Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 28/08/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Feed Additive and Ag Sector to Suffer 'Irreparable Impact' from Trade Tariffs - Sources
Aug 28, 2018 | Agrimoney.com
The American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Adisseo, China Vitamins and a number of other industry players have ... -
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Activity Flat in August
Aug 28, 2018 | ICIS
By David Haydon
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB) had a flat reading month on month in August, the ACC said on Tuesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chinese Tariffs on US Recyclables Go Into Effect
Aug 28, 2018 | Resource Recycling
By Jared Paben and Colin Staub
The U.S. and China have fired their latest salvo in their ongoing trade war, and this time tariffs have been applied to a number of additional U.S. recyclables. -
Pentagon Challenges 'Secret Science' Proposal
Aug 28, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Add the Defense Department to the ranks of those expressing concern about EPA's plans to restrict the use of scientific research in writing new regulations. -
Ewire: GOP Braces for Post-Midterm Democratic Oversight
Aug 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
If Democrats regain control of the House after November's midterms, perhaps the chief spoils of their electoral victory could be summed up in one word: oversight. -
EPA Issues Two Direct Final Rules Promulgating SNURs for 29 Chemicals
Aug 28, 2018 | The National Law Review
On August 27, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued two direct final rules promulgating significant new use rules (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Raises Legal Warnings Over ATSDR's Strict Draft PFAS Findings
Aug 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Industry and business groups are questioning the science used by a federal health agency to derive draft toxicity values for four perfluorinated chemicals, two of which adopt more conservative values than those developed by EPA, and warning that the values may be vulnerable to legal challenges. -
The Farm Bill Should Better Protect America’s Drinking Water
Aug 28, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Colin O'Neil
America’s drinking water is under threat from a formidable foe: polluted farm runoff, which contaminates the tap water supplies for millions of people, especially in rural areas. -
FEC Employees Fear They Were Exposed to Asbestos
Aug 28, 2018 | Center for Public Integrity (In E&E Greenwire)
By Dave Levinthal
Federal Election Commission employees who worked in the agency's Washington office during the mid-1990s are worried about possible exposure to asbestos. -
Ala. Store Mixed Weedkiller into Free Popcorn
Aug 28, 2018 | AL.com (In E&E Greenwire)
By Leada Gore
Customers at an Alabama store may have gotten an unexpected dose of the herbicide glyphosate with their free popcorn Sunday, according to the Alabama Department of Public Health. -
New Minn. Senator Pushes Storage Bill
Aug 28, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
Minnesota Democratic Sen. Tina Smith introduced legislation last week that she says would increase the country's energy storage capabilities. -
In the LOOP: US Crude Exports in a Lull Following Record-Breaking Summer
Aug 28, 2018 | Platts
By Laura Huchzermeyer
US crude oil exports let up in recent weeks after reaching a record-breaking 3 million b/d in June, federal data show. -
Billionaire's Gas Plant Petition Sparks Calif. Capacity Fight
Aug 28, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
A California natural gas plant owned by a billionaire donor to President Trump is asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to order the state to create a capacity market. -
Natural Gas Leak Blamed for Coffee Shop Explosion
Aug 28, 2018 | St. Louis Post-Dispatch (In E&E Greenwire)
An explosion in Georgia that destroyed a coffee shop and injured three people was caused by natural gas leaking into a sewer line, authorities said. -
(ACC Mentioned) Critics Vow Suit Over EPA's RMP Rollback Plan, Citing Scrapped Delay Rule
Aug 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists and Democratic-led states are threatening to sue EPA if the agency does not drop its plan to roll back the Obama-era rule strengthening the agency's facility accident prevention program, citing the recent appellate ruling vacating EPA's measure delaying the rule's implementation. -
Managing Change to Drive Chemical Process Safety Management
Aug 28, 2018 | Manufacturing.net
By Greg Duncan
It seems as if almost every few months, there’s another story in the news about a tragic accident at a petroleum or chemical processing facility. -
Washington to Finally Focus on Threat to Supply-Chain Risk Management
Aug 28, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Ernesto DiGiambattista
Policymakers in Washington have recently begun to consider measures that take aim at supply-chain risk management (SCRM). -
PG&E Taking Action After FERC Fine for Cybersecurity Breach
Aug 28, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
San Francisco-based Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) acknowledged Monday that it has been taking corrective action following a $2.7 million fine by FERC for a 2016 lapse that left critical confidential information exposed on the internet for more than two months. -
FRA Awards $203 Million for Positive Train Control Installation
Aug 28, 2018 | Transport Topics Online
The Federal Railroad Administration recently awarded more than $200 million to support 28 projects that aim to deploy positive train control systems in 15 states. -
Cascades Route Will Have PTC by Dec. 31, Amtrak and WSDOT Say
Aug 28, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
Amtrak and Washington state transportation officials anticipate a positive train control (PTC) system will be installed on the Amtrak Cascades corridor — including the Point Defiance Bypass — prior to the federal Dec. 31 deadline. -
EPA Asks Supreme Court Not to Take Up Case on Planet-Warming Chemicals
Aug 28, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doesn’t want the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of a court ruling that overturned the agency’s limits on certain Earth-warming chemicals used in air conditioners. -
Cities Ask Appeals Court to Revive Lawsuit Against Big Oil
Aug 28, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
Two California cities are asking an appeals court to reverse a judge's dismissal of lawsuits that sought to make oil companies pay for climate change damages. -
Normal Exposure to Air Pollution Shaves the Equivalent of One Year of Education from Memory: Study
Aug 28, 2018 | The Washington Examiner
By Anna Giaritelli
Exposure to air pollution has been linked to a "huge" decrease in brain function and is a direct cause of reduced mental capacity in people, according to a new study by an American scientific journal. -
Sizzling Weather May Help 2018 U.N. Climate Talks in Poland
Aug 28, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Agnieszka Barteczko
Sizzling weather this summer will put pressure on almost 200 governments to reach a deal in Poland in December on the details of a global plan to limit climate change, the incoming president of the U.N. talks said. -
French Environment Minister Quits with Criticism of Macron
Aug 28, 2018 | The Washington Post
By James McAuley
French President Emmanuel Macron’s reputation as a leading climate change activist suffered a blow Tuesday with the abrupt resignation of his environment minister.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Aug 28, 2018 | Agrimoney.com
The American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Adisseo, China Vitamins and a number of other industry players have ...
§ Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here:
https://www.agrimoney.com/login?Login=In&RefDoc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eagrimoney%2Ecom%2Fcompanies%2Fus-feed-additive-and-ag-sector-to-suffer-irreparable-impact-from-trade-tariffs---sources-68642
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Activity Flat in August
Aug 28, 2018 | ICIS
By David Haydon
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB) had a flat reading month on month in August, the ACC said on Tuesday.
The CAB reading of 122.14 on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis continued a trend described by the ACC as “general softening” since the first quarter.Source: American Chemistry Council (ACC)
US commercial and industrial activity are seeing gains based on August data, likely well into the first quarter 2019. The ACC noted gains are at a slower pace as growth has turned over.
Of the CAB’s primary components (production, equity prices, product prices, inventories), production and inventory indicators were positive in August. Equity prices and product and input prices which were mixed, the ACC said.
The CAB is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/08/28/10254604/us-chemical-activity-flat-in-august/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chinese Tariffs on US Recyclables Go Into Effect
Aug 28, 2018 | Resource Recycling
By Jared Paben and Colin Staub
The U.S. and China have fired their latest salvo in their ongoing trade war, and this time tariffs have been applied to a number of additional U.S. recyclables.
On Aug. 23, each country began imposing new rounds of penalties on $16 billion worth of each other’s goods. Among the hundreds of categories of products, this latest round included China’s 25 percent tariff on OCC, recovered paper, scrap plastics and various recovered metals. Chinese authorities released the list earlier this month.
According to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), U.S. aluminum and steel scrap sent to China now has a 50 percent tariff on it. China on Aug. 23 bumped it up from 25 percent to 50 percent. China first imposed a tariff on recovered aluminum in early April.
U.S. export statistics show penalties on aluminum scrap correlate with a decrease in shipments to China, but not a complete stoppage. U.S. aluminum exports, not counting used beverage containers (UBCs), averaged 65,000 short tons per month from January through April. In May, the first full month after the 25 percent tariff had kicked in, they dropped to 44,000 short tons. In June, they were at their lowest volume for the year, 41,000 short tons.
UBC exports were much lower overall — exporters sent 381 short tons to China during the first six months of the year.
The Aug. 23 tariffs also included, for the first time, virgin resin produced in the U.S. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has been speaking out in opposition to chemicals and plastics tariffs, according to Plastics News.What could be next
China now has U.S. pulp in its sights, among many other products. It has drafted a list of tariffs on 5,000 product codes, with the duties targeting about $60 billion in U.S. goods. That list included pulp from virgin and recycled sources.
For chemicals and plastics, that list could be even more painful than the Aug. 23 one, according to the ACC. The $60 billion list is in response to the Trump Administration’s proposed 25 percent tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. This round could go into effect starting in September.
Bloomberg and Reuters both reported that talks between the countries haven’t yielded significant progress, making another round of tariffs more likely.
https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/08/28/chinese-tariffs-on-us-recyclables-go-into-effect/
-
Pentagon Challenges 'Secret Science' Proposal
Aug 28, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Add the Defense Department to the ranks of those expressing concern about EPA's plans to restrict the use of scientific research in writing new regulations.
"While we agree that public access to information is very important, we do not believe that failure of the agency to obtain a publication's underlying data from an author external to the agency should negate its use," Patricia Underwood, a senior Pentagon official in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment, wrote in recent comments on the EPA proposal.
Because it's "improbable" EPA would always be able to obtain such underlying data, Underwood added, "this should not impede the use of otherwise high-quality studies."
The proposed rule — "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" — would generally limit EPA to using studies for which the underlying research data "are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation," according to the text.
In unveiling the plan this spring, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt touted it as a confidence booster in agency decisionmaking.
Critics view that premise as a smokescreen for thwarting consideration of research that would help justify stricter regulations.
After Pruitt resigned last month under White House pressure, an array of advocacy groups opposed to the proposed rule have urged acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to scrap it (Greenwire, Aug. 15).
In an interview last month, Wheeler told E&E News he would take "a hard look" at the proposal but added that he believed "the more information we put out to the public as far as what we're basing our regulations on, the better our regulations will be" (Greenwire, July 13).
The Defense Department, the largest federal agency when measured by its budget and the size of its civilian workforce, is also a prime sponsor of scientific research.
Underwood's comments were among more than a half-million that EPA received on the proposed rule by an Aug. 16 deadline; they were added late last week to the online docket on the Regulations.gov website.
Under the draft rule, the EPA administrator could grant exceptions to the data access requirements under specified conditions.
Alongside a host of more technical concerns with the draft rule, Underwood urged EPA to allow for such exemptions when "underlying study data may be difficult to obtain from authors outside the agency."
She also suggested that EPA "grandfather" existing analyses unless those studies "are being updated or challenged."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/28/stories/1060095357
-
Ewire: GOP Braces for Post-Midterm Democratic Oversight
Aug 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
If Democrats regain control of the House after November's midterms, perhaps the chief spoils of their electoral victory could be summed up in one word: oversight.
Republicans are already “getting ready for hell” in such a scenario in which Democratic committee chairmen unleash a torrent of investigations into all aspects of the White House and Trump administration, according to a report in Axios, including several EPA matters.
The report cites a spreadsheet prepared by congressional Republicans cataloging over 100 pending Democratic oversight requests, including many issues directly tied to President Donald Trump, close aides and family.
The story specifically mentions a possible inquiry into “dismissal of members of the EPA board of scientific counselors,” (BOSC) though there likely would be several other EPA-related probes.
The document has “churned Republican stomachs,” Axios writes, adding that the demands would “turn the Trump White House into a 24/7 legal defense operation” and quoting knowledgeable lawyers saying administration officials are “nowhere near prepared for the investigatory onslaught that awaits them.”
In addition to the BOSC dismissals, Democrats have been critical of several changes to other science advisory panels under former Administrator Scott Pruitt, including a new policy preventing those who received EPA grants from serving on the influential Science Advisory Board.
Other high-profile issues mentioned in the Axios report are Trump's tax returns, the president's dealings with Russia, Cabinet secretary travel and office expenses, hurricane response in Puerto Rico and immigration issues.
While many Democratic oversight requests over the past several months focused on a range of scandals engulfing Pruitt -- and thus might be moot since Pruitt resigned several weeks ago -- minority lawmakers have also sought information on a range of other issues.
Among the topics Inside EPA has chronicled are a July 24 letter from Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) and five colleagues raising concerns EPA might weaken its proposed framework for reviewing new chemicals under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act; as well as Rep. Elijah Cummings' (D-MD) July 15 letter sharply criticizing EPA's approach to responding to Freedom of Information Act requests.
Cummings would be in line to be chairman of the House oversight committee if Democrats take control of the House next year.
Other pending requests include a May letter from House Energy & Commerce Committee Democrats questioning industry influence to stall an Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) study of four PFAS chemicals, including some risk estimates stricter than EPA's.
Additionally, Energy & Commerce panel ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and other Democrats in April asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate EPA's enforcement policy, arguing various Trump EPA efforts will undercut enforcement.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-gop-braces-post-midterm-democratic-oversight
-
EPA Issues Two Direct Final Rules Promulgating SNURs for 29 Chemicals
Aug 28, 2018 | The National Law Review
On August 27, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued two direct final rules promulgating significant new use rules (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The first direct final rule promulgates SNURs for ten chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN). 83 Fed. Reg. 43527. The second direct final rule promulgates SNURs for 19 chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. 83 Fed. Reg. 43538. In each rule, EPA notes that the chemical substances are subject to consent orders issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA Section 5(e). The direct final rules require persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification will initiate EPA’s evaluation of the intended use within the applicable review period. Persons may not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination. Both direct final rules will be effective on October 26, 2018. Written adverse comments on one or more of the SNURs must be received by September 26, 2018. If EPA receives written adverse comments, on one or more of these SNURs before September 26, 2018, EPA will withdraw the relevant sections of the direct final rules before their effective date. In addition to the direct final rules, EPA published proposed rules for both the direct final rules. 83 Fed. Reg. 43606, 83 Fed. Reg. 43607. Comments on the proposed rules are due September 26, 2018.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-issues-two-direct-final-rules-promulgating-snurs-29-chemicals
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Raises Legal Warnings Over ATSDR's Strict Draft PFAS Findings
Aug 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Industry and business groups are questioning the science used by a federal health agency to derive draft toxicity values for four perfluorinated chemicals, two of which adopt more conservative values than those developed by EPA, and warning that the values may be vulnerable to legal challenges.
But environmentalists are generally applauding the findings although they say the agency should address the chemicals as a class, while some states are asking for more clarity and advice on how the values should be applied.
The varied reactions from major industry and environmental groups respond to the much-anticipated June 21 release of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR) draft toxicological profile evaluating 14 per- and polyflouroalkyl substances (PFAS), and setting minimum risk levels (MRLs) for four of them. ATSDR accepted comment on the document through Aug. 20.
How the draft values are to be used is a key question raised by states in their comments, coming after much criticism from lawmakers, environmentalists and others when it was uncovered earlier this year that ATSDR's draft risk levels were much more stringent than the risk levels underpinning EPA's health advisory for two PFAS in drinking water set in 2016.
While states are questioning how the risk levels should be applied in the face of varying risk numbers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Aug. 20 comments goes so far as to suggest that any agency action relying on ATSDR's analysis could face "legal invalidation" because they would be considered "arbitrary and capricious."
"The Draft Profile relies on flaws and incomplete data that does not justify its conclusions," the Chamber says.
At the same time, environmentalists are commending ATSDR's work but say it should go even further. Environmental Working Group (EWG), which has long called for strict drinking water levels for PFAS, says the profile is a step in the right direction, "albeit a step that does not go far enough." It calls on ATSDR to establish health guidance for the entire class of shorter-chain PFAS, as they replace long-chain PFAS that have been phased out.
ATSDR released the draft profile in the face of significant criticism from lawmakers and others after Inside EPA and other news outlets reported EPA and other Trump administration officials had urged the White House to block the document because it sought more conservative values for two PFAS than EPA had used when setting its advisory levels.
ATSDR eventually released the draft report -- its third iteration of the tox profile -- for comment but sought to downplay potential health concerns from exposures above its limits, cautioning the public not to read its levels as cleanup or health effects standards.
The draft profile proposes MRLs -- an estimate of the level of a chemical a person can be exposed to daily without a detectable non-cancer health risk -- for four PFAS. Most notably, its draft levels for "intermediate" duration oral exposures for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) are between seven and 10 times stricter than EPA risk estimates underlying its 2016 drinking water health advisories for lifetime chronic exposure to the two PFAS.
ATSDR based its draft risk level for PFOS, at 2x10^-6 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day), on developmental effects, but added in an additional "modifying factor of 10" to account for immunotoxicity risks, indicating a possibly more sensitive endpoint than developmental toxicity. And the health agency derived its draft PFOA level -- an oral MRL of 3x10^-6 mg/kg/day -- using different studies than EPA relied on, including a 2011 behavioral study by Onishchenko et al. and a 2016 study by Koskela et al. -- which was published after EPA released its risk assessment.
Risk Values
But industry parties take ATSDR to task for the science it used in developing the risk values. On PFOS, the Chamber disputes the use of an uncertainty factor of 10 in deriving the MRL "to account for potential immunological effects associated with" the chemical. "The 10-fold factor is arbitrary and has not been justified," it says. It notes EPA in deriving its water advisory level for PFOS did not include such an uncertainty factor for possible immunological effects.
In addition, industry is questioning ATSDR's decision to rely on rodent studies, given differences between human and rodent physiology.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents the chemical industry, says in Aug. 20 comments that the profile includes several assumptions it questions for deriving the MRLs. "Among our concerns are the choice of studies used to define adverse effects relevant to humans, the methods used to predict exposures in humans, and the use of uncertainty factors in the evaluation of risk," it says. ACC says the agency overstates the persistence of three of the PFAS in humans and should withdraw the profile and subject it to formal peer review.
Other industry parties as well as the American Water Works Association (AWWA), which represents a wide variety of drinking water utilities, question ATSDR's use of a study to set the PFOA MRL that relied on a single dosing level, making the MRL flawed. "This study only evaluated effects in animals at a single dosing level, making it impossible to confirm that there was a positive-dose response attributable to PFOA exposures," the Chamber says.
AWWA argues that it is "very difficult for water systems to explain the risks and cost consequences of managing PFAS to customers using the Toxicological Profile as currently drafted." Water systems, the public and regulators will view the final MRLs "as 'bright line' thresholds rather than utilize the much more carefully caveated" profile, it says.
It advises ATSDR to review the MRLs to ensure they are supported by the weight of evidence and develop a communications strategy that provides context for using the MRLs. AWWA says ATSDR should also work with other agencies and be certain its approach matches EPA's risk management framework, in particular criticizing ATSDR's use of a 10x "modifying" factor for immunotoxicity in calculating the PFOS provisional MRL.
In addition, industry attorney James Votaw in Aug. 20 comments submitted on behalf of the Responsible Science Policy Coalition, criticizes ATSDR for allegedly failing to follow National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) advice for conducting human health assessments. The comments do not describe what entities comprise the coalition. "ATSDR's draft profile relies on associational studies that suffer from inconsistency, incoherency, and fail to establish cause-and-effect relationships." As such, if it would have followed NAS' National Research Council recommendations on conducting systematic review and evidence integration, it would have reached different conclusions, the coalition says.
The coalition also raises the issue facing state regulators right now over whether to follow ATSDR or EPA's risk levels, with the group arguing that if ATSDR had collaborated with other agencies, it could have avoided the current situation where two different federal agencies are backing safe levels of PFAS that differ by an order of magnitude.
States' Comments
States, in their comments, signal a need for direction, although New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) warns that it is not widely known that ATSDR's tox profiles do not provide health-based guidelines for drinking water. The state says ATSDR, to avoid public confusion, should "clearly explain that it does not develop guidelines for drinking water or other environmental media" in its profiles.
Nevertheless, New Jersey regulators are generally commending ATSDR for improving the technical quality of its profile, adopting many of the suggestions the state made on a 2015 version, according to Aug. 15 comments. ATSDR's draft risk levels generally correlate with levels recommended by science advisors to New Jersey's environment agency.
Specifically, NJDEP says it backs ATSDR's conclusion "that sensitive toxicological endpoints from rodent studies should be used as the basis for MRL development for these perfluoroalkyls." But NJDEP says it differs with ATSDR in its conclusion "that increased liver weight and hepatocellular hypertrophy in rodents should not be used as the basis for risk assessment of perfluoroalkyls."
But other states are seeking clarity, with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Patrick McDonnell asking ATSDR to work with EPA to "(d)evelop guidance for state drinking water programs, public water systems, and the public regarding [health advisory levels, MRLs,] toxicity values, and reference doses so that the public understands how the values are used." He also asks it to prioritize addressing multiple PFAS compounds as groups.
Michigan's multi-agency action team focused on addressing PFAS -- known as the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team -- in Aug. 17 comments says while it supports the rationale for the new MRLs, it is concerned that their application has not been addressed by EPA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "While this is beyond the content of a Toxicological Profile, additional guidance from the ATSDR would be beneficial on use of the MRLs and resulting drinking water comparison values, especially with the context of other federal agency values," the team says, making an allusion to EPA's much less conservative risk values used to set its 70 parts per trillion health advisory for combined PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), meanwhile, supports ATSDR's decision to derive the MRLs from more sensitive health endpoints for PFOA and PFOS than were used in the agency's 2015 draft profile and in EPA's drinking water health advisories for the two chemicals. "The acknowledgment of PFOA- and PFOS- associated immune and developmental effects more accurately reflects current data on PFOA and PFOS and results in MRLs that are more protective of human health," NRDC says.
"These new MRL values suggest that current advisory and regulatory levels for PFOA and PFOS are much too permissive and do not protect human health."
Further, NRDC suggests recalculating the PFOS MRL using the most sensitive endpoint -- immunotoxicity -- to protect from the effects of the chemical on the immune system saying that while ATSDR expresses concern that immunotoxicity is a more sensitive endpoint for this substance than developmental toxicity, "it does not derive its MRL from this endpoint."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-raises-legal-warnings-over-atsdrs-strict-draft-pfas-findings
-
The Farm Bill Should Better Protect America’s Drinking Water
Aug 28, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Colin O'Neil
America’s drinking water is under threat from a formidable foe: polluted farm runoff, which contaminates the tap water supplies for millions of people, especially in rural areas.
About 1,700 public water systems across the country are contaminated with levels of nitrate – a chemical in commercial fertilizers and manure – that exceed what the National Cancer Institute says increases the risk of colon, kidney, ovarian and bladder cancers.
Meanwhile, outbreaks of potentially toxic algae, fueled by runoff from farms, are rising sharply this summer in lakes, rivers and streams nationwide, according to EWG’s ongoing tracking of algae outbreaks.
Headlines – like this one on Aug. 2 from KSN News in Wichita, Kansas: “12 Kansas lakes under public health warning due to blue-green algae” – are appearing all too often in places across the country that rely on lakes, rivers and streams as sources of drinking water.
In response to the growing threats to drinking water posed by agriculture, more than 50 national and local environmental and water groups sent a letter Tuesday to Congress’ Farm Bill Conference Committee in support of simple changes that would ensure that the farm bill places a greater emphasis on protecting sources of drinking water.
According to EWG’s analysis of conservation spending, too little funding through major agricultural conservation programs is going to the most effective conservation practices, and too much is going to the least effective practices.
One provision highlighted in the letter that was included in the Senate-passed farm bill would allow states to provide additional cost-sharing to farmers through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program if they adopt practices that are highly effective at preventing farm pollution from entering sources of drinking water.
Another provision would direct the Agriculture Department to ensure that a certain number of acres along rivers, lakes and streams are enrolled in through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which establishes buffer zones of trees and grasses along rivers and streams through federal-state agreements.
Together, the simple changes recommended in both the House and Senate farm bills could significantly lessen the threats that agriculture poses to drinking water across the country. But without meaningful reform, the drinking water hazards facing millions of Americans will only stand to get worse.
https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2018/08/farm-bill-should-better-protect-america-s-drinking-water#.W4V7Oc4za6I
-
FEC Employees Fear They Were Exposed to Asbestos
Aug 28, 2018 | Center for Public Integrity (In E&E Greenwire)
By Dave Levinthal
Federal Election Commission employees who worked in the agency's Washington office during the mid-1990s are worried about possible exposure to asbestos.
An asbestos remediation notice was taped to the former headquarters' entrance recently.
National Treasury Employees Union officials said that employees remember interior construction happening during the 1990s. They said they are concerned that asbestos, which is a carcinogen, could have been released into the air.
"FEC employees and retirees are understandably anxious and deserve a complete accounting of any asbestos-related work that was done during the time the agency was leasing the facility," said the union's national president, Tony Reardon. "Workplace safety is of utmost importance to NTEU and the employees we represent, and we intend to help them get answers to their questions and concerns."
There is currently no evidence that any FEC employee or previous employee was exposed to asbestos.
"The commission is committed to safeguarding the health of FEC staff and has asked management to put union representatives in touch with the General Services Administration, which serves as the FEC's property manager," FEC spokeswoman Judith Ingram said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/28/stories/1060095317
-
Ala. Store Mixed Weedkiller into Free Popcorn
Aug 28, 2018 | AL.com (In E&E Greenwire)
By Leada Gore
Customers at an Alabama store may have gotten an unexpected dose of the herbicide glyphosate with their free popcorn Sunday, according to the Alabama Department of Public Health.
Glyphosate, a weedkiller, was unintentionally mixed in with popcorn oil at a Rural King store in Muscle Shoals.
The exposure was "limited in scope," according to the health agency. Up to 40 people are believed to have taken the popcorn.
"According to scientific literature, this is a very self-limiting situation with acute exposure and no long-term effects. Symptoms are likely to have been resolved already, and no antidote is required," District Medical Officer Dr. Karen Landers said.
The glyphosate formulation includes other ingredients that can cause symptoms such as increased saliva, burns in the mouth and throat, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, according to ADPH officials.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/28/stories/1060095321
-
New Minn. Senator Pushes Storage Bill
Aug 28, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
Minnesota Democratic Sen. Tina Smith introduced legislation last week that she says would increase the country's energy storage capabilities.
The "Advancing Grid Storage Act," S. 3376, would authorize $500 million over five years to better coordinate Department of Energy storage research and fund grants to local governments or private entities.
"Expanding the nation's energy storage capabilities will not only help expand use of renewables like wind and solar energy but will contribute to our nation's energy and economic security," Smith said in a statement.
"This bill will help to significantly improve our nation's efforts to store energy, and jump start energy storage research and the deployment of energy storage technologies," she said.
Co-sponsors include Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Angus King (I-Maine).
Broad reform legislation championed by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), S. 1460, includes a section on storage.
Click here for a summary of Smith's bill.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060095305
-
In the LOOP: US Crude Exports in a Lull Following Record-Breaking Summer
Aug 28, 2018 | Platts
By Laura Huchzermeyer
US crude oil exports let up in recent weeks after reaching a record-breaking 3 million b/d in June, federal data show.
Some 1.2 million b/d of crude oil was exported by the US in the week that ended August. 17, according to the US Energy Information Administration. The US has not loaded less barrels for export since the week that ended January 5.
While that is a relatively low level in 2018 terms, it is a more than 23% increase from the same week in 2017, when 936,000 b/d was exported.
Traders say several factors are contributing to the recent drop in US exports. A narrowing spread between Brent and WTI during much of July, a strengthening dollar, trade tensions between the US and China and increased domestic demand have all contributed to fewer cargoes loading for export, they say.
“Some deals are getting done,” one US crude broker said. “Just not as many.”
US crude market sources say the export market has been rather quiet in recent weeks and report that “the arbitrage closed.”
The front-month Brent-WTI swaps spread, an indicator of US crudes’ competitiveness on the global market, narrowed sharply after reaching what were very wide levels historically in June.
The 30-day rolling average of the Brent-WTI swaps spread was $6.35/b Monday, compared with an average $7.95/b spread during the previous 30 days.
As a result, fewer US crude barrels are being loaded for export at the moment, sources said. But that can change quickly.
China, which is one of the biggest buyers of US crude, recently hit the pause button on taking crudes such as West Texas Intermediate, Eagle Ford and Domestic Sweet Blend.
China’s top buyer, Unipec, purchased nearly 16 million barrels of light sweet US crude in June, but threats of tariffs on crude dropped Chinese buying to nearly zero in July and are expected to decline through August.
Recent reports that Unipec will continue to source US crude despite trade tensions may impact prices this fall, traders said. Several sources said that Chinese buying of US grades will start to resume in October.
“They are itching to get back in,” one US crude trader said.
Others in the market have seemed to be taking a wait-and-see attitude regarding increased buying from China.
“[There are] lots of rumors around,” one Gulf Coast crude broker said. “I guess it will be something to keep an eye on.”
http://blogs.platts.com/2018/08/28/loop-us-crude-exports-lull-following-record-breaking-summer/
-
Billionaire's Gas Plant Petition Sparks Calif. Capacity Fight
Aug 28, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
A California natural gas plant owned by a billionaire donor to President Trump is asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to order the state to create a capacity market.
In a request that critics say is a plea for an unnecessary bailout, the La Paloma gas plant near Bakersfield — purchased by Texas banker Daniel Beal in a bankruptcy proceeding in December — said the rise of renewables in California, bolstered by state policy, had created an unjust and unreasonable market where "flexible" resources like natural gas are needed more often but compensated less.
To fix that problem, the June filing asked FERC to tell the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the state's grid operator, to create a formal, centralized capacity market.
The capacity market construct — used in other parts of the country, including New England, New York, the Midwest and the PJM Interconnection region — involves payments from grid operators to power generators for their capacity to produce power in the future rather than for the energy they produce on a day-to-day basis.
The Electric Power Supply Association jumped in to support La Paloma's complaint last week. "As currently structured, this regime is not providing financial incentives to guide orderly investment in and entry into the market by resources with needed attributes, or exit from the market by resources without those attributes," EPSA wrote.
EPSA and La Paloma argued that California's "patchwork" of short-term capacity procurement mechanisms is not an adequate solution.
But also last week, in a flurry of filings that came before a Friday comment deadline, the grid operator, the state's public utility commission, environmental groups and consumer advocates disagreed.
The California Public Utilities Commission said La Paloma's argument did not demonstrate that the current capacity planning process is unjust or unreasonable. And it said FERC should not create a formal capacity market over the objections of the state.
"La Paloma presents no evidence that the current CAISO tariff is unlawful. La Paloma's complaint instead focuses on the issue of 'inadequate revenue for generation resources' either existing in the market or to motivate new entry, and the alleged effects of California's renewables policies," the CPUC wrote.
"There are no issues with reliability or adequate generation resources in California now or in future forecasts," its filing continued.
A coalition of environmental groups including the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council weighed in, too.
"La Paloma proposes an alternative that would displace California from its traditional and Congressionally-reserved role as regulator of the in-state generation mix, and would result in unjust and unreasonable rates by forcing customers to pay for unneeded capacity," they wrote.
And consumer advocacy group Public Citizen drew attention to the fact that Beal, who donated more than $3 million to Trump's campaign, purchased the plant in December.
Its filing noted that Beal is a "math genius" who has a track record of acquiring undervalued or underperforming assets and making them profitable.
"Which is why Mr. Beal's ... complaint is so unusual: blaming market dynamics for the underperformance of a newly-acquired asset appears to be an admission that he badly miscalculated the risk associated with La Paloma — otherwise, he wouldn't need the aggressive and emergency intervention of the federal government to bail out his new acquisition," wrote Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen's energy program director.
"It is not the job of ratepayers to bail out an uneconomic asset because the owner misjudged their ability to manage risk. All of the market dynamics La Paloma laments in its complaint were in existence long before Mr. Beal made the decision to emerge as the sole owner of La Paloma," Slocum continued.
This proceeding is not the only time that FERC has been asked to weigh in on state renewable energy policies in recent months; the agency has made contentious recent decisions on capacity markets in both PJM and New England (Energywire, July 2).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/28/stories/1060095343
-
Natural Gas Leak Blamed for Coffee Shop Explosion
Aug 28, 2018 | St. Louis Post-Dispatch (In E&E Greenwire)
An explosion in Georgia that destroyed a coffee shop and injured three people was caused by natural gas leaking into a sewer line, authorities said.
A construction crew that was putting in fiber optic cable in Homerville punctured an underground natural gas line, said Glenn Allen, a spokesman for Georgia Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner Ralph Hudgens.
The gas leaked into the coffee shop's sewer line, where the gas built up and then ignited Friday.
Two employees and a customer were airlifted to a hospital in Florida.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/28/stories/1060095327
-
(ACC Mentioned) Critics Vow Suit Over EPA's RMP Rollback Plan, Citing Scrapped Delay Rule
Aug 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists and Democratic-led states are threatening to sue EPA if the agency does not drop its plan to roll back the Obama-era rule strengthening the agency's facility accident prevention program, citing the recent appellate ruling vacating EPA's measure delaying the rule's implementation.
“If acting EPA Administrator Wheeler won’t scrap this reckless erosion of New Yorkers’ health and safety protections, we’re prepared to take legal action yet again to ensure a court does,” New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood (D) said in a statement announcing comments from a dozen states, including Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Washington.
EPA sought public input through Aug. 23 on a May 17 proposed rule that would largely scrap the Obama-era update to EPA's Risk Management Plan (RMP) program.
The deadline comes after a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Aug. 19 that EPA's delay of the Obama-era rule “made a mockery” of the Clean Air Act. In an unusual filing, environmentalists Aug. 24 asked the court to expedite issuance of its mandate.
The ruling set a high bar for EPA's ongoing effort to revise the regulation, environmentalists and industry attorneys say, given the judges' emphasis on EPA's Clean Air Act duty to prevent disasters and failure to show the delay was consistent with increased safety.
As such, critics like Underwood are now arguing that the court's ruling that EPA's delay ignored past agency risk findings and an air law mandate to prevent disasters showed that the proposed revision rule is unfounded.
“In throwing out the unlawful delay, the court concluded, 'EPA had found, and the record shows, that there was a need for improvements to protect worker and community safety, and to reduce fatalities, injuries, life disruption, and other harm,'” she added.
In separate comments, Earthjustice argues that the D.C. Circuit ruling shows the core foundations of the proposed rollback are “unlawful and arbitrary,” and says that EPA rejected a last minute request for a brief extension of the comment deadline to allow the public to fully consider the court ruling's implications on the agency's proposal.
Echoing the court's ruling that EPA's delay rule undercuts the agency's past findings supporting the Obama-era rule, Earthjustice argues that the Trump administration's revision rule seeks to scrap new requirements that EPA considered for several years and promulgated after finding a “regulatory need” for improved protections.
But petrochemical industry groups, whose members would be subject to the Obama-era requirements, are backing EPA's authority to revise the RMP update rule, and arguing that the Obama administration's January 2017 rule also countered past agency findings, namely a 1996 conclusion that requiring consideration of safer alternatives would not bring safety benefits.
Although the American Chemistry Council (ACC) does not specifically cite the D.C. Circuit's decision, the group backs EPA's authority to revise standards through rulemaking and argues that a downward trend in facility accidents supports the Trump administration's plan for targeted enforcement over new federal mandates. “Agencies are free to change their existing policies as long as they provide a reasoned explanation for the change,” ACC says, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
ACC adds that an agency need not show its new approach is better than existing policy, only that “the new policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to be better, which the conscious change of course adequately indicates.”
RMP Update
Shortly before the end of the Obama administration, EPA issued a rule strengthening the RMP program, requiring facilities to conduct third-party audits, analyze safer alternatives, and streamline data disclosure to first responders and the public, among other requirements.
In response to petitions from industry and some GOP-led states, the Trump administration began a two-step reconsideration process. The agency issued a final rule delaying the Obama-era RMP update for nearly two years, until February 2019, and then proposed the May 17 rule seeking to rescind most requirements of the 2017 Obama update rule.
But a two-judge panel earlier this month ruled in Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. EPA and Andrew Wheeler to vacate the delay rule, finding that the Clean Air Act caps delays for revision at three months, and that the delay failed to counter agency findings that the update was needed to reduce harm.
Even before the ruling, roughly a dozen House and Senate Democrats last month faulted the revision rule, arguing that the rollback would increase facility risks that disproportionately harm minority and low-income communities, and that the revisions' reduction in compliance costs was minor for the massive petrochemical industry.
“[W]e are extremely disturbed that the EPA chose to move forward with issuing this proposed rule despite the agency's finding that 'there is evidence that risks from RMP facilities fall on minority and low-income populations, to a significantly greater degree than those risks affect other populations,'” 11 Senate Democrats, led by Tom Carper (DE), ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a July 19 letter.
In comments to EPA, the Democratic-led states and environmental and community groups are reiterating those arguments, detailing the hundreds of facility accidents in recent years, including releases that occurred during EPA's delay, such as those near Houston, TX, caused by the rising flood waters of Hurricane Harvey last summer.
“When developing the rule, the EPA determined that prior protections failed to prevent over 2,200 chemical accidents around the country during a 10-year period, including about 150 per year that caused reportable harm,” groups, including Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Air Alliance Houston, and Union of Concerned Scientists said in a statement announcing comments submitted by Eartjustice.
“During the delay, public reporting has shown over 61 chemical releases, fires, and explosions have occurred at covered facilities,” the groups add. “So far EPA has ignored all recent incidents and still says it wants to 'reconsider' the rule.”
'Infected With Bias'
Other groups are also urging the revision rule be withdrawn because it is “infected with bias,” arguing that former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt opposed the Obama-era rule during his tenure as Oklahoma's AG, and then proposed rescinding much of the rule after he was appointed EPA administer.
“EPA should withdraw the proposed Rollback Rule because finalizing it would violate Constitutional due process and deny communities the safety protections to which they have a legal right,” the groups add.
The groups also note that former DowDupont General Counsel Peter Wright, President Donald Trump's nominee to head the waste office, is already working at EPA, and that his former company owns over 50 RMP-regulated facilities and has been responsible for at least 99 RMP chemical releases.
But industry groups ACC, the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA)support the Trump administration's revision rule, arguing that the Obama-era changes are costly and unnecessary because the existing RMP has successfully reduced accidents.
Additionally, the industry groups also fault the Obama administration's rulemaking process supporting the January 2017 rule. They note that the rulemaking was prompted by an April 2013 explosion at a West, TX, fertilizer facility, which federal investigators later deemed arson, and argue that the crime should not support revising an accident prevention rule.
For example, API notes in its comments that the Obama EPA's decision to require facilities to conduct safer technology alternatives assessments countered the agency's conclusion in advancing the original 1996 RMP rule that such analysis failed to improve safety beyond the process analysis of facility hazards that the original requires.
The groups also say that EPA failed to adequately coordinate with OSHA, which manages a companion process safety management rule, and that scrapping new RMP process safety requirements will ensure the two programs remain harmonized.
“Not only has compliance with the RMP Rule of 1996 reduced the frequency of incidents but investigations conducted by the [Chemical Safety Board] and others have indicated that when there are serious incidents, they are often the result of a failure to adhere completely with the existing regulation,” API says.
“In its rush to regulate before the change in administration, EPA promulgated a rule that imposed significant costs and provided few, if any, measurable benefits,” the group adds. “This proposal corrects that mistake.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/critics-vow-suit-over-epas-rmp-rollback-plan-citing-scrapped-delay-rule
-
Managing Change to Drive Chemical Process Safety Management
Aug 28, 2018 | Manufacturing.net
By Greg Duncan
It seems as if almost every few months, there’s another story in the news about a tragic accident at a petroleum or chemical processing facility. In the first half of 2018 alone, there have been at least five such incidents resulting in untold millions of dollars in damages to facilities and surrounding communities, more than 180 injuries, and three worker fatalities.
Since 1998, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) has been tasked with investigating major petroleum and chemical processing-related incidents. Having investigated nearly 100 such incidents, the CSB has developed more than 800 recommendations targeted at improving the safety of operations at these types of facilities. Over the years, one recurring theme has emerged.
The CSB frequently cites process safety management (PSM) system improvements as a fundamental strategy for preventing process-related disasters.
Even though PSM standards are enforced by OSHA and are a key component of EPA Risk Management Plan (RMP) Rule requirements, government oversight alone has fallen short of fully preventing process-related disasters at covered facilities. Therefore, it’s up to facility owners and operators to actively pursue improvements to PSM systems above and beyond the level required by the regulations if they wish to protect themselves and the communities they serve from disastrous consequences of these incidents.
Management of Change (MOC)
MOC is a central component of any effective PSM system. Recognizing this, both OSHA and EPA specifically require facilities to manage changes to covered processes through the use of a formal MOC program. Even with processes that are not explicitly covered by these standards, the CSB has stated, "it is good practice to do so, irrespective of the specific regulatory requirements."
To satisfy MOC requirements, facility operators must establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures, as well as changes to facilities that affect covered processes. Certain organizational changes (e.g. mergers and acquisitions, reorganizations, staffing changes, or budget revisions, etc.) that affect a covered process will also trigger MOC requirements. As a general rule, if an organizational change directly or indirectly necessitates changes to a covered process, an MOC procedure is required to ensure changes are implemented in a safe manner.
For each process change, operators must consider:The technical basis for the proposed changePotential impacts to safety and healthNecessary modifications to operating proceduresTime period for the changeAuthorization requirements for the proposed change
In addition, MOC reviews (whether for permanent, temporary, or emergency changes) should contain these basic elements:A description of the change, including technical specifications and business justificationAn assessment of risks and potential impacts [i.e. process hazard analysis (PHA)]A description of necessary modifications to operating proceduresAny necessary training for employees, contractors, or other affected individualsAn anticipated timeframe required to complete the changeAn established workflow for change implementation, including assigned individuals and approversFormal procedures for notifications and approvals at each workflow stageAny necessary updates to process safety information (PSI)Pre-startup safety review (PSSR)Post-startup evaluation, including evaluation criteria and follow-up actionsSystems for planning, scheduling, assigning, and evaluating change-related action itemsFigure 1: Typical MOC Workflow (Planned Change)
Figure 1 illustrates a simplified workflow diagram that can be applied to a planned process change. The workflow begins in the request stage, upon which the draft request proceeds through a series of approvals before entering the pre-startup safety review (PSSR) stage. If the change request is rejected prior to the PSSR, it is returned to the draft stage for revision. Following a successful PSSR, the change is approved and physically implemented. Following implementation, the change proceeds through the post-startup review to ensure the change has been implemented effectively and according to plan. Any necessary follow-up actions are identified and implemented prior to final approval and closure. It is important to remember that this diagram is for general reference, as individual change workflows will be determined by the complexity of the change, number of approvals, and personnel involved, and other change-specific factors.
Best Practices and MOC Software
MOC programs that rely on paper or rudimentary software systems to manage the multitude of change-related documents, communications, and action items can quickly become disorganized and inefficient, especially for petroleum and chemical processors who must perform a high volume of MOC activities every single day. In such high-risk industries, it’s not difficult to see how this inefficiency could result in the same lack of process control and oversight that the CSB has cited as the cause of so many process-related disasters.
To overcome these inefficiencies, advanced MOC software solutions are available to help owners and operators in the petroleum and chemical processing industries efficiently and accurately manage the variety of risk analyses, workflow assignments, approvals, PSSR, and post-startup reviews, training, notifications, and action items necessary for an effective MOC program, all within one simple and easy-to-use system.
An effective MOC program should provide a transparent, accessible, and traceable system for ensuring that process-related changes are performed only after full assessment of risks and controls, and with appropriate authorization from responsible personnel. MOC program benefits extend well beyond compliance with PSM, RMP, and other standards, and an increasing number of facility managers are recognizing the value of MOC to address a wide range of changes that may present safety or environmental risks.
Multi-tenant cloud solutions that can be accessed anywhere, whether on-site or