing done? This is gonna take time. The only way we're going to be successful is to show there is room for the tiny assessment and the nitrate/nitrite [assessment] -- they don't have to be identical, but they are both needed.”
State Concerns
Another panelist, Alan Stern, a risk assessor with New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection, raised another concern -- that IRIS' new systematic review approach will result in state of the art assessments that state agencies cannot produce.
Stern noted that generally, those states that do have their own risk assessors do not compete with the IRIS program over individual chemicals. But in some cases, states will “get out in front of IRIS because IRIS hasn't gotten to it yet and we need a number, or it's a state problem but not a national problem.”
These states assessments are generally at a high level, Stern said, but he noted that the new IRIS approach is “sort of changing the rules of the game now, you're adding not so much requirements, but what you're creating now is a Cadillac of risk assessment. A Cadillac is a very nice car, but will get you to the same place as a Chevy. The issue for the states, is we want to get the same place as you are, but we can't drive a Cadillac … We want to be able, even if we can't afford a Cadillac, to be on the highway. . . . My concern is that because you're redefining state of the art, when states come out with what in the past would've been seen as an IRIS quality risk assessment, but you're sort of taking our driver's licenses away.”
Thayer acknowledged his concern, but noted that when NAS released its most recent report on systematic review, it does not address when the approach should be used. And “for IRIS, it has to be the Cadillac,” she said. “I hope you have a Pinto, but you don't need a Cadillac.”
She added that when IRIS staff approach chemicals that have been assessed by other authoritative bodies, like states or other agencies, and “we don't have to start from scratch, we won't.”
Bahadori agreed, noting that many agencies are “looking at the same list of chemicals” and IRIS can lean on others' work to speed the process.
“We can't afford to give everyone a Cadillac, but you can take a spin in it,” she added.
Bahadori has in recent remarks touched on plans to reach out to state agencies, to discuss how IRIS can better assist them. She points to Administrator Scott Pruitt's focus on EPA better partnering with states, and argues that the IRIS program can do the same. She said she and IRIS managers plan to meet in upcoming weeks with a state risk assessors' group and also with the Environmental Council of the States, to bolster collaboration with state agencies and assessors.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/top-official-doubts-call-address-scientific-controversies-iris-analyses
-
Brexit Tracker Finds UK Chemical Industry at 'High Risk'
Oct 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The UK chemical industry is at a "high level" of risk from the country's departure from the European Union, according to monitoring by a coalition of Green NGOs.
The Greener UK Brexit risk tracker looks at eight policy areas likely to be affected by the UK's withdrawal. They classify three levels of risk: low, medium and high. Other areas the tracker examines include: water, waste, climate and energy, fisheries and farming.
And of all the areas it finds chemicals, along with air pollution, the most concerning.
In its summary of the risk, the tracker – organised by the Greener Unit at the Green Alliance – says: "Only countries within REACH can access REACH data, and without this data the UK will not be able to use the best source of information on chemical safety, when assessing whether or not a chemical is harmful."
As a result, it says, if a new UK system does not move at least as fast as the EU's in controlling the use of chemicals, the UK would be "likely to become a 'dumping ground' for products that had been restricted by REACH".
And it sees Brexit as a threat to European chemicals management too, especially when it comes to authorisation, because "companies would be able to use chemicals in the UK that could not be used in the EU.
"This would reduce protection in the UK, but would also weaken the EU system, as it would be much easier for a company to move production to a UK plant if it were suggested they would not secure a REACH authorisation."
The latest update from the coalition covers the 12 months beginning with the EU referendum in June 2016. It takes into account:
· the publication of February's white paper on Brexit;
· the triggering of Article 50 in March;
· the Great Repeal Bill white paper published in March; and
· the 2017 general election.
Greener UK is a group of 13 major environmental organisations.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59628/brexit-tracker-finds-uk-chemical-industry-at-high-risk
-
Senate GOP Sets Path for Alaska Refuge Drilling
Sep 29, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Republicans introduced a budget proposal Friday that could pave the way for allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for the first time in decades.
The budget blueprint asks the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over the refuge, to develop policies that would save at least $1 billion over the next decade.
Lawmakers widely expect that that gap is meant to be filled with the revenues from allowing drilling in ANWR, a federal reserve in northeastern Alaska that was protected in 1960 but has a small coastal area that Congress designated for possible oil and gas drilling.
Through the budget reconciliation process, having a $1 billion figure in the budget would allow the refuge to be opened for drilling with a 51-vote majority. Republicans hold 52 seats in the Senate.
By contrast, most legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a potential filibuster.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Energy Committee, is a leading proponent of ANWR drilling and has introduced legislation every year to allow drilling in the 1.5 billion-acre coastal area, known as the 1002 area.
Murkowski applauded the budget in a statement Friday, though did not say whether she would work to allow ANWR drilling to fulfill the requirement.
“This provides an excellent opportunity for our committee to raise $1 billion in federal revenues while creating jobs and strengthening our nation’s long-term energy security. I am confident that our committee is prepared to meet the instruction in this resolution,” she said in a statement.
Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have opposed ANWR drilling in the past, but it is unclear if they would support it this time around.
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) called the budget provision a “poison pill.”
“There is bipartisan opposition to drilling in our nation's most pristine wildlife refuge and any effort to include it in the tax package would only further imperil the legislation as a whole,” he said in a statement. “I will fight vigorously on the Senate floor to remove this extraneous giveaway to Big Oil from the budget and protect this special place.”
Environmentalists also pledged a fight, on the grounds that drilling would disturb the flora and fauna of the refuge, and the oil and gas would be destructive to the climate.
“Congress must reject any budget reconciliation bill that includes drilling in America’s Arctic Refuge or cuts to programs that protect health and our communities,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “We can not allow a misguided zeal to drill to override the promise of a healthy future for our communities, complete with the promise of the wild.”
The Senate Budget Committee is due to vote on the budget blueprint next week. Any move on ANWR drilling would be a separate process, and would also require House approval.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/353159-senate-gop-sets-path-for-alaska-refuge-drilling
-
Shell to Transform Skyline With 200 Structures As Pennsylvania Cracker Construction Gets Underway
Sep 29, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Major equipment and structures will be erected over the next year for Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC’s multi-billion dollar ethane cracker plant in western Pennsylvania, company officials said Thursday at the Shale Insight conference in Pittsburgh.
For years, the company has been focused on site preparation, clearing 400 acres of land where a zinc smelting plant once stood. After Shell decided to move forward with the project last year, crews have focused more recently on underground work for sewage, electricity and foundations. But that’s about to change as the company is close to starting construction on the 200 structures that will make up the plant and change “the whole skyline dramatically,” with the tallest at more than 300 feet, said Todd Whittemore, Shell’s polyethylene global technology manager.
Whittemore told the audience that the facility, under construction in Beaver County about 30 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, would be “self contained,” with its own natural gas-fired power plant, water treatment facility and a fully-staffed emergency response team. It is Shell’s first completely new site in the United States since the late 1960s, when it last built in Louisiana, he added.
The ethane cracker is just one part of a much larger complex that would also include polyethylene units to help make the pellets Shell plans to sell for plastics conversion, a cooling tower, a control building, offices and transloading facilities, among other things.
About 70% of the North American marketplace for polyethylene is within a 700-mile radius of the site along the Ohio River, said Shell Appalachia’s Business Integration Lead Michael Marr. Most of the market is primarily served by the Gulf Coast.
“I know that sounds like a very long distance, but when it comes to the way chemicals are sold and transported in North America, it’s actually quite close,” he said. “We’re definitely location-advantaged both from a supply standpoint to the Marcellus and Utica formations, as well as from the customer standpoint. That double location advantage is really what led us to the decision to invest here.”
Chemical, mechanical and civil engineers are expected to comprise about a quarter of the facility’s 600 full-time workers. Health, safety and environmental personnel positions are also expected to be a major part of the workforce to support Shell’s air, waste, water and compliance programs at the site, Environmental Manager Jim Sewell said. Pipefitters, electricians, boilermakers and technicians to operate the facility are expected to round out the full-time staff.
Pittsburgh Regional Alliance President David Ruppersberger said he expects indirect jobs to be created throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. For example, Ruppersberger expects a large industrial gas company to create a facility to supply the plant with nitrogen. Continuing maintenance at the facility for turnarounds to take plant parts out of operation, replace them and repair other components is also expected to create indirect jobs.
The region is already home to some of the world’s largest plastics companies, but more plastics converters are expected to come to the area by the time the cracker enters service in the early 2020s. Ruppersberger said those facilities, however, only take about 18 months to build and enter service. They also require a smaller footprint and would make smaller regional investments.
“We do expect to see some of that located here, although there’s not really incentive for them to do that because we’re not going to see pellets for awhile,” he said. “The expectation is that sometime in the next two to three years, we’ll start to see more plastics manufacturing.”
Sewell said the facility has all its major permits for air quality, water discharge and wetlands. The only other major permit the company needs is one for its water treatment facility when it enters service. The company is still working to secure other minor permits for things like parking.
The cracker is designed to consume a little more than 100,000 b/d of ethane to produce 1.5 million metric tons of ethylene and 1.6 million metric tons of polyethylene per year. Shell has signed 10-20 year supply agreements with 10 Appalachian natural gas producers. The company is currently purchasing rights-of-way for a pipeline system it plans to construct to feed the facility, a process Whittemore said remains on track.
About 1,035 people attended the annual Shale Insight conference, which culminated in the Shell team's presentation on the final day of the event. The company played a video to describe the facility in detail, which stopped activity on the exhibit floor and had the audience’s full attention as all eyes seemed trained on the display screen. Shell’s decision to build the facility marks the first time in more than 20 years that such a plant has been built in the United States outside of the Gulf Coast.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111909-shell-to-transform-skyline-with-200-structures-as-pennsylvania-cracker-construction-gets-underway
-
As Perry Pushes Oil and Gas, He Finds Opposition on Left and Right Coasts
Sep 30, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Energy Secretary Rick Perry delighted in poaching companies from California while he was governor of Texas.
Now he is going after the West Coast state once again, saying he is "frustrated" with its opposition to oil and gas development.
"They are anti-fossil fuel," he said at a recent meeting of the National Petroleum Council in Washington. "At some point in time, California is going to come to its senses."
Perry is making a push to modernize and expand the pipelines and other infrastructure that move oil and natural gas around the country, fighting back against a swelling anti-fossil fuel movement that has grown up in response to climate change.
Adding to a list of pipeline projects facing state opposition, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced last week that he would not grant a permit for an 8-mile-long gas pipeline over concerns about greenhouse gas emissions.
Pipelines have become a favorite target of environmentalists in recent years. Efforts to block the Dakota Access pipeline, which transports oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale to refineries, became a cause célèbre among climate change activists, who helped persuade the Obama administration to block its completion.
President Donald Trump, who pledged that expanding U.S. energy production is a priority for his administration, reversed that decision soon after taking office. As a result, streamlining the permitting process to speed up pipeline construction will be a critical element of Perry's agenda, Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said.
"There's simply no way our existing infrastructure can handle this surge in the supply over the long haul," he said, referring to the bounty from hydraulic fracturing. "We must build more, and we must maintain and upgrade our existing infrastructure."
The U.S. produced more than 3.2 billion barrels of oil last year, a more than 50 percent increase since 2010. Much of it is coming from West Texas' prolific Permian Basin, which accounts for about half of the nation's operating oil drilling rigs, according to the Houston energy services company Baker Hughes.
In Texas, there is a rush to build or expand pipelines to carry oil and natural gas to export terminals and chemical plants along the Gulf Coast. At least 15 projects are proposed to move oil from the Permian Basin to Houston, Corpus Christi and Beaumont.
Perry requested that the National Petroleum Council, a federal advisory board made up of executives from oil and gas companies, launch a study into the state of the nation's energy infrastructure, as well as means to expand the integration of carbon capture technology that removes carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change, from emissions.
Trump will likely be closely watching what progress Perry makes in speeding up federal permitting.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who appeared alongside Perry at last week's event, said Trump's Cabinet members were "measured by metrics."
"How many regulations we've whacked," he explained. "He's very, very competitive, and he expects the secretaries to be equally competitive."
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/As-Perry-pushes-oil-and-gas-he-finds-opposition-12242687.php
-
Permian Pipelines Key to Production Growth: Fuel for Thought
Oct 2, 2017 | Platts
By Ashok Dutta
When Willie Chiang, chief executive officer of Plains All American, rose to address an audience at the Houston Petroleum Club in mid-September, his message was clear: crude production from the Permian Basin will continue to grow and timing will be a critical factor to build pipelines.
Delays will result in widening of price discounts for Permian crudes and prove to be counterproductive for producers, he noted.
Despite operators reducing breakevens in the Permian, they will always be wary of reducing exposure to wide variations in differentials.
Like in August 2014, Midland WTI averaged a $12.10/b discount to Cushing WTI primarily due to a lack of pipeline capacity, compared to a discount of 35 cents/b late last week, according to Platts data.
ive pipelines have been proposed by leading midstream players from the prolific basin in southwest Texas to the Port of Corpus Christi in the US Gulf Coast, potentially offering a total of some 2.14 million b/d of new takeaway capacity starting in stages from late 2019/early 2020.
The planned major projects include a 650,000 b/d pipeline announced in May by Magellan Midstream; a second phase of the Plains-backed Cactus pipeline to add another 500,000 b/d of throughout; Buckeye Partners’ 400,000 b/d South Texas Gateway pipeline; and the 400,000-b/d EPIC pipeline.
Capacity additions are also planned by fellow midstream player NuStar Energy and an expansion of the EPIC pipeline, to name a few, that will add in excess of another 400,000 b/d post-2020.
Growth in Permian Basin output has been largely a case of a moving goal post that continues to challenge all forecasts, Chiang said.
While 800,000 b/d of new production has already been added between June 2014 and June 2017, the industry will see another 2.3 million b/d being added by 2022 in the Permian, he said.
Platts Analytics projects Permian production to grow from 2.43 million b/d in 2017 to 3.467 million b/d by 2022.
“Our experience proves prices always fix prices, and US production—particularly Permian—has been growing since the downturn of late 2014,” Chiang said.
There is currently 300,000 b/d of excess pipeline takeaway capacity from the Permian and midstream players are careful of an over-build.
Still, they are tempted to take advantage of a likely widening of the Midland WTI crude discount to Cushing WTI, to $5/b to $8/b in the coming six to nine months, assuming the current pace of drilling, RBC Capital Markets said in a recent research note.
Midland WTI was assessed at a 45 cents/b discount Thursday.
“We see the next pinch point looming later this year,” it said. “The spread blew out to $12/b in late 2013/early 2014 when Permian production bumped up against takeaway capacity, along with local refining options [and that was the genesis of the race to build new capacity].”Doubts about production
While the midstream players are now clearly focused on their pipeline build-out plans, doubts have been raised about the sustainability of Permian growth.
“Technology gains in the past few years have propelled Permian well performance to new levels,” Wood Mackenzie said in a recent report. “But it is very likely that the upcoming level of activity will introduce a new set of issues, particularly reservoir deliverability.”
“Countless other shale plays have proven that the first few years of growth are typically the easiest,” it said. “Beyond that, producers require more breakthroughs to keep their barrels at the bottom of the cost curve.”
The Marcellus hit regulatory and midstream bottlenecks, the Bakken contended with huge differentials, the Haynesville dealt with a massive cyclical downturn, and the Eagle Ford sweet spots ended up being much smaller than originally modelled, WoodMac said.
In the Permian, the growth challenge could relate to the industry ultimately finding hard subsurface limits for tight oil recovery.
An analysis of high-intensity, long-lateral and close-proximity drilling and fracking could reduce future estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) value by 30% compared with today, with sweet spots being exhausted, it said.Corpus eyes export growth
Some 600 miles southeast in the Port of Corpus Christi, executives remain on track for the US to become a leading global exporter of crude oil based on shale output, particularly from the Permian.
“We are positioning the port to be an export point from the US Gulf Coast,” Charles Zahn, chairman of the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, said at an industry event in heartland Midland, Permian, last week.
The expectation is based on crude exports crossing the 1 million b/d mark by 2020, Zahn said.
“This is our high-case forecast,” he said, defining it as a scenario where at least two pipelines get built from the Permian to the port by 2020.
Sean Strawbridge, chief operating officer of POCCA, said a likely declining curve in Permian output will be compensated with about 1 million b/d from the Bakken in North Dakota.
The loading of a VLCC at Corpus Christi will allow a producer savings of some $1.5 million for loading 2 million barrels of crude, Strawbridge said.
The Port of Corpus Christi will face competition from the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, or LOOP. But “distance” will be an issue.
“To transport crude all the way [from the Permian] to LOOP is economically challenging. I am not saying it can’t be done,” Strawbridge.
Perhaps, the key to success lies in the hands of midstream players, like Plains, and their ability to quickly lay pipes.
“We are advancing talks with shippers [for Cactus Phase 2] and hope to have action on that soon,” Chiang said.
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/10/02/permian-pipelines-production-growth/
-
Health and Safety Rules Targeted as Trump Begins to Slash Red Tape
Oct 1, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Julia Harte
When disaster hits the chemical plants in Port Arthur, Texas, triggering fires like those that flared in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, Hilton Kelley is the man fielding panicked calls from neighbors unsure whether they should evacuate their homes.
Kelley, 57, is a well-respected figure in his community but is not a government or plant safety official. For 18 years, he has led a non-profit group based in Port Arthur that advises residents on air safety and dispatches a crew in emergencies, helping people to safety in more than 30 major fires or explosions.
More than 1,500 accidents at chemical plants have been reported in the United States since 2007, and amendments to the Clean Air Act issued in the last days of former President Barack Obama's administration would have forced plants handling risky chemicals to coordinate emergency plans with local responders.
Kelley says those changes would have made his job easier by, for example, obliging plant owners to tell first responders what chemicals were on site. That would help them decide what equipment and training would be needed to help people.
President Donald Trump's administration suspended the regulations, placing them in a two-year review. Trade associations argued the new rules were inconsistent with Trump's pledges to cut regulations and with his executive order issued in January requiring federal agencies to offset each new regulation with two deregulatory actions.Continue reading the main story
The full scope of the effects of the two-for-one requirement will begin to emerge in late November, when the White House is expected to publish a list of regulations and deregulatory actions each agency has taken under the rule.
A Reuters examination of rules published in the Federal Register, a U.S. government journal, shows that so far in 2017, agencies have proposed or finalized 25 deregulatory measures under the two-for-one requirement - a broad easing of rules that will affect workers from miners and farmers to pilots and crane operators. (Graphic: http://tmsnrt.rs/2x8aRl3)
The rollbacks will delay deadlines for farmers to comply with water quality requirements, speed up the approval process for natural gas exports, make it easier for public transportation projects to attract private financiers, and lift a rule that requires employers to disclose when they hire consultants to defeat union-organizing campaigns.
A few of these measures will have minimal effect, or were planned before Trump took office. But most of the deregulatory actions dismantle rules that took years to develop. Some former agency officials, mostly from the Obama administration, have decried the rollbacks, saying the measures being targeted were aimed at protecting the public against significant health and safety threats.
Industry groups, however, say many of the measures were onerous and unnecessary, and they are now using Trump's push to cut red tape to urge agencies to delay, modify or undo rules they have long opposed.
The Plastics Industry Association, representing nearly a thousand companies, for example, pressed for the removal of the Clean Air Act amendments, arguing that they would force companies to divulge sensitive information, such as improvements made after a plant accident, that would not help mitigate a disaster but could attract the interest of terrorists, said Marie Gargas, the association's senior technical director for regulatory affairs.
The White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the agency that serves as a clearinghouse for federal regulations, did not respond to multiple requests from Reuters for comment.
But in April, Marcus Peacock, then-special adviser to OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, defended Trump's order at a roundtable event in Washington, saying, "A lot of the deregulatory actions that people will focus on first are those that simply make it easier for people to fill out paperwork or just fill out less paperwork, probably."
"SLEDGEHAMMER"
Under Trump's two-for-one-push, the Department of Labor has proposed rolling back a rule protecting workers from beryllium, an industrial metal and known carcinogen. The department said the rollback would save the shipyard and construction sectors about $11 million annually.
The Abrasive Blasting Manufacturers Alliance was among the trade groups welcoming the revocation of the rule, which would have required shipyard and construction companies to train and monitor workers to help them avoid dangerous levels of beryllium exposure. The rule "imposed complex and costly regulations on abrasive blasters, despite no evidence of any beryllium-related illness in the history of the industry," it said in a statement to Reuters.
Multiple studies by occupational health and toxic chemical experts reviewed by Reuters show that exposure to beryllium dust can lead to chronic beryllium disease, a debilitating and potentially fatal lung condition.
When the Labor Department under Obama issued the rule in 2015, it said even the legal level of beryllium exposure posed a “significant risk” of the disease. In proposing to revoke the rule in June, the agency, now under new political leadership, said there was “uncertainty” over the efficacy of such a measure.
Allen Harville, safety chairman of United Steelworkers Local 8888 in Newport News, Virginia, says he believes dozens of his colleagues have suffered from lung diseases associated with beryllium exposure. But blood tests to confirm the link cost hundreds of dollars and are not offered at most hospitals, so few can prove it, he said.
Harville said beryllium exposure isn't limited to workers: it leaves the worksite in clouds of blasting dust and the gritty coal slag that sticks to workers' clothes and skin, which risks exposing others.
The beryllium case is one example of how the deregulatory push has angered those who want more protections.
"Two-for-one is a sledgehammer that could be used to smash progress in areas they don't like," said David Friedman, who helped lead road safety and energy efficiency efforts at the Transportation and Energy departments during the Obama administration.
Public interest groups sued Trump in February over the two-for-one deregulatory requirement, arguing it arbitrarily forces agencies to repeal regulations already deemed necessary to protect consumers and workers.
Federal attorneys countered that the measure was needed to address outmoded, ineffective or overly burdensome rules.
The rollbacks reflect what experts on both sides of Washington’s political divide describe as the biggest deregulatory push by the U.S. government in a generation under Trump, who said during his presidential campaign that 70 percent of federal agency regulations could be eliminated.
COAL RULE BITES DUST
In August, the Interior Department rescinded Obama-era regulations that clarified how much oil, gas and coal companies should pay the federal government in royalties from mineral extraction on federal land. States receive a portion of those royalties.
The rule was aimed at stopping the practice of coal companies selling coal at below-market prices to their affiliated companies as a way to reduce royalty payments the companies owed, according to former Interior Department officials who worked on the rule.
Rescinding the rule could save industry between $60 million and $75 million annually, according to an economic analysis the department published in August.
But New Mexico and California could lose a combined $18 million in annual royalties that have been used to support schools in the two states, according to statements by the attorneys general of both states, who sued the department over the issue in April. Federal attorneys said the law was defective and companies struggled to comply with it.
The National Mining Association, which represents mining companies, said abolishing the rule was consistent with the two-for-one requirement. It had argued that disputes over how much coal companies should pay in royalties are increasingly rare, so the Obama-era rule was not needed.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10/01/us/01reuters-trump-effect-deregulation.html
-
States Want Access to Chemical Trade Secrets Before Spills
Oct 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
States could soon respond quicker to chemical accidents armed with information EPA has. But first, they'll have to prove they can protect chemical makers’ trade secrets.
States don't yet know what data get they'll get or the steps they'll have to take to access that information, but the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to spell out those requirements in guidance coming soon, a state official told Bloomberg BNA.
Previously, states responding to emergencies had to get a company's “blessing” before the EPA could share that information, Ken Zarker, an environmental manager with the Washington State Department of Ecology, told Bloomberg BNA. States want broad access to the available information, and they want to be able to have access approved before an emergency, said Zarker, who is coordinating an Environmental Council of the States group working with the federal agency about its upcoming guidance.
Changes Congress made in 2016 to the Toxic Substances Control Act should change that. The amended law gives states, local governments, tribes, emergency responders, and health care professionals greater access to companies’ confidential business information if certain requirements are met. For example, EPA can share proprietary data if the state requesting the information proves it can protect the confidentiality of that data.
“Having timely access to this information is important in making informed regulatory decisions,” Jamie Kritzer, communications director for North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality, told Bloomberg BNA.
Monthly Phone Calls
Officials from California, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, and Texas are among those who've held monthly telephone calls with the EPA to understand the information the agency has and TSCA's trade secret protection provisions, according to Zarker and information EPA provided Bloomberg BNA.
West Virginia officials and residents, for example, would have welcomed information more quickly after Freedom Industries leaked about 10,000 gallons of a coal processing chemical into the Elk River in 2014, Zarker said. The spill left more than 300,000 residents without drinking water for days.
Many states, including North Carolina, want more information about perfluorinated chemicals being detected in their waters, Zarker said.
Ideally, once a state has met the requirements the EPA will set out in its coming guidance, that state could get information right away when warranted, he said.
Companies Get Heads Up
The EPA doesn't have a specific timeline for its release, according to a statement it provided Bloomberg BNA. The agency has routinely met with states, the National Tribal Toxics Council, and regions to outline the new expanded CBI access provisions, EPA said.
The agency also has discussed its plans with chemical manufacturers, but has not shared draft materials, the EPA said.
Once the process is in place—except in emergency situations—companies affected by the release of the confidential information will be notified before it is released, the agency said.
States Prepare
States are preparing to get information they've not had the opportunity to see before, Zarker said. Originally under TSCA the EPA couldn't disclose information claimed as confidential to anyone, including state officials, although the federal agency and companies worked out a process to give officials information following emergencies.
Possible applications include obtaining toxicity data that could help them protect workers, communicate hazards, or access the risks of a particular chemical exposure situation, he said.
“Until we start to see the data, use it, it's hard to know how we would do so,” Zarker said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121549343&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121549343&jd=121549343
-
Top 10 Toxic Chemicals Coming From California Refineries Identified
Sep 29, 2017 | CBS San Francisco
By Hannah Albarazi
If you live or work in California, you probably spend time near one of the state’s 17 refineries, and you may have wondered what refining chemicals end up in the air you breathe.
Up until a couple days ago, it would have been hard to say.
But for the first time, California’s Environmental Protection Agency has released a draft report identifying 188 chemicals emitted from its refineries.
Dr. Karen Riveles, the lead author of the report, confirmed that no California agency has previously compiled and published a report on refinery emissions and human health effects.
The report — which was spurred by a 2012 fire at the Chevron Refinery in Richmond — was produced at the request of community members and is the result of a collaboration between the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the California Air Resources Board and the Interagency Refinery Task Force.
During the Chevron Refinery fire, roughly 15,000 people sought medical treatment at nearby hospitals for breathing problems and other symptoms, according to the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. The board found that the section of pipe that failed was recommended for replacement in 2002, but was not replaced. It was recommended for inspection in 2009, but was not inspected.
“Many communities in the vicinity of major refineries live in fear of exposure to airborne pollutants during a major refinery incident, as well as during normal operations,” California Air Resources Board Executive Officer Richard Corey said.
The top ten toxic air contaminants routinely emitted from California refineries — which are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles area and the Central Valley — were: ammonia, formaldehyde, methanol, sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide, toluene, xylenes, benzene, hexane, and hydrogen chloride, according to the report.
The report also spells out the health effects associated with some of the most prevalent and toxic chemicals.
Flaring — when an open flame and sometimes smoke billows from a refinery chimney — is the most common source of the chemicals, the analysis found.
The report suggests that the following chemicals be routinely monitored by the state, due to their toxicity and the volume emitted: acetaldehyde, ammonia, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, cadmium, diethanolamine, formaldehyde, hydrogen sulfide, manganese, naphthalene, nickel, PAHs, PM, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, and toluene.
University of California at Berkeley Professor William Nazaroff tried to provide perspective on some of the scarier sounding chemicals, such as formaldehyde, a carcinogen perhaps best known for its use in the preservation of dead bodies.
“Formaldehyde. A major source is the adhesive resin used in manufacturing plywood, particle board, and similar manufactured wood products,” Nazaroff explained. “Because much of this material is used indoors (for furniture and building construction), indoor formaldehyde concentrations are commonly much higher than outdoor levels.”
Nazaroff argues indoor exposure to a chemical such as formaldehyde may be far greater in people’s homes due to furniture and construction than that emitted from petroleum refineries.
Indeed, the authors of the report state that “The release of these chemicals from refineries does not necessarily mean that local communities face a significant health risk or substantial exposures, but it does increase the likelihood of exposure for nearby communities. Air monitoring of these chemicals may inform decisions that could reduce exposure.”
Cal EPA says meetings with stakeholders and the public will soon be scheduled to allow for comments and feedback on the report. A final report is expected in early 2018.
The California Air Resources Board and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, which represents all 35 of the state’s local air districts, also released a draft report this week recommending enhanced air monitoring systems inside refineries and in nearby communities, as well as adoption of real-time reporting technology and better public notification.
Identifying the chemicals emitted from California refineries and recommending ways to make refineries safer is part of how the state is responding to concerns raised by community members in the aftermath of the 2012 Chevron Refinery fire in Richmond.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/09/29/top-toxic-chemicals-california-refineries-identified/
-
Rail Industry Slow on Safety Upgrade for Fleets Carrying Oil and Ethanol
Oct 1, 2017 | DeSmog
By Justin Mikulka
A new government report finds that only 9 percent of all the rail tank cars transporting flammable liquids last year met the stricter safety requirements of regulations set in 2015, which were meant to reduce oil train explosions and accidents. This confirms what DeSmog reported last year showing that the oil and rail industries were not moving to aggressively upgrade the fleet to the higher safety standards. Of course, the regulations gave them over a decade to make the upgrades and provided little incentive for industry to move faster.
In 2015 the Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated that industry phase out the thinner-shelled and more accident-prone DOT-111 tank cars and instead carry flammable liquids in DOT-117 cars, a newer, safer design for hazardous cargo.
What's perhaps more alarming than the slow progress in improving rail safety is the report's projection for when rail car fleets are likely to meet the new standards for transporting crude oil: 2029.
That means that it will be over 15 years since the deadly accident in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, when unattended DOT-111 tank cars carrying crude oil caught fire and exploded, killing dozens. And it will be over 30 years since the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) first warned against moving flammable liquids in the unsafe DOT-111 tankers.
However, to be fair, if the industry does manage to meet the 2029 deadline, it will have met that goal much faster than the NTSB recommendation to implement the safety technology known as positive train control. That recommendation was first made in 1970 and the industry still has not implemented the technology.
Some Good News on Crude Oil and DOT-111's
The good news in the new DOT report is that the industry has mostly stopped using the most dangerous non-jacketed DOT-111’s to move crude oil. However, this transition has been eased because lower volumes of crude oil are being moved overall. As you can see in Figure 3A, the number of these tanks cars moving ethanol has actually increased since 2013.
Government rules allow ethanol shippers to continue using the DOT-111's much longer than crude oil, which means the risk has been shifted from one product to another. The riskiest non-jacketed DOT-111 tank cars can carry ethanol until May 2023.
Last year at a roundtable event on oil and ethanol train safety, Robert Sumwalt, a member of the NTSB, said, “We would like to see the shippers accelerate their schedule to get these legacy DOT-111 tank cars out of service when transporting flammable liquids — specifically crude oil and ethanol.”
While that is now mostly the case for crude oil, the situation has gotten worse for ethanol trains, a scenario that will most likely remain the status quo until 2023. Historically, the delay between what the NTSB would like and what the industry actually does when it comes to safety can have a gap of several decades.
Additionally, while any safety improvements for moving crude oil by rail are welcome, the majority of derailments resulting in explosions and large oil spills in the past few years have not involved the DOT-111s but instead the much newer CPC-1232tank cars. These are the rail tank cars moving the most crude oil now and will continue to be for many years.
While 2029 can’t come soon enough for the millions of people living within the blast zone of rail tracks transporting crude oil and ethanol, that won't guarantee safety. Both the oil and rail industries are fighting the implementation of other safety measures that would prevent the so-called “bomb train” phenomena from continuing past 2029.
DOT's latest regulations require crude oil trains to phase in modernized braking systems by 2021. However, as noted on DeSmog, the rail industry has made repeated attempts to reverse this regulation and with the Trump administration's approach to regulation, it is likely this safety rule will be delayed or repealed.
Additionally, the volatile Bakken oil involved in the bomb train phenomena has yet to be regulated by the federal government. If the oil was required to be stabilized prior to shipment, the risk of fires and explosions likely would be greatly reduced. Until that time, transporting crude oil by rail will continue to carry serious risks.
And while the DOT-117 cars definitely reduce the risk of punctures and spills in derailments, we haven't yet seen what happens to them in an accident when they are carrying crude oil. Just like the CPC-1232 cars have proven to be unsafe in derailments, we may find the same occurs with the DOT-117 tank cars. Which is why regulations requiring modern braking systems and the stabilization of the oil would help improve safety, regardless of which tank car is being used.
A Decade More of Increased Risk
2017 has been a good year for oil trains. There has only been one major derailment and spill so far, and in that case, the oil did not ignite. Meanwhile, there have been two ethanol derailments, with one resulting in a fire and explosions. As we have noted on DeSmog, more ethanol derailments are likely as the ethanol industry begins to follow the patterns of the oil industry and shift to extremely long unit trains (which carry a single product).
However, this bit of luck for the oil industry is largely due to the much smaller volumes of crude oil being moved this year due to the low price of oil and the opening of the Dakota Access pipeline. It is unlikely oil prices will remain at low levels until 2029, meaning the risk posed by Bakken bomb trains remains real. Again, the oil and rail industries continue to fight safety protocols that could reduce this risk, prolonging them as least another decade.
Just recently politicians in Oregon requested rail company BNSF stop running oil trains through the Columbia River Gorge while there were active forest fires. BNSF refused.
A recent paper from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago concludes that oil-by-rail is here to stay. It found that when the price is right, industry will ramp up oil-by-rail volumes. A recent example of this occurred during Hurricane Harvey, when prices and logistics made it favorable for an East Coast refinery to resume oil-by-rail shipments.
“What rail is very good at is responding to conditions as the oil market changes,” said Ryan Kellogg, one of the paper's authors. “When the oil market says, ‘Hey there’s a bunch of oil coming out of location C,’ rail is relatively easy to ramp up and get going, or ramp down if there’s a market downturn.”
Anthony Foxx was Secretary of the Department of Transportation when it developed the current regulations for rail fleets transporting oil and ethanol. After the regulations were released, The Hill reported that “Foxx said industry input was very important in the regulatory process.”
“We could have both been more aggressive,” Foxx said.https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/01/rail-industry-slow-upgrade-oil-and-ethanol-rail-tank-car-fleets
-
EPA Silent as Ozone Decision Deadline Looms, States Say
Oct 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
States said the EPA remained mum just days before it was required to announce which areas of the country exceed federal ozone pollution standards and must clean up their air.
By law, the announcement is due Oct. 1. But just days before the deadline, state officials said they had not received feedback from the Environmental Protection Agency about their recommendations for places that violate the ozone standards, which were submitted a year ago along with plans for how to reduce ozone pollution.
Making those nonattainment designations could lead to new pollution control requirements for cars and large industrial facilities such as power plants.
“It's likely that we'll see no changes [to states’ recommendations], although it is possible the administration will propose changes or delay,” Miles Keogh, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents 40 states, told Bloomberg BNA.
As far as he knows, none of the 40 states in his organization had heard back from the EPA on their ozone nonattainment recommendations, Keogh said Sept. 28.
Air pollution officials in California and Utah also told Bloomberg BNA they had not heard from the agency.
The EPA said in an email it wouldn't comment on whether it would meet its Oct. 1 deadline.
White House Reviewing Proposal
A proposed rule (RIN:2060-AT41) that would rank the severity of nonattainment areas has been undergoing interagency review at the White House since Sept. 21.
The EPA in 2015 set new, more stringent ozone standards at 70 parts per billion, down from 75 ppb previously. Ozone is formed when pollutants emitted by vehicles and power plants react in the presence of sunlight. Ozone inhalation is linked to breathing problems, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
As many as 116.3 million people live in areas in ozone nonattainment, according to the EPA.
Environmental advocates are likely to sue the EPA if it misses the deadline, Earthjustice staff attorney Seth Johnson told Bloomberg BNA. The EPA previously said it would push back making the ozone designations for a year, but reversed its decision after 15 states, the District of Columbia, and public health and environmental groups all sued over the delay.
A one-year delay wouldn't “make a difference one way or another” in Virginia, which is close to meeting the ozone standards, Michael Dowd, director of the air division in the state's Department of Environmental Quality, told Bloomberg BNA.
“We're still going to have to come to attainment,” Dowd said. “They're either going to give us the same time or push it back a year.”
States Weighing Options
Even without the EPA's designations, some states are already making plans to improve air quality.
“States don't have the power to achieve the standards without the authority of the Clean Air Act requiring upwind states to reduce their contributions,” Paul Miller, deputy director and chief scientist at the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, an association of air pollution officials from eight states, told Bloomberg BNA.
In the Northeast, much of the pollution blows in from Midwestern sources, including coal-fired power plants in the Ohio River Valley.
Northeastern states may consider clamping down on pollution from cars and trucks in an effort to improve air quality, Miller said. One option would be to adopt stricter vehicle emissions standards set by California that some states have already embraced.
But until EPA makes its designations and approves states’ ozone control plans, states can only do so much.
“It's not reinventing any wheels,” Johnson said. “They've had a long time. States did their job. EPA needs to do its job.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121549346&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121549346&jd=121549346
-
Week Ahead: EPA Poised to Deliver Major Ozone, Climate Decisions
Oct 2, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to deliver major regulatory decisions on ozone and climate change in the coming week.
The announcements could be test cases for how EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will handle his responsibilities to regulate when he might be hesitant to impose new costs on industry.
Monday is the deadline for Pruitt to identify the areas of the country that do not meet the 2015 regulation on ground-level ozone, also known as non-attainment areas.
In his last job as Oklahoma's attorney general, Pruitt fought the 2015 rule.
Business groups say it would slow economic growth when states inevitably crack down on fossil fuel use to comply. The rule lowered the allowable ozone concentration in ambient air to 70 parts per billion, from 75 parts per billion, which the Obama administration said would improve public health.
Pruitt tried earlier this year to delay the Monday deadline by a year, sparking lawsuits from Democratic states and environmentalists. He later walked back the delay, putting Monday's deadline back in place.
Preliminary data that states submitted to the EPA in advance of Pruitt's deadline said that 214 counties do not meet the new standard, up from 177 counties under the previous rule.
The end of the week holds another important deadline for the EPA. The agency must submit to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit an update on its effort to review the Clean Power Plan, which sought to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
People familiar with the matter told The Hill this month that before the deadline hits the EPA plans to roll out a formal proposal to repeal the rule and start work on a weaker replacement regulation on carbon from power plants.
The EPA will also be in the spotlight at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
That panel is planning a Wednesday hearing to consider the nominations of four high-ranking EPA officials: Michael Dourson to lead the chemical safety office, David Ross to lead the water office, Matthew Leopold to be general counsel, and William Wehrum to lead the air and radiation office.
Democrats on the panel have indicated that they see Dourson and Wehrum as the most controversial of the nominees. Both have long histories of working for the interests of the industries that they would be responsible for regulating at the EPA.
The Environment Committee will also consider the nomination of Jeffrey Baran for a new five-year term at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where he is already a member.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/353156-week-ahead-epa-poised-to-deliver-major-ozone-climate-decisions
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested