Preview Newsletter

AM ACC 5/25/2018

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Using Bug Spray On Babies Isn't As Scary As You Think — Here's How To Do It
May 24, 2018 | Romper
By Caroline Shannon-Karasik

There are many of my traits my daughter inherited that I notice and think, "Ah, well, makes sense." But some of them, like her ability to attract mosquitos in 1.9 milliseconds, are ones I wish would have fallen by the wayside.
EPA Cost-Benefit Plan Signals Next Deregulatory Step But Faces Hurdles
May 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey

EPA's nascent rulemaking to establish more “consistency” in its analysis of regulations' costs and benefits appears to signal the next stage of the agency's push to limit the burden of its regulations, but former top agency officials say any final rule could face...

LCSA News

After Methylene Chloride Win, Environmentalists Seek EPA Action on TCE
May 24, 2018 | Inside EPA

Environmentalists and community residents are urging Administrator Scott Pruitt to finalize a pair of Obama EPA proposed rules that would ban certain uses of the common solvent trichloroethylene (TCE), days after their recent success getting Pruitt's commitment...
Over 200 People from Communities Impacted by Toxic Chemical Demand EPA Take Action
May 24, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

Today, a letter signed by over 200 people from communities across the country dealing with contamination from trichloroethylene (TCE) – a known carcinogen – was submitted to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Pressured by Industry, U.S. EPA Slows Formaldehyde Study Release: Documents
May 25, 2018 | Reuters
By Valerie Volcovici

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under pressure from the chemical industry, has delayed release of a study detailing cancer risks from formaldehyde, according to internal communications seen by Reuters, potentially keeping important health information from the public.
(ACC Mentioned) EPA to Toughen Fluorochemical Rules
May 24, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken

Calling it a "national priority," Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt told a Washington conference May 22 that EPA will develop tougher regulations around chemicals widely used in making fluoropolymers and other products.
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Grapples with Potential Health Threat in Drinking Water
May 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt is starting to grapple with a class of chemicals used in manufacturing that has been found in drinking water in recent years.
(ACC Mentioned) Fluorinated Surfactants Is Top Issue at NASF Washington Forum
May 24, 2018 | Products Finishing Magazine
By James Lindsay

True to form, the National Association for Surface Finishing’s Washington Forum in April brought forth the latest developments in government issues affecting the surface finishing industry and pointed out the new challenges awaiting it.
Facing Contamination, States Split on Whether to Await Federal PFAS Limit
May 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan

As state regulatory agencies struggle to protect drinking water supplies from widespread contamination stemming from perfluorinated chemicals, they are split on whether they should await EPA drinking water standards -- which could be many years in the making...
Why EPA’s Drop in Pollution Cases Is so Scary
May 24, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Michael Mikulka

Law enforcement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fell significantly in 2017. It’ll be worse in 2018. EPA is failing to conduct wide-ranging investigations to protect human health.
Flint Lawmaker's IG Request Prompts Scrutiny of His Staffer
May 25, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar

Rep. Dan Kildee has asked EPA's internal watchdog to investigate the agency's mishandling of reporters at a summit on toxic nonstick chemicals that the Michigan Democrat claims his aide was also barred from attending.
Chemical Firms Rush to Meet Final REACH Regulation Deadline
May 24, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott

Companies that produce chemicals in Europe in volumes of 1 to 100 metric tons per year are scrambling to meet the May 31 deadline for registering them under Europe’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) chemical safety regulation.

Energy News

Energy and Water Bill Advances After Clash over Nuke Waste
May 24, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Christa Marshall, Sam Mintz and Ariel Wittenberg

he Senate Appropriations Committee advanced a $43.77 billion energy and water bill today after a heated exchange on nuclear waste with multiple mentions of Dolly Parton.
Once Again, Mariner East’s Pennsylvania Operations, Some Construction Face Indefinite Halt
May 24, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin

Pennsylvania regulators have once again halted Mariner East (ME) 1 operations just weeks after a similar suspension was lifted, this time granting an emergency order that lays out a laundry list of requirements that Energy Transfer Partners LP subsidiary Sunoco Pipeline
Okla. Officials Shut down 4 Disposal Wells After Shaking
May 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan

Four oil field disposal wells must be shut down in Oklahoma because of recent earthquake activity, state regulators said this week.
Anadarko Pays Victims’ Families After Fatal Home Explosion
May 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. reached an out-of-court settlement with the families of two men killed in an April 2017 home explosion linked to a leaking natural gas pipeline from a company well in Firestone, Colo.

Chemical Security News

As Rollback Looms, CSB's Hurricane Study Urges EPA to Strengthen RMP
May 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Rebecca Rainey

Even as the Trump administration works to roll back Obama-era measures strengthening facility safety rules, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is urging EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to strengthen their requirements...
Arkema Officials Were Warned of Flood Risks a Year Before Hurricane Harvey
May 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Alex Stuckey

Officials at Crosby's Arkema chemical plant were warned that the facility was at risk for flooding a year before Hurricane Harvey's deluge resulted in a chemical fire at the plant.
Arkema Plant Followed Plan in Harvey; More Needed as Storms Worsen
May 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Marr

Global chemical company Arkema SA followed its emergency plan correctly, but even the best industry guidance may not have prevented its Houston-area facility from catching fire during Hurricane Harvey’s unprecedented flooding last year.
This Administration Must Lead on Cyber
May 25, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Patrick D. Gaul

The recent departure of Tom Bossert, coupled with the announcement that Rob Joyce would be returning to the NSA, leaves a major void in the White House that cannot go unattended.
Industrial 3D Printers: Scant Worker Safety Guidance
May 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sara Merken

The use of 3D printing to make such large-scale projects as houses, and automobile and aerospace parts, may seem like a thing of the future.

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

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) As Plastic Straw Bans Become Mainstream, Some Fear Pushback from Corporations
May 24, 2018 | Salon
By Nicole Karlis

Plastic straws may be sucking the life out of our ecosystems.
Could Your Shampoo Be the New Car Exhaust?
May 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington

Shampoo. Air freshener. Countertop cleaner. Nearly everything in your medicine cabinet or under your kitchen sink is a source of air pollution.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Using Bug Spray On Babies Isn't As Scary As You Think — Here's How To Do It

May 24, 2018 | Romper

By Caroline Shannon-Karasik

There are many of my traits my daughter inherited that I notice and think, "Ah, well, makes sense." But some of them, like her ability to attract mosquitos in 1.9 milliseconds, are ones I wish would have fallen by the wayside. After all, I know just how itchy and frustrating those bites can be. My instinct is to build a citronella candle circle around her, but as you may have guessed, there are guidelines to keep in mind with those kinds of measures. In fact, here is what you need to know before you put bug spray on your baby or stash insect repellant in your purse.
"Bug spray is vital to protect ourselves from ticks, disease-carrying mosquitos, and other critters," Anne Womack Kolton of the American Chemistry Council tells Romper in an email interview. "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we should be using repellents with DEET. Repellents are safe to use on skin and clothing and encouraged by doctors to prevent disease."
It's true: The CDC noted that you can begin using insect repellents containing DEET, Picaridin (known as KBR 3023 and icaridin outside the US), or IR3535 when your child is 2 months old. The CDC also suggested that you shouldn't use products containing oil of lemon eucalyptus (OLE) or para-menthane-diol (PMD) on children under 3 years old.
Kyle Varona, the general manager of Florida-based Fahey Pest & Lawn Solutions, tells Romper via email that it's also important to know what mosquitos and other pesky bugs are looking for.
"Mosquitoes find their targets based on scent, and they're drawn to carbon dioxide and lactic acid," he says. "Lactic acid is primarily associated with dairy products, so babies who drink milk or eat cheese or yogurt may be more attractive to mosquitoes. Lactic acid is also found in soybean products, so if you're planning to spend some time outdoors, plan snack time accordingly."
That's why Varona says it's crucial to get a spray that works — just make sure to read the label before you buy. If your child is the appropriate age, then he says the most effective bug sprays include DEET or Picaridin, and they work to protect you from both mosquitoes and tick-borne illnesses.
"These are much more effective than botanical formulas, and they aren't harmful to your child if applied safely," Varona says. "Stay away from anything with more than 20 percent DEET, and avoid applying more than once per day."
Kolton says it's also important, in this instance, to not discount chemicals as unsafe. "No insect repellent is 'chemical free,' as everything is made of chemicals, even water and air," she says, adding that some insect repellents are made with only natural plant oils, but have not been evaluated by EPA for effectiveness. "The CDC recommends using EPA-registered insect repellents that have been tested for safety and effectiveness. Doctors urge parents with children of all ages to keep in mind that it is better to wear EPA-approved repellants (even with DEET) than your baby to get bit by a disease-carrying mosquito or tick."Giphy
Just be sure to rub the spray on your little one (as opposed to spraying it). "Babies are notorious for putting their hands in their mouths or rubbing their faces, so always spray bug spray on your hands first, then rub it on your child's skin," Varona says.
You might also want to consider how you are dressed when you head outdoors. "In addition to odors, mosquitoes are drawn to bright clothes or loud patterns that make it easier to see their target," Varona says. "Dress your baby in light-colored outfits. If it's not too hot, consider layers to cover as much of their skin as possible."
And if you do decide to opt for a natural repellant, then consider products that contain oils like peppermint, lemon, and eucalyptus, Siobhan O'Grady, founder of Findatopdoc.com, tells Romper in an email interview. You can even try making your own bug spray to keep around the house. Because if you're anything like me, then you make it your mission to keep those bugs gone in as many ways possible.
https://www.romper.com/p/using-bug-spray-on-babies-isnt-as-scary-as-you-think-heres-how-to-do-it-9167833

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Cost-Benefit Plan Signals Next Deregulatory Step But Faces Hurdles

May 24, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Doug Obey

EPA's nascent rulemaking to establish more “consistency” in its analysis of regulations' costs and benefits appears to signal the next stage of the agency's push to limit the burden of its regulations, but former top agency officials say any final rule could face significant legal and procedural hurdles that could stymie or delay it for years.
Assessing the impact of the emerging cost-benefit rule is complicated by the fact that EPA has released few details, these observers note, with the agency eyeing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that could tee up a wide ranging discussion of the issue.
But early signs point to the rule – recently expanded to include regulatory benefits – as a new step to seek “large structural changes to the way EPA does business,” Lisa Heinzerling, associate administrator of EPA's policy office during the Obama administration, tells Inside EPA, adding that the policy appearing to be an “economic parallel” to Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial proposed rule requiring use of only publicly available science to justify major rules.
And multiple observers also say EPA's planned cost-benefit rule, which would govern the economic analyses used to justify agency regulations, has the potential. to consume significant regulatory and litigation resources – to the extent it seeks to modify traditional EPA interpretations of agency authority to weigh costs of environmental controls under multiple environmental statutes that can have different cost benefit tests even within a single statute.
“That is a huge undertaking without [assuming] legislative fixes,” says another former EPA official, noting that both the rule and regulations based on it would be prime targets for judicial scrutiny. “I would suggest they apply some cost-benefit analysis to their own endeavor. If you end up obtaining nothing, was it worth the cost that went into it?” the former official asks.
The former official adds that addressing numerous and varied cost and benefit requirements in different sections of different statutes would likely add to the burden. “It's a Herculean undertaking to reconcile all the provisions in all the statutes,” the source says.
Such concerns may be widespread. Industry officials recently urged White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials to put resources into the rulemaking while playing down legal obstacles to consideration of costs in future rules.
EPA first indicated in its Fall 2017 regulatory agenda that it was considering crafting an ANPR to boost consistency in consideration of costs across EPA divisions and offices. The agency voiced concern that “many EPA statutes, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, provide language on the consideration of costs, but costs have historically been interpreted differently by the EPA depending on the office promulgating the regulatory action.”
The agency claimed this has led to EPA “choosing different standards under the same provision of the statute, the regulatory community not being able to rely on consistent application of the statute, and EPA developing internal policies on the consideration of costs through nontransparent actions.”
But the specifics of EPA's cost plan remain vague enough that a workgroup of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) this month punted, for now, on whether it should recommend that the full SAB review the issue.
Still, there are signs that the rulemaking is the subject of significant advocacy. At the recent OMB meeting, a host of major industry groups urged officials to take an ambitious approach, arguing in part that recent Supreme Court rulings – including the Clean Air Act case Michigan v. EPA and the Clean Water Act case Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc. – suggest the court is more willing to allow EPA latitude to consider costs than the agency may have assumed previously, even in cases where statutes may be silent.
Regulatory Benefits
EPA also appears to be broadening the focus of any rulemaking to include regulatory benefits. According to the agency's Spring 2018 regulatory agenda, the title of the effort has been revised, adding a focus on establishing consistency when calculating regulatory benefits, as well as the costs.
While the Pruitt EPA has been criticized for appearing to deemphasize benefits of environmental rules, Heinzerling says the inclusion of benefits in the current EPA effort could have deregulatory implications, to the extent it foreshadows efforts to push for comparison of costs with benefits in venues that have not historically required them.
Heinzerling adds the example of Clean Water Act technology standards – the subject of the Supreme Court's Riverkeeper case – that do not require detailed look at benefits once a “best available”technology has been identified.
“My guess is they are after a broad approach to setting regulatory standards that would use the full range of discretion to consider costs or to weigh costs against benefits,” said Heinzerling. “If that is right than that would be a huge deal,” she said.
Such an effort, however, could simply fail for a number of reasons, including that a broad push to revisit cost-benefit analysis agency-wide could render the stated goal of ensuring regulatory certainty – and legal defenses claiming it as an agency goal – “laughable,” she said.
And the other former EPA official says it is not a given that Michigan and Riverkeeper cases translate into a recipe for a broad, long-term rethinking of cost-benefit analysis.
For example, the Michigan case, which centered on EPA's threshold determination that its air toxics rule for power plants was “appropriate and necessary,” did not revolve around a decision by EPA to ignore costs, but on what stage of the regulatory process EPA considered them, the source says.
“All of these things are questions of whether the agency has done the right thing under Chevron deference, the source adds, suggesting that the Trump administration could try to revise cost-benefit approaches – with or without the Supreme Court rulings – but “another administration could also decide to go in a different direction.”
Deregulatory Agenda
The behind-the-scenes process on the cost-benefit consistency rule comes on the heels of a more conspicuous public fight over Pruitt's proposed rule, published April 30 in the Federal Register, that would require that EPA use only publicly available information to justify its regulations, with many observers interpreting both efforts as different prongs of a broader deregulatory agenda.
That science proposal is based on currently stalled legislation by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the retiring chairman of the House science committee, that would call for EPA to use the “best available science” in all its actions, but bar the agency from using any studies that cannot be released publicly online.
But the science data plan has drawn massive fire not only from environmentalists concerned it could undercut a range of studies showing the effects of pollution on human health but industry groups concerned that it undercuts protections for confidential business data used in venues including pesticide registrations. And many legal experts argue the science data rule may actually violate statutory mandates to consider best available science.
Alan Krupnick, an economist at Resources for the Future, also expresses concern that that the science proposal appeared aimed not at transparency but to “gum up the entire regulatory process.” For example, he noted that its impact would include attempting to discredit, for regulatory purposes, science studies including decades-old studies documenting well-understood links between fine particulate matter pollution and mortality.
So far, the cost-benefit rule has drawn more muted discussion, in part because it is only at the prerule stage and there is as yet no language to respond to.
But James Goodwin, of the Center for Progressive Reform, a group that advocates for strict environmental, health and safety rules, tells Inside EPA that he regards the cost rule as potentially an equally sweeping attempt to alter the machinery of how EPA's regulations are crafted.
It is about “how are we going to cook the economic books to support the anti-regulatory “outcome, as part of an effort to change “EPA's DNA, he says.
“They were trying to do with science . . . now they are trying to do with economics.”
Goodwin adds that the push to implement changes through a potential rulemaking effort – not just guidance – suggests an attempt to have a longer lasting impact. Should such an effort succeed, another future administration would have to launch another rulemaking if it wanted to change the policy.
https://insideepa.com/weekly-focus/epa-cost-benefit-plan-signals-next-deregulatory-step-faces-hurdles

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

After Methylene Chloride Win, Environmentalists Seek EPA Action on TCE

May 24, 2018 | Inside EPA

Environmentalists and community residents are urging Administrator Scott Pruitt to finalize a pair of Obama EPA proposed rules that would ban certain uses of the common solvent trichloroethylene (TCE), days after their recent success getting Pruitt's commitment to issue a delayed final rule limiting use of methylene chloride in paint stripper.
“As members of communities from across the country affected by [TCE] exposure, we are writing to urge you to immediately finalize the proposed rules banning certain uses of TCE,” some 200 community residents write Pruitt in a May 24 letter.
“TCE is a threat to public health for workers, consumers, and the millions of Americans whose water has been contaminated by the chemical. The science is clear, and delaying action is unacceptable.”
In the final weeks of the Obama administration, EPA proposed a trio of rules proposing to ban certain uses of TCE as a vapor degreasing agent and a spot-cleaner in drycleaning work, along with other chemicals used in paint-stripping, methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).
The trio were the first rules in decades where EPA proposed relying on TSCA section 6(a) authority, rarely used since a federal court struck down EPA's attempt to ban most uses of asbestos in 1991.
The court ruling prompted critics of TSCA to seek reform of the statute, which was eventually enacted in June 2016.
The Trump EPA, however, has placed all three rules on its “long-term action” category on the most recent unified agenda, issued May 9.
But that changed for the methylene chloride rule after Pruitt met with the families of two young men who died after succumbing to toxic fumes while working with the chemical.
Following the families' visit, EPA reversed course. In a May 10 statement, EPA says it intends to finalize the proposed rule banning certain uses of methylene chloride in paint-strippers. The agency adds that it plans to soon send the final rule for White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review.
While EPA made the commitment to complete the rulemaking, some environmentalists say that a recent guidanceissued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) calling for product labels to warn of acute inhalation hazards of paint strippers containing methylene chloride could give EPA an alternative to calls for a first-time ban.
Environmentalists echo this in their May 24 press release about the new TCE letter, pointing to Pruitt's policy change on methylene chloride as “one bright spot regarding one of these chemicals . . . While this is an encouraging sign, the agency has not yet publicly committed to a ban for all consumer and most commercial uses of the chemical as called for in the proposed rule.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/after-methylene-chloride-win-environmentalists-seek-epa-action-tce

Return to headline | Return to top
Over 200 People from Communities Impacted by Toxic Chemical Demand EPA Take Action

May 24, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

Today, a letter signed by over 200 people from communities across the country dealing with contamination from trichloroethylene (TCE) – a known carcinogen – was submitted to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt. The letter urged him to finalize EPA’s proposed bans of high-risk uses of TCE. While EPA proposed to ban certain uses of the toxic chemical well over a year ago under the previous administration, the Trump Administration is now slow-walking these critical actions.
“EPA has more than established that these uses of TCE present unreasonable risk,” said Dr. Jennifer McPartland, Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. “It’s critical that the agency finalize these proposed bans now to better protect the public and workers from harmful exposures to this deadly carcinogen.”
EPA proposed banning TCE’s use as a degreasing agent in consumer and commercial products and certain industrial operations, and as a spot cleaner in dry cleaning. The chemical is established as a known human carcinogen by numerous authoritative bodies – including the National Toxicology Program, EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. TCE also interferes with development, is toxic to the immune system and kidneys, and has been linked to neurological damage and birth defects – among other harmful health effects.
“Administrator Pruitt needs to do the job the American people demand and deserve of him and move without further delay to ban these uses of TCE,” said Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney at EWG. “Just because the chemical industry may want to use TCE and other cancer-causing chemicals anyway they want, doesn’t mean they should. Protecting the public from toxic chemicals is a primary mission of EPA and Mr. Pruitt needs to take that responsibility seriously.”
In December 2016 and January 2017, using its authority under the newly strengthened Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA proposed two rules to ban the use of TCE in aerosol degreasers, spot cleaners, and vapor degreasing, and another rule to restrict high-risk uses of two other dangerous chemicals, methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone. These actions would represent a major step forward for public health, and signaled that the overhaul of TSCA with the passage of the Lautenberg Act a few months prior was beginning to work—EPA had not proposed a chemical ban under TSCA in nearly three decades.
Unfortunately, less than a year after these proposals, EPA indefinitely delayed taking action on these proposed rules, moving them from “active” to “long-term action” status and effectively putting them on the back burner. Not coincidentally, the chemical industry voiced strong opposition to the proposed bans despite the clear public health need and the millions of dollars that would be saved from reducing TCE-related cancer risks alone.
In May, there was one bright spot regarding one of these chemicals: After meeting with mothers whose sons died from using methylene chloride-based paint strippers, EPA agreed to move forward on that proposed chemical ban. While this is an encouraging sign, the agency has not yet publicly committed to a ban for all consumer and most commercial uses of the chemical as called for in the proposed rule.
EPA’s prior evaluations of these three chemicals that supported the proposed bans were limited only to specific uses of them. Under reformed TSCA, EPA is supposed to comprehensively evaluate all other uses of these three chemicals, as well as all uses of seven others. However, there are strong indications that EPA’s reviews of TCE and the other chemicals will drastically deviate from the law’s requirements, excluding many known exposures and hence failing to ensure protection of public and worker health and the environment. Additionally, any decision by EPA to defer action on the proposed bans of high-risk uses of TCE and instead reconsider them as part of their broader evaluations will postpone any meaningful action to address its known risks for many years.
“When someone from our county walks through the pediatric oncology unit of Riley Children’s Hospital in Indianapolis, it is not uncommon for them to see multiple families they recognize,” said Stacie Davidson and Kari Rhinehart of Johnson County, Indiana – where TCE and other toxic chemicals have been discovered at high levels in the groundwater. “Dozens of children in our community have been diagnosed with cancer – and we’ve spent years raising awareness about the water contamination that could have contributed to the illnesses. It’s long past time for EPA to better protect communities like ours across the country by taking action on TCE.” Davidson, Rhinehart, and over 150 others from Indiana signed the letter.
“We didn’t know about the chemicals in our town’s drinking water when I grew up here with my family. In the years since, we have learned about the contamination and begun to understand the health impacts and human cost involved,” said Hope Grosse, a cancer survivor from Warminster, Pennsylvania where TCE and other toxic chemicals from naval and military sites have contaminated the community’s groundwater. “EPA should stop stalling on this dangerous chemical – we need to see action from the agency.” Grosse is one of twenty-four signers from Pennsylvania.
EPA’s deferral of the proposed bans of high-risk uses of TCE fits a larger pattern of EPA under this administration elevating the interests of industry over the agency’s mission to protect public health. With hundreds of concerned residents calling on EPA to act, Administrator Pruitt should immediately move to finalize the bans on high-risk uses of TCE.
https://www.edf.org/media/over-200-people-communities-impacted-toxic-chemical-demand-epa-take-action

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Pressured by Industry, U.S. EPA Slows Formaldehyde Study Release: Documents

May 25, 2018 | Reuters

By Valerie Volcovici

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under pressure from the chemical industry, has delayed release of a study detailing cancer risks from formaldehyde, according to internal communications seen by Reuters, potentially keeping important health information from the public.
Top EPA officials have declined to review the study or be briefed by its experts on the findings, the internal communications showed.
The EPA already lists formaldehyde, used in building materials like plywood and foam insulation, as a probable carcinogen. The new report is expected for the first time to detail its links to leukemia.
The report, an update of the EPA’s existing human health assessment of the widely used chemical, was completed by scientists from the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) late last year and must go through a months-long internal review process before it can be issued to the public for comment.
The delay could further heighten scrutiny of EPA, already fending off complaints that it and the White House considered blocking a study on water contamination by PFOA and PFOS, chemicals used in Teflon and firefighting. Politico reported on May 14 that a Trump administration aide had warned release of that study would cause a “public relations nightmare.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group, said delaying the report fits a broader pattern of the agency’s political leadership interfering with public health research.
“By sweeping scientific assessments under the rug, EPA fails to fulfill its mission of protecting public health. The public has the right to know about public health threats,” said Yogin Kothari, UCS Washington director.
The EPA told Congress in early February it expected to start the agency review process for the formaldehyde assessment “shortly,” according to the EPA staff communications.
But in follow-up communications between agency employees in late April, one career staffer wrote that EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation Bill Wehrum, and Wehrum’s deputy Clint Woods had not given their permission to initiate the review and had refused offers from EPA scientists to brief them on it.
“No office in the EPA is interested in formaldehyde,” the staffer wrote.
The 60-to-90-day agency review and a subsequent inter-agency review of a similar duration must happen before the study can be issued for public comment.
Prior to the communications, the chemistry industry’s main lobby group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), had been pressuring the EPA to avoid drawing links between formaldehyde and leukemia in its assessment.
EPA’s deputy assistant administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Nancy Beck, previously served as director of regulatory science policy at the ACC. Beck is not named in the communication.
SCIENTIFICALLY INDEFENSIBLE
The lobby group met with EPA political staff, including Deputy Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Research and Development Richard Yamada, on January 24 to make a presentation on the subject, ACC Formaldehyde Panel spokeswoman Sarah Scruggs told Reuters.
She provided Reuters a link to the presentation, titled "Formaldehyde IRIS Assessment." [tmsnrt.rs/2KRcVA2]
“Any draft assessment that attempts to associate formaldehyde exposure with leukemia is scientifically indefensible,” Scruggs said, adding that the ACC questions the “scientific rigor and methodologies” used by IRIS.
EPA spokeswoman Molly Block declined to comment on the delays or the ACC’s possible role.
“We continue to discuss the assessment with our agency program partners and have no further updates to provide at this time,” she said in an email.
Reuters was able to review the staff communications on condition that the identities of the people involved remained anonymous, given sensitivity of the issue.
EPA’s last attempt to update its assessment of formaldehyde in 2010 had been criticized by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for failing to draw “clear links” between formaldehyde and leukemia. The new attempt was meant to resolve that.
The NAS supported the prior EPA assessment’s finding that formaldehyde can, in certain cases, cause cancer in the nose and throat.
Democratic senators Ed Markey, Sheldon Whitehouse and Tom Carper last week wrote to EPA chief Scott Pruitt to ask about delays to the report and request communications between the EPA and ACC related to the formaldehyde assessment, saying they were concerned the agency was bowing to industry pressure.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-formaldehyde/pressured-by-industry-epa-slows-formaldehyde-study-release-documents-idUSKCN1IP3EX

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) EPA to Toughen Fluorochemical Rules

May 24, 2018 | Plastics News

By Steve Toloken

Calling it a "national priority," Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt told a Washington conference May 22 that EPA will develop tougher regulations around chemicals widely used in making fluoropolymers and other products.
The chemicals, which also are used in firefighting foams, upholstery, carpets and paper food packaging for their non-stick characteristics and process stability, have drawn widespread concern in recent years after turning up in drinking water supplies, sometimes at levels linked to health risks.
More than 200 state government officials and representatives of environmental groups gathered at the invitation-only EPA forum, billed as a "National Leadership Summit" on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, to talk about how to proceed.
"This should be and must be a national priority, and ... we are going to be taking concrete steps as an agency to address that, along with you at the state and local level," Pruitt said.
The announcement of new policies, though, was partly overshadowed by complaints from community groups in various states not invited to the summit and by coverage of three reporters denied entry, including an Associated Press journalist reportedly pushed out of the building. EPA officials later apologized to AP, according to press reports.
Inside the summit, in a morning session that was broadcast online, Pruitt and other agency officials said EPA plans to develop a national management plan for PFAS chemicals this year.
Pruitt said EPA will also take steps to declare PFAS and a related chemical, PFOA, as hazardous substances under Superfund cleanup laws, and evaluate setting a maximum contaminant level for drinking water.
State officials pushed for regulatory changes that could directly impact the industry. The head of Ohio's EPA called on the federal EPA to make companies give more information on how they use the chemicals.
"Currently state regulators lack basic information about the manufacture, use and purchase of many PFAS, let alone their chemical characteristics and potential hazards," Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler said. "Most importantly manufacturers should provide relevant information about the location of PFAS manufacturing facilities and their primary uses and purchases of products."
Butler, who gave an opening address on behalf of the Environmental Council of States, noted Ohio faced problems 15 years ago with similar chemicals that leaked from a DuPont Co. fluoropolymer factory in Parkersburg, W. Va., and into nearby communities in both states.
"These PFAS compounds we're now discussing present very difficult challenges and they're very pervasive and persistent in the environment," Butler said. "They can and may cause health impacts at very low levels and are compounds used in a vast array of compounds for consumer use."
He said ECOS wants the federal government to take a leadership role and support state action, and he called for debate on setting a safe level in drinking water.
EPA in 2016 set an advisory safe level of 70 parts per trillion in drinking water, but that's proven controversial.
In a May 21 letter, ECOS noted "confusion" and differing opinions between states on the issue. As well, EPA has come under criticism from members of Congress in recent weeks for not releasing a government study that reportedly recommends much tougher safety standards.
Butler and others acknowledged the regulatory issues will be complex, in part because the chemicals provide benefits in many products—like fluoropolymers used in medical devices, cars and electronics—and because there are many different chemicals, with widely different risk factors, under the broad umbrella of PFAS materials.
Jessica Bowman, senior director of global fluoro-chemistry at the American Chemistry Council, said in a conference speech that many of the environmental problems stem from so-called "legacy" long-chain versions of the perfluorinated chemicals that were used in the past but have been phased out in recent years in the U.S., Europe and Japan.
They've been replaced in those places by short-chain versions that are more environmentally friendly, Bowman said.
"Today's PFAS," she said, "are generally short chains and they have significantly improved hazard profiles compared to the legacy products."
But one state environmental official from New Hampshire, in an afternoon session not broadcast, reportedly told the meeting that it's not clear if the new substitutes are any safer in drinking water.
That's according to the Twitter feed of one of only a handful of reporters allowed into the meeting, Garret Ellison, an environment reporter for the Grand Rapids Press in Michigan.
ACC also called for restrictions during the summit on imports of PFAS products from countries that still use long chain manufacturing processes, including China.
"Imported products treated with long chains continue to make their way to the U.S. and will continue to do so in the absence of regulation," Bowman said.
http://www.rubbernews.com/article/20180524/NEWS/180529966/epa-to-toughen-fluorochemical-rules

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Grapples with Potential Health Threat in Drinking Water

May 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt is starting to grapple with a class of chemicals used in manufacturing that has been found in drinking water in recent years.
Pruitt convened a summit this week with state officials, industry representatives, environmental advocates and others to discuss the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the water supply. He labeled the issue a “national priority” and promised certain steps toward potentially regulating the chemicals' presence in water.
Among other steps, Pruitt said EPA would formally consider whether to set national limits on the drinking water concentration of two of the thousands of chemicals in the family: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).
The chemical industry even endorsed the actions, though cautioned that the EPA has to use “sound science” as it moves forward.
But some in Congress, along with environmental and public health advocates, are skeptical that Pruitt will take strong action on PFAS. They point to the Trump administration’s deregulatory bent and an email uncovered last week in which a White House aide said an as-yet-unreleased federal study on the chemicals could be a “public relations nightmare.”
“At this point, it really just seems like a public show, with no action to really to back it up,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group.
Pruitt’s actions on PFAS were also overshadowed by an uproar over EPA barring journalists from much of the summit and allegations that a security guard shoved a reporter out of the building when she tried to cover it.
The man-made chemicals have been used to make products like Teflon, Scotchgard and firefighting products. Companies have been using them for decades.
But only recently have the health risks from PFAS garnered attention. The risks are under scrutiny in part due to the Flint, Mich., water crisis, which spurred a nationwide focus on water contamination that has uncovered water issues at military bases and manufacturing facilities in New York, New Hampshire, Michigan, North Carolina, among other places.
Consumption of at least some of the compounds has been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, immune system problems and other ailments.
Pruitt organized the PFAS summit earlier this year in response to growing calls from lawmakers and states for EPA to take actions like increasing research and exploring regulation.
“This is a national priority that we need to focus on as a country,” Pruitt said at the event. “There are concerns across the country about these chemicals because of their persistence, their durability, getting into the environment and impacting communities in an adverse way.”
Pruitt made four pledges on behalf of EPA. He said the agency would evaluate whether to set maximum PFOS levels for drinking water, develop recommendations for cleaning the chemicals out of groundwater, consider whether to designate some of them as “hazardous substances” for environmental cleanup purposes and do research on toxicity levels for some of the compounds.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical companies, endorsed Pruitt’s approach.
“I think we were overall pretty encouraged. It’s fairly consistent with the sort of things that we’re looking for in terms of next steps we want EPA to take in this area,” said Jessica Bowman, the group’s director for fluor-chemistry.
The industry wants to ensure, however, that newer PFAS compounds are not swept up in EPA’s action. It argues that legacy chemicals like PFAS and PFAO — neither of which is produced domestically anymore — are the main issue, and newer chemicals are more advanced and less harmful.
“We want to make sure that EPA does take into consideration that there is a significant variation in the substances that all fall within this class of chemistry, and they don’t all require risk-based regulation,” Bowman said, adding that she believes Pruitt will endorse that view.
But environmental advocates and many lawmakers distrust Pruitt to handle the issue. They say he is unlikely to order the right scientific studies or go far enough to limit acceptable chemical levels in water.
“I’m very concerned about Pruitt’s leadership on this issue,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.).
Boyle said he’s particularly worried about the revelation last week that an unknown White House aide predicted a “public relations disaster” from a federal health study about the substances. The email was uncovered by a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists and first reported by Politico.
Numerous lawmakers are demanding that the Health and Human Services Department’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry release the research referenced in the email.
Patrick Breysse, that agency’s head, said at the EPA summit that he and his staff were “working aggressively” to get the study out.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) has also put pressure on the EPA over PFAS.
Asked if she’s pleased with how EPA is handling the issue, she said, “I’m not totally pleased, no, but I want to find out what kind of levels are acceptable and remediate the problems.”
As for whether she has confidence in Pruitt’s handling, she said, “I think time will tell, honestly.”
It has proven difficult for the EPA to designate a new chemical for filtering under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Since the act was updated in 1996, only one new chemical has been designated for potential regulation, and the EPA still hasn’t moved to regulate it.
But the bigger issue, in environmentalists view, is Pruitt’s desire to avoid regulation and cater to industry.
“Reading the tea leaves, it’s pretty clear that they are following the chemical industry’s lead on this,” said Erik Olson, director of the health program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“We feel that we certainly can’t trust EPA to set a health-protective standard for these chemicals.”
Pruitt controversial science “transparency” proposal would also make it difficult for the EPA to publish a strong regulation, green advocates say.
The proposal, among other changes, would require that any scientific findings the EPA uses for regulating be based on data that is available to the public and reproducible.
Epidemiological studies, like those examining the effects of contaminants, often rely on personal data that researchers agree to keep private, and they can’t be reproduced since they only happen once.
That would make it difficult for the EPA to use some of the most consequential studies on PFAS, advocates say.
“You throw out all evidence that these chemicals are already impacting human health,” Andrews said, pointing to research from the major PFOA spill in West Virginia in 2014 as an example.
“The implications could be enormous in terms of ignoring the significant amounts of scientific data that these chemicals are already impacting health.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/389297-epa-grapples-with-potential-health-threat-in-drinking-water

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Fluorinated Surfactants Is Top Issue at NASF Washington Forum

May 24, 2018 | Products Finishing Magazine

By James Lindsay

True to form, the National Association for Surface Finishing’s Washington Forum in April brought forth the latest developments in government issues affecting the surface finishing industry and pointed out the new challenges awaiting it. As noted by NASF Executive Vice President Christian Richter, there was a change in emphasis from 2017, with fluorinated surfactants emerging as the industry’s most critical issue.
Fluorinated surfactants, more formally known as polyfluoroalkylated substances (PFAS), are synthetic organofluoride compounds that are very efficient at lowering the surface tension of water. They are widely used in treating carpets and other fabrics, and as grease-proofing agents in food packaging. In the surface finishing industry, the primary fluorinated surfactant of interest is perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). Motivated by the need to protect workers on chromium plating lines, platers use PFOS to reduce surface tension in chromium baths and form a protective foam blanket to drastically reduce the fumes and mist generated by hydrogen at the cathode. In the mid-20th century, it was presumed that these substances helped, rather than hurt humans. Decades later, health and environmental concerns indicate that these materials are not as benign as had been thought.
The Washington Forum featured a number of talks addressing this issue. Peter Gravatt, director of groundwater and drinking water for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), discussed the national summit on PFAS taking place in Washington in May, the culmination of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s initial efforts to clean up PFAS contamination. Gravatt explained that, while these substances are of concern, the impact of contaminants and the viability of substitutes remain under investigation.
PFOS molecules consist of a chain of eight carbon atoms with fluorine atoms attached to each and the sulfonate radical attached to the head of the “caterpillar.” These so-called “long-chain” PFOS molecules are the ones of concern; there is the possibility that “short-chain” PFOS (with six carbon atoms or fewer) may be more stable and therefore a benign alternative in terms of health and environment. Jessica Bowman of the American Chemistry Council advocated a search for such replacement chemistries and laid out a global transition to such alternatives. She stressed the need for good science in characterizing the toxicity and degradation of the short-chain substances, and best practices in their manufacture. One issue involves the manufacture of the short-chain material and how much residual long-chain material, inevitably formed in the production process, could be tolerated.
James Votaw, a partner at Keller and Heckman, discussed the emerging PFAS regulation protocol, including coordinated efforts by a regulatory science policy coalition to develop a science-based policy. He said that many federal agencies, including the EPA, Food and Drug Administration, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Superfund agencies are all doing separate studies. Votaw stressed the need to partner with these agencies; involve the entire PFC value chain, including manufacturers, processors and users; and offer science-based research to the policymakers.
Economic Outlook
The keynote address by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and chief economist on the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, gave a clear picture of the economic outlook. In 2016, real income growth was essentially zero, but policy changes made to date have improved the outlook. These include changes in the tax code and tax rate, and offshore monies being repatriated back to the U.S. The cost of regulation had been dramatically impacted, literally shutting it down. Outlook for growth in 2018 was 3.3 percent versus 2.0 percent last year.
Concerns remain, however, and include trade policy and tariffs, the final status of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and trade strategy with China. Holtz-Eakin sees a debt crisis on the horizon, exacerbated by the growth of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which, with the baby-boomer generation passing through this stage, is increasing faster than income to support the programs.
The automotive perspective was covered by Tom Lehner of the Motor Equipment Manufacturer’s Association. Contrary to popular opinion, 75 percent of parts used by Toyota and the Big Three automakers are indeed American-made. Motor vehicle supplier jobs grew by 19 percent from 2012 to 2015, outstripping growth by OEMs. Lehner said that NAFTA is important in maintaining these trends, but the current negotiations have caused uncertainty. The possible added costs from steel tariffs also add to the concern. Finally, issues with China, including intellectual property and cyber data theft and the dismal quality of copied parts, needs to be addressed quickly and effectively.
David Thomas of the Business Roundtable echoed these concerns, noting that the original NAFTA agreement had been strong. The uncertainty in trade will have an impact on business confidence.
Regulatory Outlook
Although emphasis was placed on PFOS and PFAS at the Washington Forum, regulatory updates were presented on other long-standing issues as well. Dr. Chris Schlekat of NiPERA Inc. was on hand to update the audience on issues related to nickel and related materials. The Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) for airborne contaminants enacted by the European Union continue to be of concern. He deemed them difficult to meet and of questionable scientific merit. Fortunately, the European Chemicals Agency, after rigorous discussion by its Risk Assessment Committee, agreed to triple the OEL for nickel, which, while still challenging, would have been otherwise disastrous to the industry. He felt that a similar situation was unlikely here.
Schlekat also said that the Netherlands has proposed that substances with greater than 0.01 percent cobalt should be considered as a carcinogen. This is very problematic, as cobalt is difficult to remove by pyrometallurgical processes. Nickel is being classified as a “priority substance” under the EU water directive. Schlekat said that the methodology used to determine this was the worst case in terms of water chemistry. In these and other ways, NiPERA continues to interact with agencies and promote good science on a global scale.
In terms of labor and workplace regulatory policy, Marc Freedman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that there was considerable chatter about “undoing the regulatory state.”. However, he noted that undoing regulations was a much more complicated process than what is popularly thought. Rulemaking costs money and is resource-intensive, and rule reversal is equally so.Political Outlook
Of course, no NASF Washington Forum would be complete without coverage of the politics of the day, and the entertaining and informative Charlie Cook of the Cook Report was again on hand as the luncheon keynote to discuss the issues of the past year or two. He started by covering “what went wrong in 2016” and pointed out that much of the polling concentrated on the popular vote, while individual state polling—the core of the Electoral College result—was neglected, particularly in the case of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. For the mid-term election this year, he predicted that the Democrats would win the House, but the Republicans would hold the Senate, and “DC will be paralyzed for two years.” He added that the judicial nominations and approvals were likely to be a long-term legacy of the current Administration, something that is often overlooked.
Following a full and informative day of talks, NASF Washington Forum attendees once again availed themselves of the valuable opportunity to visit their congressional representatives and senators and their staffs to relay the importance of the surface finishing industry, armed with resource materials provided by the NASF and their own stories. The makeup of Congress is constantly changing, either by election, by-election or appointment to vacancies. That is why these exchanges are so important, as the changing cast of characters needs to be educated and informed of the value of our industry to the nation.
https://www.pfonline.com/blog/post/fluorinated-surfactants-at-the-top-of-nasf-washington-forum

Return to headline | Return to top
Facing Contamination, States Split on Whether to Await Federal PFAS Limit

May 24, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Suzanne Yohannan

As state regulatory agencies struggle to protect drinking water supplies from widespread contamination stemming from perfluorinated chemicals, they are split on whether they should await EPA drinking water standards -- which could be many years in the making -- or plow forward with separate and at times varying state standards.
On the eve of a summit between EPA and state officials on the chemicals, the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) sent a May 21 letter to EPA's water chief David Ross raising the question of whether EPA should establish regulations to address contamination from two of the most common per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The group notes that states differ on whether EPA should quickly develop a federal drinking water standard, known as a maximum contaminant limit (MCL), for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), the two most common PFAS.
Some states have urged quick issuance while others are concerned that such regulations “could divert resources from other drinking water issues and impose unwarranted costs on water systems,” the letter says.
It lists a number of questions the group planned to raise at the EPA-sponsored May 22-23 “National Leadership Summit” on PFAS in Washington, D.C., while also outlining suggestions for ways in which EPA could fill gaps and make improvements on addressing the chemicals that fall short of calling for an MCL.
For example, they urge EPA to take a series of steps under federal waste and clean water laws that would help address contamination in the meantime. The states also call on EPA to use new authority under federal toxics laws to collect more information from manufacturers and to develop reference doses and other risk values that states can use.
During his May 22 address to the summit, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt backed some of their requests, such as listing PFAS and PFOA as hazardous substances subject to Superfund liability. Pruitt also announced May 22 that the agency will “take the next step” to evaluate the need for an MCL for PFOA and PFOS, though agency officials have said that any MCL is likely years away.
PFAS are a class of environmentally persistent chemicals known for their non-stick qualities but have been linked to certain types of cancer and other harmful effects and are turning up in the drinking water of numerous community water systems across the country.
While recognizing the varying views among states on whether to advocate for a national MCL, ECOS calls on EPA to “consult closely” with states before developing or issuing any new PFAS regulations or advisories, unlike the health advisories EPA issued in 2016 that ECOS says lacked state consultation.
While EPA in 2016 set unenforceable lifetime health advisory levels for PFOA and PFOS at 70 parts per trillion (ppt), the agency stopped short of setting an enforceable MCL, and provided limited guidance to states and public water systems on how to use the advisory levels.
In the absence of a federal standard, many states have begun adopting their own standards, creating a patchwork of cleanup levels for drinking water systems and responsible parties at contaminated waste sites across the country. That has led to pressure from lawmakers, some states, environmentalists and others calling on EPA to act soon to develop a drinking water standard.
States' Differences
Differences among states were in evidence at the summit when, during a panel and audience participation session on “Communicating PFAS,” New Jersey and Michigan environment commissioners split publicly on when states should move ahead with separate levels.
Catherine R. McCabe, New Jersey's acting Department of Environmental Protection commissioner, spoke up as an audience member at the forum, saying that the Garden State, unlike many other states, has had the resources to conduct its own research on some PFAS chemicals, and determine what levels may be appropriate to set an MCL.
She said that she shortly will have before her recommendations to set MCLs for PFOA at 14 ppt, PFOS at 13 ppt and for the chemical perfluorononanoic acid, or PFNA, at 13 ppt -- all much stricter than EPA's advisory levels.
“I've heard the panel and several of the audience members wisely talk about how we can't do this chemical by chemical,” she said, but noted her job is to make decisions based on the law.
And, she said the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) directs the agency to consider this, and “our science … is telling us” that these are the numbers.
She further referenced press reports that draft risk levels proposed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) -- which EPA and the Defense Department (DOD) are under fire for blocking -- are quite similar to New Jersey's.
As such, she asked the panel “whether New Jersey should proceed to set these MCLs, or wait until we know a lot more about a lot of other things that we don't know about,” alluding to remarks made at the summit about the large gaps in knowledge and uncertainty among regulators about PFAS chemicals.
But Heidi Grether, director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, responded, saying that as a “former industry person,” industry and the nation value regulatory consistency.
“So I have a bit of a concern” philosophically about each state setting numbers. She said she hoped New Jersey's research was peer-reviewed by other states or others, and if that were to occur and the state's levels are validated and there is “buy-in from others,” then she suggested “we can actually get to the national standard” as opposed to setting state-by-state levels.
“The state-by-state can be a regulatory nightmare, which you well know,” she added.
McCabe responded that the state's Drinking Water Quality Institute, which is comprised of experts in the state who advise regulators on drinking water standards, did peer review New Jersey's levels.
Grether though then questioned whether the experts were from outside the state, calling for New Jersey to get a bigger peer review outside the state.
Grether noted that Michigan adopted EPA's health advisory level of 70 ppt as a starting point when, in January, it set a combined standard of 70 ppt for PFOA and PFOS for groundwater remediation.
State Recommendations
While states are split on whether to craft their own standards, they agree on a series of other fixes that might bridge some gaps on PFAS contamination.
In its letter to Ross, ECOS notes that states “are struggling to protect drinking water sources from sites contaminated” by PFAS, citing the lack of federal and state government authority to order investigations and remediation at such sites. Further, the letter says, DOD lacks clear authority to expend appropriations for such cleanups.
As a result, ECOS urges EPA to close these gaps by determining whether any PFAS are regulated as hazardous waste or hazardous substances, respectively, under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act, and to offer states additional information and standards to guide PFAS waste site and soil cleanups.
States also urged EPA to certify additional analytical methods for PFAS under section 304(b) of the Clean Water Act, citing the difficulty states currently have in meeting regulatory standards to analyze the chemicals given the scarcity of testing facilities and high cost of assays. Methods for media other than drinking water are also needed, they say.
To address PFAS other than PFOA and PFOS, states ask EPA to consider using its authority under section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act to collect more information from manufacturers of other PFAS. “Most importantly, manufacturers should provide information about locations of PFAS manufacturing facilities and the primary uses and purchasers of their products.” This would help states determine exposure routes, it says.
Further, the group says the work by EPA's Office of Research & Development (ORD) and its regional labs will be crucial to establishing safe exposure levels to PFAS. “ORD should consider both the chemical profiles of each substance or substance family and how extensively it is used,” it says. And, EPA should prioritize finding approaches to addressing multiple, co-occurring PFAS contamination in groundwater and drinking water, it says.
“EPA's goal should be to generate reference doses, toxicity values, and other information that can be used to guide state action,” it says.
Finally, ECOS urges greater collaboration among states and EPA and other federal agencies on PFAS policymaking, suggesting a federal-state working group. It says other federal entities in addition to EPA should be involved, including ATSDR, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences -- National Toxicology Program, DOD and the U.S. Geological Survey.
ECOS says such a group should be formed as soon as is possible, preferably in time to coincide with the state group's upcoming Aug. 28-30 meeting.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/facing-contamination-states-split-whether-await-federal-pfas-limit

Return to headline | Return to top
Why EPA’s Drop in Pollution Cases Is so Scary

May 24, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion

By Michael Mikulka

Law enforcement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fell significantly in 2017. It’ll be worse in 2018. EPA is failing to conduct wide-ranging investigations to protect human health.
EPA initiated 20 percent fewer civil cases and 30 percent fewer criminal enforcement cases during fiscal 2017. The number of defendants charged, and inspections conducted have all hit the lowest point in a decade. That is not accidental. Pruitt seems to be putting up roadblocks to investigations. Under Trump, enforcers must navigate through a gauntlet of obstacles to bring an enforcement action across the finish line.
EPA is thwarting its own workforce’s efforts to determine compliance with environmental law by restricting the use of the most powerful investigative tools provided to EPA by Congress. Authorities that allow for investigations under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act May compel polluters to test whether they are in compliance with those laws. But Pruitt has taken away much of this "testing" power from local EPA officials, who are insulated from political pressure, and given it to appointees loyal to Trump.

Use of these investigative tools has slowed to a standstill. In last years of the Obama administration, EPA’s Great Lakes Office sent requests for environmental testing to approximately 43 facilities per year. After political appointees took over the approval of environmental testing, only four requests were made by the Chicago office in eight months. In December 2017, the New York Times reported EPA similar decline at the Denver EPA office.

The enforcement slowdown has been compounded by the departure of 900 EPA employees since Trump’s election. EPA has blocked the hiring of enforcers to replace the staff who specialize in bringing environmental cases.
Without investigators, EPA cannot discover a violation of the law. Pruitt is refusing to use funds appropriated by Congress to hire new investigators. Enforcement is being starved of personnel.
Investigation and analysis of environmental data is crucial to the protection of public health. EPA tried to block the release of a report detailing the dangers of PFOA poisoning. Polytetrafluoroethylene, or PFOA, and associated compounds PFOS and PFAS, used for decades in the production of textiles, paper, metal-plating and semiconductors are linked to cancer, thyroid disease and weakened childhood immunity.

PFAS chemicals now contaminate the drinking water systems serving 16 million Americans in 33 states. EPA has dragged its feet on regulating PFAS chemicals, despite convincing evidence that they are hazardous at very low doses. EPA failed to set a PFAS legal limit in 2017. Instead, it proposed an ineffectual non-enforceable lifetime health advisory level.

As reported in Politico, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), prepared to publish a draft recommendation for “very, very low” minimal risk levels for the chemicals, ranging as low as 12 ppt, EPA political appointees quashed the action. If EPA thwarts the release of information about what is harming us, how will we ever stop the harm?
The bulk of EPA enforcement is conducted in 10 regional offices. Historically, those offices were allowed a measure of autonomy in pursuing local cases, only requiring consulting with EPA’s DC office on nationally significant cases.
Now, EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) headed by Susan Bodine, a longtime former lawyer for industry, has disrupted the initiation of local enforcement actions by personally reviewing case materials before they are submitted to DOJ.
Political appointees weigh in over whether EPA refers a case to the Department of Justice, or whether EPA files a case through DOJ in federal court. Political appointees dictate the terms EPA may use to settle enforcement cases, even in routine situations. At each turn, politics, not the facts, seem to tilt the scale towards polluters.

Further, EPA has now allowed states an unprecedented say over whether to bring an action against a violator in their state. Data showing a violation is often turned over to a state environmental agency, where the fines and compliance terms demanded are notoriously less stringent, or lawbreakers may not be penalized at all. When enforcement is ineffective, widespread disregard of compliance ensues, leading to immeasurably more pollution.

We can’t afford any more threats to the health of Americans. We must allow EPA to fulfill its intended mission, stop environmental polluters and provide all citizens with breathable air, drinkable water and safe land.
Michael Mikulka is president of American Federation of Government Employee Local 704, representing EPA Region 5 workers protecting Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/389271-why-epas-drop-in-pollution-cases-is-so-scary

Return to headline | Return to top
Flint Lawmaker's IG Request Prompts Scrutiny of His Staffer

May 25, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Corbin Hiar

Rep. Dan Kildee has asked EPA's internal watchdog to investigate the agency's mishandling of reporters at a summit on toxic nonstick chemicals that the Michigan Democrat claims his aide was also barred from attending.
EPA's press office, however, disputes the version of events Kildee and his staff have been presenting to the media about his aide — raising questions about whether the lawmaker was more interested in the substance or politics of the botched event.
"I write to call your attention to recent actions by Administrator Scott Pruitt and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking to block journalists and Members of Congress from attending a taxpayer-funded summit recently held at the agency's headquarters," Kildee said yesterday in a letter to EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins Jr.
Kildee noted EPA prevented reporters from attending parts of the summit on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. Pruitt's announcement Tuesday of steps to address health concerns raised by the class of chemicals, which have been linked to cancer and developmental problems, was largely overshadowed by the agency's rough treatment of an Associated Press reporter and selective access handed out to favored outlets (Greenwire, May 22).
The congressman went on to say that "my congressional staff was blocked from attending portions of the EPA PFAS summit." Since 2013, he has represented Flint, Mich., and surrounding communities struggling with drinking water contamination by PFAS and other toxic chemicals.
Kildee concluded by asking Elkins to "conduct a fair and thorough investigation into this matter, including if Administrator Pruitt or the EPA, through their attempts to limit access, violated any federal laws or agency regulations, including federal statutes concerning open meetings and transparency."
Elkins' spokeswoman confirmed he had received the request and is reviewing it with his leadership team.
If the IG takes on the case, he may be able to determine whether EPA violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act — as some journalism professional organizations have alleged (E&E News PM, May 23).
Spokesman Jahan Wilcox has previously said that the summit was "not a federal advisory committee event," which would have required it to be open to the public and press.
Elkins' review could also sort out what happened with Jordan Dickinson, the Kildee staffer who was allegedly blocked from attending the event.
Emails provided to E&E News by EPA show agency officials told Dickinson they could "get you set with all the info to attend" five minutes after he contacted them about coming to the event the Friday before it was set to begin.
While another agency official expressed some concerns about whether they still had space for Dickinson, later the same day he said that wouldn't be a problem.
"Good news: You can certainly join us for the PFAS Summit next Tuesday," wrote Matt Klasen, a staffer in EPA's Office of Congressional Affairs. In parentheses, he added, "The Summit continues into Wednesday, but the Wednesday session is limited to federal agency folks and states."
Dickinson ultimately declined to attend Tuesday, instead watching the first hour of the daylong event via livestream, according to EPA officials and Kildee staffers.
On Wednesday, however, their stories diverge. EPA says Dickinson arrived hours after the half-day, closed-door event had ended, hoping to see a 3 p.m. panel featuring the director of Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality that had actually occurred the day before.
Kildee's office, on the other hand, says Dickinson showed up around 11 a.m. — which is after news reports began to emerge about EPA turning away reporters again, but before the event concluded at 12:30 p.m.
Despite declining to send anyone to monitor or take part in the previous day's events where his staffers were welcome, the congressman then said on Twitter that Pruitt's "lack of transparency and willingness to deny access to Members of Congress and the media is deeply troubling." That tweet, sent at 3:55 p.m. Wednesday, had garnered more than 3,900 retweets or likes by last night.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/05/25/stories/1060082711

Return to headline | Return to top
Chemical Firms Rush to Meet Final REACH Regulation Deadline

May 24, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Alex Scott

Companies that produce chemicals in Europe in volumes of 1 to 100 metric tons per year are scrambling to meet the May 31 deadline for registering them under Europe’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) chemical safety regulation. This third and final phase of REACH follows deadlines for registering higher-volume chemicals in 2010 and 2013.
For the latest phase, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) says it has received 27,831 safety data submissions covering 9,180 substances as of May 23. “We are still expecting a sharp increase in submissions in the remaining days,” ECHA says.
There was a 33% uptick in submissions in the weeks prior to the May 31 deadline, ECHA says. Overall, the number of chemical products registered is 20–30% less than the agency had been predicting.
Still, there is little evidence at this time that companies will stop making small-volume products in order to avoid REACH costs, says Erwin Annys, director of REACH for the European Chemical Industry Council, Europe’s largest chemical industry association. “Everyone is working like hell to get everything done,” he says.
BASF concurs and says it does not anticipate any disruption to its supply chains as a result of the latest REACH phase. The large German firm estimates that it has spent almost $60 million per year for the past 10 years complying with REACH.
Meanwhile, the U.K.’s Chemical Industries Association is concerned that its members may not be in compliance with REACH after the U.K. officially leaves the European Union on March 29, 2019. “When we talk to ECHA and the EU, the word is still ‘in March you leave, and you don’t enjoy the same membership rights,’ ” says CIA’s CEO Stephen Elliott.
Many other companies won’t be done dealing with REACH on June 1 either, warns Cándido García Molyneux, an environmental law attorney with Covington & Burling. Molyneux anticipates ongoing disputes between REACH registrants over sharing the cost of developing chemical safety data. Up to 500 disputes are currently active, Annys says.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/chemical-regulation/Chemical-firms-rush-meet-final/96/i22

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Energy and Water Bill Advances After Clash over Nuke Waste

May 24, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Christa Marshall, Sam Mintz and Ariel Wittenberg

he Senate Appropriations Committee advanced a $43.77 billion energy and water bill today after a heated exchange on nuclear waste with multiple mentions of Dolly Parton.
The measure rejects most of President Trump's spending plan and would increase funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, which oversees the majority of the national laboratories, to a record $6.65 billion. The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which Trump targeted for elimination, would see its funding rise to a record $375 million.
The fiscal 2019 bill also would increase spending on fossil research to $727 million and keep renewable and efficiency funding roughly flat from current levels (E&E News PM, May 22).
It includes a pilot program for consolidated nuclear waste storage but leaves out money for the licensing process for Yucca Mountain, a contentious proposed permanent waste repository in Nevada.
"This legislation provides funding to address critical national security needs concerning nuclear energy, while allowing for improvements to our water infrastructure and investing in basic science and energy research," said Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).
Ranking member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said the bill supports much-needed repairs and strengthens innovative ways "that will make the entire country resilient to the changing climate and violent weather events."
The sole dissenter in the 30-1 vote was Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who sparked a lengthy back-and-forth by offering an amendment opposing DOE's decision to abandon the mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility in his home state. Graham has been fighting to keep it open for years.
The Trump administration, like the Obama administration before it, has called for terminating the venture, which would fabricate plutonium into MOX fuel and irradiate it into commercial nuclear reactors.
The under-construction facility has seen skyrocketing cost and schedule overruns; DOE has projected that in total it would cost $50 billion to finish construction and dispose of the waste.
Graham argued that the project should be finished because of the need and a lack of other options. The senator said somebody needed to be held accountable for "starting programs like this ... and saying, 'Oh, never mind,' when you get 70 percent of it built."
Graham added, "If you want to talk about the swamp, this is the swamp. This is a fiasco. It is going to embarrass the Congress."
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who supports the administration's plans to develop an alternative "dilute and dispose" method that would involve diluting plutonium with an inert agent and disposing of it in a geologic repository in New Mexico, said being on the other side of Graham is like "being on the same stage as Dolly Parton."
"He's so interesting. ... Nobody will pay any attention to me," Alexander said of Graham. Still, the panel chairman went on to make his case.
"If you're in a hole ... do you just keep digging and spend dollars you are going to have to take out of some other program?" Alexander asked. "We have other needs."
Later, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the subcommittee ranking member, said she didn't "know about Dolly Parton, but Senator Graham is quite formidable."
She said she respected his opinion but had not seen a project run over budget as much as this one. "This has been an issue for four years. We have taken a good and careful look at it."
Graham then withdrew the amendment and said, "By the time we got on the floor, I'm going to have more things for you."
Additionally, an amendment from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) passed 16-15 that would guarantee the Appalachian Regional Commission headquarters move to his state if relocated.
Fusion, carbon capture
The Senate spending bill report recommends $122 million be spent on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, a multinational project under construction in France to demonstrate fusion at scale. Last year, the same Senate panel voted to pull funding for the project, citing multiple cost overruns.
This year, congressional money managers have a bigger money pot because of a March spending accord. The House bill passed last week called for $163 million to be spent in fiscal 2019 on ITER.
Also, the report recommends funding stay steady for DOE's loan guarantee program, which Trump proposed eliminating. Wind and solar research would decline, with wind decreasing from $92 million to $80 million. Funding for weatherization assistance and advanced manufacturing would increase.
The panel said it rejected DOE's proposal to consolidate carbon capture, carbon storage and "advanced energy" programs within the fossil office (Greenwire, Feb. 15).
It called for $30 million to be spent on studies leading to development of two commercial-scale carbon projects, including one on an existing coal plant.
If the text remains largely intact, lawmakers will have to work out significant differences between the Senate and an appropriations bill that passed a House panel last week.
The House, for example, would cut funding for ARPA-E from $353 million to $325 million, reduce spending on the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and spend more on fossil research. Trump called for slashing EERE to $696 million.
Water
On water issues, Alexander noted that the appropriations bill "makes full use of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund," which is funded by a fuel tax on shippers, by appropriating $76 million to the Army Corps of Engineers' construction account.
"In other words, we are spending all the money on the waterways we collected it for," he said.
The Appropriations Committee's report also slams the Trump administration for its budget proposal that would have only spent $5.2 million from the trust fund.
"By only proposing to fund one of the four ongoing construction projects that were funded last year, the budget request disregards the existing Capital Investment Strategy and the advice and recommendations of industry experts and professional engineers," the report says.
It also says the committee "rejects" a Trump administration proposal to increase fees on inland waterways "particularly when the administration fails to make full use of the fees already collected for this purpose."
Feinstein said she was "particularly pleased" the bill includes new directives aimed to improve dam safety. After the near-failure of the Oroville Dam in her state last year, she said, it "became clear that we have to take a closer look at an aging dam infrastructure."
"Everyone said Oroville was safe, but it clearly wasn't, and I worry that the technical and engineering assumptions that everyone agreed on 50 years ago when those dams were built are no longer accurate," Feinstein said.
The bill does include language clarifying that the Clean Water Act exempts many agriculture activities but does not include a provision in the House energy and water spending bill that would rescind the Obama administration's Clean Water Rule.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/05/24/stories/1060082669

Return to headline | Return to top
Once Again, Mariner East’s Pennsylvania Operations, Some Construction Face Indefinite Halt

May 24, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Jamison Cocklin

Pennsylvania regulators have once again halted Mariner East (ME) 1 operations just weeks after a similar suspension was lifted, this time granting an emergency order that lays out a laundry list of requirements that Energy Transfer Partners LP subsidiary Sunoco Pipeline must meet before natural gas liquids (NGL) can resume moving on the system.
The order also stops construction on both ME 2 and ME 2X in West Whiteland Township. State Sen. Andrew Dinniman filed a complaint last month with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) seeking the emergency order and questioning the safety of the entire system.
The complaint was filed partly in response to a PUC order in March that shut down ME 1 after three sinkholes formed near it in West Whiteland. That order was lifted earlier this month, when operations resumed.
Dinniman, a Democrat, has been a vocal critic of the ME project. He represents citizens in Chester County living near the sinkholes, who have also voiced concerns about the proximity of all three pipelines to area homes. Despite a review of ME 1’s integrity and geophysical testing in the construction area where ME 2 and 2X are being built along the same right-of-way, Dinniman has argued that the geology in the area is hazardous for such infrastructure.
It’s unclear how long operations may be suspended. PUC spokesman Nils Hagen Frederiksen said emergency orders are effective immediately and require no ratification vote from the full commission. Any challenge to Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth Barnes’ order, he said, must be filed within seven days and would go straight to the full commission for its consideration. Sunoco said it would “pursue all legal remedies to overturn the order,” including an appeal with the PUC.
In addition to the ME 1 suspension and work stoppage on ME 2 and 2X, the order requires a full suite of actions be taken by Sunoco. Among other things, Sunoco would be required to provide a full assessment of the condition of all three pipelines; submitting an emergency response plan, additional geophysical and geotechnical studies of ME 2 and 2X in West Whiteland; creating a public integrity management program and risk analysis; and require the operator to address its willingness to provide specialized equipment to area first responders to help them deal with any potential disasters created by the system.
Earlier this month, Sunoco moved to dismiss Dinniman’s complaint, arguing he does not have standing. Barnes denied the motion.
“We strongly disagree with Judge Barnes’ order and believe there is no evidence or legal basis to support Sen. Dinniman’s claims in his petition and the order that followed,” Sunoco said Thursday. “Further, the order directly contradicts the detailed work of PUC staff and the May 3, 2018 unanimous decision of PUC commissioners to return ME 1 to service.”
The company said it would continue with the construction of ME 2 and 2X in all areas along the route except for the 3.5-mile segment that runs through West Whiteland.
Environmental groups and area residents in Chester County, in the southeast part of the state near Philadelphia where unconventional natural gas development does not occur and has faced more resistance, have rallied against the project for months.
“Sunoco’s reckless and dangerous construction poses a threat to communities across Pennsylvania,” said Food & Water Watch organizer Sam Rubin. The latest decision “gives hope to the communities along the pipeline route who have demanded protection from Sunoco’s dangerous and unnecessary pipeline.”
ME 1 moves ethane and propane from the shale fields of western Pennsylvania to the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex near Philadelphia. ME 2 and 2X would run parallel along the same route for about 350 miles to move ethane, butane and propane from processing facilities in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Marcus Hook. ME 2, which is nearly complete, has already experienced several delays. Earlier this month, Energy Transfer again pushed back the in-service date from 2Q2018 to 3Q2018.
The previous ME 1 outage had limited impacts on producers that managed to find workarounds during the suspension. But there are limited NGL takeaway outlets available to serve the Appalachian Basin, making the ME project crucial to operators.
East Daley Capital Advisors Inc.’s Andy Ptacek, who directs research, told NGI’s Shale Dailyon Thursday that he expects lower netback prices for Appalachian producers until ME 2 comes online, particularly this summer as operators continue to ramp up liquids production in the basin on stronger commodity prices.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114494-once-again-mariner-easts-pennsylvania-operations-some-construction-face-indefinite-halt

Return to headline | Return to top
Okla. Officials Shut down 4 Disposal Wells After Shaking

May 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire

By Mike Soraghan

Four oil field disposal wells must be shut down in Oklahoma because of recent earthquake activity, state regulators said this week.
There have been 12 earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or greater in the area around Crescent, about 40 miles north of downtown Oklahoma City. According to U.S. Geological Survey data, one quake was magnitude 4.1 and another was magnitude 4.0.
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission announced the shutdowns Wednesday. Three operating wells within 3 miles of the quakes must shut down, and another will not be allowed to resume operations.
Other wells between 3 and 10 miles from the quakes must reduce volumes, under the state directive. Officials said the directive applies to a total of 25 disposal wells, 20 of which have operated within the last 30 days.
Scientists have known for decades that deep injection of industrial fluid, such as oil field wastewater, can cause earthquakes in rare cases. The fluid seeps into faults, essentially lubricating them, and they slip.
In Oklahoma, oil production methods that create unusually large volumes of wastewater have combined with favorably aligned faults to cause swarms of quakes.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/25/stories/1060082659

Return to headline | Return to top
Anadarko Pays Victims’ Families After Fatal Home Explosion

May 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Tripp Baltz

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. reached an out-of-court settlement with the families of two men killed in an April 2017 home explosion linked to a leaking natural gas pipeline from a company well in Firestone, Colo.
The May 23 settlement resolves claims of the families of Mark Martinez and his brother Joey Irwin, who were killed while working in the basement of Martinez’s home in the Oak Meadows subdivision of Firestone on April 17, 2017. Martinez’s wife, Erin, and her son Nathan also were injured.
The explosion and fire was caused by a leak of unrefined, non-odorized natural gas from a severed 1-inch underground flow line connecting an Anadarko wellhead and a nearby production natural facility. It is unknown how the line was severed, but it had not been disconnected from the wellhead and capped as Colorado drilling rules require.
The company has “nothing further to add” beyond a brief statement out of respect for the confidentiality of the agreement and the families, Jennifer Brice, an Anadarko spokeswoman, told Bloomberg Environment May 24.
An ongoing National Transportation Safety Board investigation also limits the company’s ability to discuss the settlement, she said.
“It is clear that Mark Martinez and Joey Irwin were innocent victims in the explosion,” the company said in its statement. “Neither they nor Erin Martinez bear any responsibility or fault for what occurred.”
In the aftermath of the incident, Anadarko and several other energy producers shut down their vertical natural gas wells throughout Colorado to test them for leaks and integrity. Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) ordered all operators in the state to inspect their inventory of flow lines and ensure that lines running within 1,000 feet of homes and other buildings worked properly or—if no longer active—had been properly abandoned.
Lines Back in Service
Anadarko has returned to service 1,350 of the 3,000 wells it shut down and has permanently abandoned about 600 of them, the company said. The remaining wells are “awaiting further evaluation, retrofit equipment installation, or abandonment,” it said.
A Weld County court in August 2017 dismissed Baum v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a lawsuit brought by Oak Meadows homeowners against Anadarko and Noble Energy Inc., previous owner of the wellhead.
The homeowners—Jeff and Karla Baum and their two children—are alleging nuisance, negligence, and trespass as causes of action to recover loss of their property values, Stephen A. Justino of Boesen Law LLC in Denver, attorney for the Baums, told Bloomberg Environment May 24.
The companies failed to exercise their “duty of reasonable care to protect against the dangers, risks, and hazards of oil and gas operations” with respect to flowlines and other structures in the neighborhood, the Baums are alleging. Justino, whose firm represents about 50 other homeowners in the neighborhood who have yet to file a claim, said the Baums have appealed the dismissal to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
The county court ruled the fears of residents that natural gas lines running under their home might explode were “too speculative to be actionable.”
Securities Case
Anadarko also is embroiled in Edgar v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a securities lawsuit filed by shareholders who purchased securities between February 17, 2016, and May 2, 2017.
The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleges the company made false and misleading statements about its maintenance and safety protocols in connection with its vertical wells.
Shares in Anadarko lost about one-third of their value between April and August 2017, but have since rebounded.
Also, the company this week demolished the house next to the Martinez home because it was “significantly structurally damaged” and “unlivable after the explosion,” Justino said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/anadarko-pays-victims-families-after-fatal-home-explosion

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

As Rollback Looms, CSB's Hurricane Study Urges EPA to Strengthen RMP

May 24, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Rebecca Rainey

Even as the Trump administration works to roll back Obama-era measures strengthening facility safety rules, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is urging EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to strengthen their requirements after its investigation of industrial incidents sparked by Hurricane Harvey flood waters found that the agencies do not adequately address risks.
In its final report on the Arkema Inc. industrial facility fire sparked by Hurricane Harvey flood waters, released May 24, CSB urged EPA to strengthen its risk management plan (RMP) program and OSHA its process safety management (PSM) rule to require facilities to account for greater risks posed by more-extreme storm events in their relevant rules and policies.
“Our investigation found that there is a significant lack of guidance in planning for flooding or other severe weather events,” the board's exiting chair, Vanessa Allen Sutherland, said during a May 24 press conference announcing the final report on the Arkema incident.
“Based on other government reports, we know that there is a greater likelihood of more severe weather across the country. As we prepare for this year’s hurricane season, it is critical that industry better understand the safety hazards posed by extreme weather events,” she added.
The board also reiterated its 2001 recommendation for EPA to strengthen is oversight of “reactive hazards,” which it said will now be exacerbated by extreme storm events.
Specifically, CSB recommends that EPA revise its RMP accidental release prevention requirements to “explicitly cover catastrophic reactive hazards that have the potential to seriously impact the public, including those hazards resulting from self-reactive chemicals and combinations of chemicals and process-specific conditions.”
The report also recommended that EPA “seek congressional authority if necessary to amend the regulation.”
CSB, an independent federal investigator that can recommend fixes to address industrial incidents but which lacks enforcement power, was investigating the Aug. 31 fire at the Arkema, Inc. facility in Crosby, TX.
The fire occurred at the facility after rising floodwaters from Hurricane Harvey overwhelmed backup cooling systems needed for safe storage of organic peroxide chemicals on site and used in the production of consumer products. The incident has already prompted lawsuits after several first responders sought medical attention for exposure to dangerous chemicals while responding to the disaster.
A Dec. 7 suit, Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, charges that the CSB failed to promulgate rules requiring industrial facilities to report their chemical releases following an incident, citing in part concerns that first responders were harmed after exposure to the Arkema fire due to inadequate reporting data.
Safety Mandates
The suit is the latest effort by environmentalists and others to pressure the Trump administration to impose new safety mandates on facilities in the wake of releases stemming from the hurricane, even as it seeks to roll back or delay Obama-era facility safety measures.
At EPA, the administration has delayed until February 2019 an Obama-era rule strengthening the agency's RMP program and has also proposed a separate rule to roll back much of the last administration's regulation.
The RMP delay rule has drawn legal challenges from several Democratic state's attorneys general, along with environmental groups and labor unions who argue that the delay puts first responders at risk, pointing to injuries to firefighters who responded to the Arkema chemical fire.
The administration has also shelved nascent Obama-era plans to strengthen PSM requirements at OSHA.
As such, any update to either rule appears unlikely -- even though CSB is recommending fixes to regulatory provisions that the Obama administration had not included in either the RMP or PSM measure.
In its report on the Arkema incident, CSB reiterates its long-standing call for EPA to address reactive substances under RMP as it had recommended in 2001.
“If reactives had been covered by RMP, and Arkema had conducted its required off-site consequence analyses (both worst-case and alternative scenarios) in accordance with RMP requirements, the company may have identified the hazards associated with the Crosby site’s flood vulnerabilities, and the follow-on threats to the company’s organic peroxides stored onsite, through that additional level of risk-based thought process,” the report says.
CSB also argues that industry guidance and federal safety regulations are generic and do not require proper precautions on how companies should evaluate their protections to address extreme weather events, like the Hurricane Harvey floodwaters that led to the Arkema fires.
“Despite Federal safety requirements covering the hazardous substances specified in both regulatory frameworks and despite the potential for flood risk to be analyzed under existing terms within the existing regulatory structure, no clear and specific regulatory requirement calls for flood risk to be assessed in relation to process safety under the regulation language in either the PSM standard or the RMP rule,” the CSB argues.
The report states that OSHA PSM guidance provided to industry on process hazard analysis states that an analysis should assess only “external factors that might affect the process” and that the guidance may not prompt a company to discuss or evaluate flood risks.
The report also argues that neither OSHA nor EPA defined the specific requirements that companies must complete when evaluating “facility siting hazards.”
“As such, CSB’s investigation was unable to identify any existing requirements for companies to evaluate flood risk during facility siting reviews, and no such evaluations were ever documented for the Crosby site,” the report said. “OSHA’s position is that the PSM standard does not define facility siting requirements by design, but that does not mean that consideration of flood risk or flood hazards are not required as part of a company’s facility siting review. . . Given the lack of flood risk guidance from OSHA, EPA, or existing chemical industry standards, companies might not have a good practice approach for evaluating the flood risk at their facilities,” the report concludes.
EPA's 'Inadequate' Response
In addition to its advice on flood risks, CSB is also reiterating a recommendation from an investigation completed in September 2002, “Improving Reactive Hazard Management” where the board concluded that better management of reactive hazards is necessary to prevent future incidents.
The 2002 study found, “More than half of the accidents involved chemicals that [similar to organic peroxides] are exempt from OSHA and EPA process safety rules,” and that “the EPA Accidental Release Prevention Regulations have significant gaps in coverage of reactive hazards.”
But, EPA did not implement the board's recommendations as presented, and instead sought other remedies such as revising the agency’s accident reporting system and hosting roundtable meetings, among others, which CSB concluded were inadequate.
During the press conference, CSB officials noted that regulatory change has to go through the lengthy EPA rule making process and encouraged industry groups to take the lead on their recommendation to bolster industry guidance to “help hazardous chemical facilities better prepare for extreme weather events, such as flooding, hurricanes, snowstorms, tornadoes, or droughts” that would also provide EPA with something to base their recommended changes on.
CSB also recommended that Arkema Inc. within 18 months develop a policy requiring that the company “periodically, analyze such facilities to determine whether they are at risk for extreme weather events such as hurricanes or floods” and establish requirements for its facilities that manufacture organic peroxides “to ensure that critical safeguards, such as backup power, function as intended” during extreme weather events.
In a statement responding to the CSB report, Arkema sidestepped findings that the facility was not adequately prepared for the floods, noting its “unprecedented” nature. But it welcomed findings that it had taken a series of other steps, such as reporting the prospect of the peroxide fire days before it occurred, as well as its commissioning of a site elevation study to better understand future storm risks.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/rollback-looms-csbs-hurricane-study-urges-epa-strengthen-rmp

Return to headline | Return to top
Arkema Officials Were Warned of Flood Risks a Year Before Hurricane Harvey

May 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle

By Alex Stuckey

Officials at Crosby's Arkema chemical plant were warned that the facility was at risk for flooding a year before Hurricane Harvey's deluge resulted in a chemical fire at the plant. But facility employees, with the exception of a manager who retired in early 2017, "appeared to be unaware of this information," an inquiry by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board found.
The board concluded that Arkema, a French multinational company that manufactures chemicals used to create plastic products, was not prepared for the 6 feet of water that wiped out the facility's power and backup generators. With the power out and cooling systems failing, volatile organic peroxides exploded multiple times over the course of a week, producing towering pillars of fire and thick plumes of black smoke.
The board — an independent federal agency that investigates industrial chemical accidents — released a 154-page report Thursday morning detailing findings and recommendations to the company, to Harris County and to industry leaders. Those recommendations include developing better policies for determining risks from extreme weather events, such as flooding, and protecting first responders from releases of hazardous chemicals.
lso Thursday, Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said evidence would be presented to a grand jury "in coming weeks" as part of the county's lawsuit against the company.
The chemical safety board can offer recommendations and guidance, but it can not fine or punish a company based on its findings.
Janet Smith, Arkema spokeswoman, said in a statement that the company was pleased with the board's investigation because it "accurately depicts the unforeseeable nature of the situation Arkema faced during Hurricane Harvey."
But board members determined that the company's emergency response plan was insufficient, confirming a Houston Chronicle report in November.
However, in her statement, Smith said, the report "shows that Arkema had multiple policies and safeguards in place to address the risks associated with hurricanes, that Arkema followed those policies, and that our employees went to extraordinary lengths, under difficult conditions, to maintain safety at our site."
Board officials said Thursday that Arkema is being proactive in its efforts to understand the facility's flooding risks and take steps to make sure an incident such as this doesn't happen again.
"Arkema wasn't prepared, but they were not alone," Vanessa Allen Sutherland, the board's chairwoman, said at a Thursday news conference. "The most valuable lesson here is that facilities should plan and plan again. Don't be lulled into a false sense of security by thinking it can't happen here."
Insufficient systems
As Harvey bore down on Southeast Texas and the National Hurricane Center warned of potentially "catastrophic" or "life-threatening" flooding, the company's plans for protecting its product were simple: keep the chemicals cold on-site. If they grew too hot, they would explode.
Arkema had multiple freezer buildings, six backup generators, and, as a last resort, refrigerated trucks. But the company didn't consider flooding a "credible risk," the report states, confirming previous reporting by the Chronicle.
Officials thought this despite a 2016 report from its insurer, Factory Mutual Insurance Co. (FM Global), stating that the facility was at risk for flooding and parts of it sat in both the 100-year and 500-year flood plains, the report states. FM Global was not Arkema's insurer during Hurricane Harvey.
The board found that Arkema was relying on longtime employee memory of flooding levels. The company's Crosby facility has a 40-year history of flooding, but employees could not remember a time when the plant received more than two-feet of water.
"A lot of people there had been there for 20, 30, 40 years and seen predictive rainfalls of similar amounts and they thought, with what was predicted, they'd be fine," said Mark Wingard, the board's lead investigator.
That method, he added, is insufficient.
"Companies should develop systems to retain key incident summary information that better document facility risks based on historical external events," the report states. "These external events, such as flooding, have a low probability of occurrence but can threaten severe health and safety consequences."
Along with an inadequate emergency response plan, the board's report confirms other aspects of the facility's failures reported by the Chronicle in November: The company's power transformers and backup generators were not high enough off the ground, and it had a tank of an extremely dangerous chemical, isobutylene, located about 40 yards from six refrigerated trailers loaded with organic peroxides that had been relocated during the storm.
Board members recommended in their report that Arkema develop a policy requiring any facility that manufactures organic peroxides or processes a significant amount of highly hazardous chemicals to periodically determine if they're at risk for extreme weather events like hurricanes or floods.
It also recommended that the Crosby facility, specifically, decrease its flood risk to "as low as reasonably practicable."
Since Harvey, Arkema has commissioned a site elevation survey and a hydrological study to better understand hurricane-related flooding.
Officials with the board said Thursday other chemical companies might also have inadequate emergency preparedness plans. While the board couldn't say just how many companies have inadequate plans, it stressed that Texas companies along the Gulf Coast that work with hazardous materials should be on alert.
"Given that experts predict that extreme weather events are likely to increase in number and severity, the chemical industry must be prepared for the worst-case scenarios," Sutherland said. "We cannot stop the storms, but by working together we can mitigate the damage and avoid future catastrophic events."
The board recommends that the Center for Chemical Process Safety, a New York-based nonprofit, develop guidance to help companies determine their risks from all types of extreme weather events, including hurricanes and flooding.
Exposure to chemicals
Just days after Harvey made landfall Aug. 25, a ride out crew at Arkema's Crosby facility transported 300,000 pounds of organic peroxides to nine refrigerated trailers. More than 2,000 containers had to be transported by hand in the dark, according to a simulation video created by the board.
But when those trailers began to fail, the ride out crew was evacuated and officials set up a 1.5-mile evacuation zone in anticipation of trailer explosions. Those explosions began Aug. 31.
Parts of Highway 90, which runs along the southern end of the plant and cut through the middle of the evacuation zone, were kept open to traffic too long, the report stated. At least 21 people were exposed to "decomposition products and smoke from the burning refrigerated trailer and organic peroxides."
For that reason, the board recommended Harris County do several things to ensure ensure emergency personnel are not harmed by hazardous chemical releases. The suggestions include updating protocols, revising training material, and providing adequate protective equipment for first responders.
Several first responders are suing Arkema saying they were sickened while responding to the fires and chemical releases at the scene. Hundreds of local residents are also suing the company for damages.
Local residents have said they were kept in the dark about what they may have been exposed to during and after the explosions.
Any long-term health effects that might arise from the release of the chemicals are unknown to the board.
"CSB is not a public health organization, so we can't do our own independent evaluation," board member Kristen Kulinowski said Thursday, adding that the board summarized the results of the EPA air monitoring data.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality also are investigating the incident, though their results have not yet been released.
https://www.chron.com/news/science-environment/article/Arkema-officials-were-warned-of-flood-risks-a-12937654.php

Return to headline | Return to top
Arkema Plant Followed Plan in Harvey; More Needed as Storms Worsen

May 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Chris Marr

Global chemical company Arkema SA followed its emergency plan correctly, but even the best industry guidance may not have prevented its Houston-area facility from catching fire during Hurricane Harvey’s unprecedented flooding last year.
That’s what the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, which investigated the accident, concluded in its report released May 24.
The last several years have seen a growing trend of severe rainfall events, and chemical plants must do a better job of preparing, Kristen Kulinowski, a member of the board, told reporters at a news conference in Houston.
“Government experts believe this trend is likely to continue,” she said. “The most valuable lesson is that facilities should plan and plan again.”
Arkema’s Crosby, Texas, facility came under scrutiny when electricity and multiple backup generators failed Aug. 24, 2017, causing volatile chemicals to overheat and catch fire after more than 40 inches of rain fell from Hurricane Harvey.
The company is pleased that the investigation “accurately depicts the unforeseeable nature of the situation Arkema faced during Hurricane Harvey,” Janet Smith, an Arkema spokeswoman, told Bloomberg Environment in a statement.
“The CSB report shows that Arkema had multiple policies and safeguards in place to address the risks associated with hurricanes, that Arkema followed those policies, and that our employees went to extraordinary lengths, under difficult conditions, to maintain safety at our site.”
Arkema is a specialty chemicals and advanced materials company headquartered in France.
Organic Peroxides Ignite
After the Arkema plant lost power and its refrigeration systems, the company’s inventory of organic peroxide decomposed and ignited, sending toxic fumes into the area and requiring the evacuation of 200 residents within a 1.5-mile radius of the facility.
Multiple safety systems were in place to ensure the facility’s organic peroxide products remained cold enough to prevent decomposition and combustion, even if its low-temperature warehouses lost their main power supply, the board found. But the company failed to ensure the safety systems weren’t susceptible to a “common mode of failure,” according to the summary of the report.
Namely, the “same floodwater that caused the facility to lose electrical power also compromised the backup emergency generators, the liquid nitrogen system, and the refrigerated trailers used to temporarily store and cool the organic peroxide products,” the report said.
The safety board doesn’t take enforcement action against companies that have an incident but makes recommendations on improving safety in handling of hazardous chemicals.
Board members called for better industry guidance from the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and Center for Chemical Process Safety.
For example, the existing industry guidance doesn’t call for elevating critical equipment, which would have protected it from the flooding at Arkema’s Crosby facility, according to the report.
The board also renewed its call for the Environmental Protection Agency to revise its accidental release prevention requirements to explicitly address hazards from self-reactive chemicals.
EPA inspectors had last visited the plant in Crosby 14 years before Hurricane Harvey made landfall, Arkema spokesman Stan Howard, and David Gray, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 6 office in Dallas, told Bloomberg Environment in September.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/arkema-plant-followed-plan-in-harvey-more-needed-as-storms-worsen

Return to headline | Return to top
This Administration Must Lead on Cyber

May 25, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Patrick D. Gaul

The recent departure of Tom Bossert, coupled with the announcement that Rob Joyce would be returning to the NSA, leaves a major void in the White House that cannot go unattended.
Cyber represents the single greatest threat to our nation’s economic health over the next decade. We are being subjected to well thought out campaigns designed to infect our critical infrastructure, steal our intellectual property, cause financial chaos whenever possible, and undermine our very democracy.
The harsh reality is that America’s cyber adversaries are creating new norms in cyberspace, and they are doing so without experiencing any significant consequences for their actions.
Recently, United States Cyber Command signaled a potential shift from the previous “Doctrine of Restraint” articulated in the Department of Defense 2015 Cyber Strategy with the release of their new vision statement entitled “Achieve & Maintain Cyberspace Superiority.”
Additionally, to ensure the nation rallies around the notion of “collective defense,” which is being promoted by the Department of Homeland Security, the nation needs a cyber evangelist to guide the administration towards an understanding of the challenges, as well as the potential opportunities to redress the current state of cyber affairs.
The administration needs an executive who understands the value of a public/private partnership that unites the key stakeholders in a unified collaboration designed to change the cyber balance of power.
The cyber crisis facing America over the next decade cannot be met by a single federal agency, nor can our military cyber assets deal with the challenges alone, not when 90 percent of American’s critical infrastructure is privately owned and managed. Dealing with the next decade is going to take a collaboration across all sectors that has not been seen since WWII.
The president must guide this collaboration and to do so effectively, he is going to need an office within his administration that is staffed with the leading thinkers in cybersecurity. They cannot be solely technologists, nor can they be singularly focused on policy. This office needs to be a skunkworks, staffed with cyber technologists, a policy advisor, entrepreneurs, and a diplomatic advisor, all led by an experienced cyber professional who is respected by Congress as well as Silicon Valley.
This is not the time for the administration to retreat from the cyber leadership front. This the time for the administration to be bold, to be innovative, and to clearly announce to the country that this administration owns the Cyber Leadership Role!
Patrick D. Gaul is the Executive Director of the National Technology Security Coalition (NTSC), is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that serves as an advocacy voice for Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) across the nation.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/389278-this-administration-must-lead-on-cyber

Return to headline | Return to top
Industrial 3D Printers: Scant Worker Safety Guidance

May 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sara Merken

The use of 3D printing to make such large-scale projects as houses, and automobile and aerospace parts, may seem like a thing of the future.
But keeping workers involved in this new method of production safe from exposure to raw materials is a problem manufacturing companies face now.
A fire and explosion at a Massachusetts-based 3D printing company in 2013 demonstrate the hazards posed to workers and companies. The Powerpart Inc. explosion—linked to reactive, combustible metal powders used in the 3D print making process—left one worker with third-degree burns, and the company facing tens of thousands of dollars in civil penalties.
The Massachusetts accident is the only enforcement action the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a federal agency charged with workplace safety, has taken related to 3D printers.
But the technology’s rapid expansion in recent years has brought with it more workers potentially exposed to both combustible raw materials and chemical emissions.
There’s more interest than ever in 3D printer hazards, according to Chuck Geraci, associate director for nanotechnology at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
Roughly two-thirds of U.S. manufacturers have adopted 3D printing in some way, according to a PricewaterhouseCoopers survey conducted in 2014.
Yet the lack of mandatory federal standards from OSHA, or even voluntary guidelines from industry, on protecting industrial workers using the emerging technology, has left companies without external guidance.
Some companies that use 3D printers themselves told Bloomberg Environment they have instituted their own robust safety protocols. But others appear to be wanting help, relying on NIOSH, which researches and recommends injury-related prevention methods.Materials Research, Risks
With emerging technologies, engineers and companies don’t often think of safety features first, Arif Sirinterlikci, who teaches industrial and manufacturing engineering at Robert Morris University in Moon, Pa., told Bloomberg Environment.
Manufacturing environments demand safety guidelines and practices for 3D printing such as protective equipment, safe materials handling, emergency equipment shutdown procedures, and fire safety guidelines, according to Charlotte Weber, director and CEO of West Virginia-based Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing.
Sirinterlikci said that companies that have workers using 3D printers need to consider the raw materials that go into the machines, such as the metal powder or dusts that can be combustible or explosive. Metal powders also can irritate eyes, skin, and respiratory tracts, said Weber, whose organization offers equipment use and training for individuals and manufacturers.
Removing oxygen from the environment around the printer would remove the possibility for fires or explosions, Sirinterlikci said. Other safety controls need to include ventilation so workers don’t breathe in chemical emissions.
NIOSH has conducted in recent years both lab and field tests to examine the chemicals emitted from 3D printers, and the effectiveness of existing engineering controls for workers using the tools, Geraci said.
Some large multinational companies, in addition to smaller startups, have invited NIOSH to visit manufacturing sites on a voluntary basis to help the companies understand how to handle the polymer and metal-based chemicals used in the 3D printing process, Geraci said.
Many companies are interested in learning how to control the printer emissions and implement standards and best practices for workers, he added.
Industry Standards Needed
But ahead of any potential federal guidelines, industry-developed standards and best practices are needed, according to Patrick Hedren, vice president of labor, legal and regulatory policy at the National Association of Manufacturers in Washington.
“The use of voluntary industry developed standards will be absolutely crucial in this space,” Hedren said, adding that he expects industry will “find ways to come together by its standards bodies and lay out the basics.”
NAM, according to its website, represents 11,000 manufacturers and about 12 million workers.
Voluntary industry standards could also help shape any potential federal rulemaking, Hedren said.
Underwriter Laboratories Inc., a global independent safety science company, is currently working with a number of researchers, federal agencies and companies to develop such standards for desktop 3D printers. But those standards, aimed at consumers, won’t cover occupational safety for industrial-sized 3D printers.
Another voluntary standards organization, the American National Standards Institute, didn’t respond to requests for comment on whether it was working on any guidelines that would apply to industrial printers.
The processes for handling 3D printers are similar to other industrial processes because they are used in similar environments with moving parts, heated machines, and limited air emissions, Hedren said. And the companies that manufacture 3D printers often train workers on how to avoid potential hazards.
Companies Developing Own Policies
Despite a lack of broadly applicable standards or guidelines, a number of companies are reportedly developing their own internal safety protocols for 3D printers.
Aerospace manufacturer Boeing, for example, created its first internal safety initiative aimed at addressing 3D printing hazards in 2013, according to Amy May, the company’s workplace safety director in Seattle.
Two years later, the company adopted a factory automation safety standard that “requires that all Boeing sites, programs, and functions follow safe machine practices … from concept and testing through to commissioning,” she said.
Other companies have been less forthcoming about their internal worker safety standards for 3D printers.
Sharon Morton, a spokeswoman at General Motors in Detroit, told Bloomberg Environment the company is “focusing that effort with our employees. We are not discussing our safety policies externally.”
General Electric and Toyota Motor Corp., declined to comment on the emerging technology, while the Ford Motor Co. and IBM didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Hedren, meanwhile, reports that many companies have been “borrowing from other regimes” to institute their own best practices for worker safety around 3D printers.
The industry is at an “inflection point where the administration has a chance to do something affirmative to make sure this field can grow with the best practices appropriately,” Hedren said.
This is the second part of a Bloomberg Environment and Bloomberg Law joint series looking at emerging safety standards in the realm of 3D printing.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/industrial-3d-printers-scant-worker-safety-guidance

Return to headline | Return to top

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

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) As Plastic Straw Bans Become Mainstream, Some Fear Pushback from Corporations

May 24, 2018 | Salon

By Nicole Karlis

Plastic straws may be sucking the life out of our ecosystems.
Videos and images of tortoises with plastic straws stuck in their nostrils went viral in the past year, while high-profile conferences like the World Economic Forum say there might be more plastic than fish (in terms of weight) in the oceans by 2050. Plastic straws were among the top 10 items collected during the 2017 International Coastal Cleanup Day. In turn, some conservationists and policymakers have taken a keen interest in the demise of the disposable straw.
Case in point: the city of San Francisco, which has set environmental precedents for the country before (such as with their plastic bag ban), is proposing legislation to ban plastic straws in order to reduce litter in the city’s streets. The proposed initiative would prohibit single-use plastic straws and other plastic foodware such as plastic stir sticks, plastic toothpicks, and plastic splash sticks. The legislation also aims to eliminate persistent toxic fluorinated chemicals from foodware products.
If passed, the ordinance would take effect on July 1, 2019.
"Here in San Francisco, this is quite literally the last plastic straw,” San Francisco Supervisor Katy Tang, who proposed the legislation, said while announcing the news. “We need to step up and do something about our wasteful daily habits when there are other alternatives.”
“Millions of plastic straws are discarded annually and add to the tremendous waste in our society,” Supervisor Ahsha Safaí added. “We need to change people's behavior and provide a reusable option.”
It is worth noting San Francisco is not the only city considering this ordinance—or has already enacted a ban. New York City is eyeing similar legislation. Malibu, Calif., has already banned restaurants from handing out plastic straws and stirrers. Seattle is set to ban plastic straws and utensils. Across the pond, the United Kingdom is also gearing up to prohibit single-use plastics, such as straws. Institutions are following suit, too: Dignity Health has removed plastic straws and stirrers from its 39 hospitals, specifically in their cafeterias (there is an exception for patients).
The idea that consumers need to curb their consumption habits — or that the state needs to nudge them to — has long been part of the ongoing discourse in modern environmentalism. In a way, it is partly a result of consumers being pigeonholed by the oil and gas companies, the conglomerates who are manufacturing plastic. Yet as progressive cities move toward a plastic straw ban, one that will undoubtedly upset some interest groups — McDonald’s has reportedlypushed back already — it raises questions about civic responsibility and corporate responsibility. At what point do we share the responsibility of shifting our behavior with the corporations who manufacture the straws? What happened to systemic change rather than consumer behavior?
Writing in the Guardian, Martin Lukacs eloquently described this incongruity. In his piece “Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals,” Lukacs notes that according to the Carbon Majors Database, 100 companies are responsible for 71 percent of the world’s carbon emissions since 1988. Keeping in that in mind, are consumers bans — rather than industrial regulation — really the answer?
Nicole Kozlowski, the Rise Above Plastics Program Vice Lead of the Surfrider Foundation in San Francisco, said these types of bans do make a positive impact on the environment, yet said that bans are not the one-size-fits-all solution to reducing plastic consumption.
“While these bans are seen as the weight falling on the consumers’ shoulders, it is more of an educational tool,” Kozlowski explained, who is also the co-founder of Wisdom Supply Co, a company that provides sustainable school supplies to teachers. “These statewide bans and legislators act as wide-sweeping public awareness about an issue that not everybody has the opportunity to learn about, and with a material like plastic straws that can’t be recycled, they are clogging storms drains, littering city streets and costing taxpayers in California millions of dollars to clean up and they are ending up on our shores and beaches.”
As Kozlowski explained, the ban is not a ban on straws—instead, it is part of the ongoing effort to prohibit plastic.
“The issue with plastic is that there is too much of it in the system and there is nowhere for it to go,” Kozlowski told Salon.
Mark Murray, Executive Director of Californians Against Waste, echoed Kozlowski’s sentiments about how plastic-straw bans are not about the straws, but about the plastic.
“While reducing the number of one-time-use plastic straws generated daily is an important objective, Supervisor Tang’s proposed ordinance is much more comprehensive than ‘banning straws,” said Mark Murray, Executive Director of Californians Against Waste. “Supervisor Tang’s proposed ordinance would update and expand San Francisco’s already successful local ordinance targeting disposal plastic food service ware. The measure will phase-out the use of most common disposable plastic utensils in favor of recyclable, compostable or reusable items.”
According to a study in the journal Science Advances, an estimated 8300 million metric tons of virgin plastics, those that have not been recycled, have been produced to date. By 2015, approximately 6300 metric tons of plastic waste had been generated; only 9 percent of which had been recycled. Twelve percent was incinerated, and 79 percent was collected in landfills or the natural environment. Plastic is a byproduct of fracking for oil, and as a natural gas, overwhelming evidence suggests it is largely responsible for Earth’s changing climate.
Kozlowski said what it boils down to is a fight against the world’s most powerful companies.
“Oil and gas companies are putting more effort into making more plastic products because they earn a quarter of their profits from the plastic production,” she said. “It is in their best interest to make plastic products cheap.”
These companies are reportedly receiving more investments. According to a report by the Center for International Environmental Law, in April 2016, the American Chemistry Council revealed the chemical industry will spend over $164 billion on 264 new facilities or expansion projects in the United States by 2023.
While consumers will be forced to forgo their straws, the companies manufacturing plastics—or the chemicals needed—are seemingly expanding their operations. Advocates and policymakers are hopeful that consumers bans will have a bottom-up approach to eventually shaking up the corporations that need it.
“I believe that the ban itself will force manufacturers to change their business model – especially as San Francisco is not the only jurisdiction with such proposed legislation,” Tang told Salon. “Manufacturers will need to get on board with the new regulations and a cultural shift in single-use plastic foodware.”
https://www.salon.com/2018/05/24/as-plastic-straw-bans-become-mainstream-some-fear-pushback-from-corporations/

Return to headline | Return to top
Could Your Shampoo Be the New Car Exhaust?

May 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Adam Allington

Shampoo. Air freshener. Countertop cleaner. Nearly everything in your medicine cabinet or under your kitchen sink is a source of air pollution.
Regulators and scientists have known this for years, but recent studies led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration find that gases emitted from these fragrant products could be a greater source of air pollution than previously thought.
One study found that these volatile organic compounds (VOCs), often derived from petrochemicals, now rival cars as a source of air pollution in urban areas. When VOCs mix with nitrogen oxide and sunlight, they create ozone and particulate matter, which can trigger health and respiratory problems, especially for children and the elderly.
“The issue of VOCs is a topic that the entire cosmetics industry is focused on right now,” Kate Babb Shone, vice president of public relations for Paris-based Chanel, told Bloomberg Environment.
“All of our products strictly comply with the international regulations regarding VOCs,” she said. “In addition, most of the sprays we use for our products are natural sprays and we do not use any propellant classified as VOC.”
But not all companies can make the same claim.
“We now see that emissions from personal care products are one of the largest sources of emissions—things like shampoos, deodorants, lotions,” Brian McDonald, lead author of the NOAA study, told Bloomberg Environment. “Followed by coatings like paint, adhesives, printer inks and cleaning products. We’re really just now starting to understand what’s actually in our air, and the variety of sources that contribute to urban air quality.”
Focus Shifts From Cars to Kitchens
Fuel-related exhaust from cars has long been considered the main source of these kinds of air pollutants. But thanks to advances in catalytic converters and improvements in fuel economy, the proportions of human-created VOCs in some urban areas may have changed significantly, McDonald said.
The study, published in the journal Science, found that household products in Los Angeles produced the same amount VOCs as cars in the famously polluted city. That means government regulators are likely underestimating emissions from these products by 60 to 70 percent, while overestimating car emissions by 40 percent, the study found.
VOCs are in a different category of air pollution from greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which is also produced by cars and is a major contributor to climate change.
“In the past, these chemicals were difficult to measure. They’re made to evaporate quickly, and often contain oxygen, which made it difficult for the instrumentation to pick up,” McDonald said. “But the technology has gotten much better over the last 10 years, and we now have a much better idea of what is in the atmosphere.”
Even so, McDonald admits scientists have a lot research and modeling to do before they understand the full environmental effects of different categories of VOCs.
But in cases where the connection is clear, companies have responded quickly to consumer concerns—as was the case with chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in hairspray, or by swapping out petrochemicals for latex in paint, McDonald said.
Consumer Product Groups: VOCs Decreasing
Trade associations speaking on behalf of consumer product manufacturers points out that many companies have already reformulated their products to be more environmentally friendly.
“One thing not fully addressed in these recent studies is that VOCs in consumer products have been regulated and reduced alongside automobile sources, if not more so,” said Steve Bennett, vice president of scientific affairs for the Household and Commercial Products Association.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed the country’s first VOCs emissions standard for aerosol-based antiperspirants and deodorants in 1989.
Since then, the EPA also passed national limits on VOC’s in 1998 as part of its mandate under the Clean Air Act. The limits apply to products including air freshener, glass cleaners, insecticides, and many others. States are also free to set their own VOC regulations, as long as they don’t fall below the limits set by the EPA.
“In fact, the CARB regulations are much more rigorous the VOC limits laid out in the current EPA national regulation,” Bennett said.
Bennett maintains that the CARB rules essentially function as a national standard for most companies, and the rules are continually strengthened and expanded to cover other products as well.
The agency recently completed a survey of more than 400 categories of consumer products sold in California between 2013 and 2015. CARB plans to release the 2013 and 2014 results in the next few weeks. The 2015 survey results are expected this fall.
Eco-Friendly at a Cost
In recent years programs have emerged to help companies choose ingredients with a greener chemical and emissions footprint—programs such as the EPA’s Safer Choice and GreenBlue’s CleanGredients labeling programs.
Both programs test and pre-certify chemicals for low toxicity, health-hazard and pollution risk. But getting chemicals on the list also comes at significant cost.
“Everybody’s looking for ways to say that your product is made from natural ingredients,” said David Leonard, director of research and development for Lemi Shine, a cleaning products manufacturer based in Austin, Texas.
Leonard told Bloomberg Environment that many of the natural oils and extracts that go into fragrances are more expensive than synthetic ingredients. And even the synthetic chemicals approved by CleanGredients or Safer Choice aren’t equally available in the marketplace.
“If a chemical gets listed on CleanGredients, Dow or BASF, they’re going to pass those certification costs on to us,” he said. “But someone like Procter & Gamble is going to pay less per pound, because they’re buying chemicals by the barge, when all I can afford is one drum.”
The Safer Choice program has been targeted for cuts by the Trump administration, but industry groups have vowed to fight to keep it.
Emissions Higher in Rush Hour
Another recent study, published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, found that emissions of D5 Siloxane, short for decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, actually spike during rush hour commuting times.
D5 Siloxane is a VOC often added to personal care products like shampoos and lotions to give them a smooth, silky feeling.
“By using D5 as a marker, we were able to detect emissions patterns in Boulder, Colo., that coincide with human activity,” said Matthew Coggon, a University of Colorado scientist working with the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory.
“People apply these products in the morning and then leave for work. So emissions spike during commuting hours,” he told Bloomberg Environment.
The European Union has deemed D5 as hazardous under its REACH chemical regulation. After a multi-year review, Canada concluded that “D5 is not entering the environment in a quantity or under conditions that constitute a danger to the environment.”
D5 is not regulated in the U.S. D4 Siloxane, however, also used extensively in cosmetics and silicone polymers, is subject to an Enforceable Consent Agreement in which manufacturers are subject to testing to determine whether the chemical is showing up in the environment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/could-your-shampoo-be-the-new-car-exhaust

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested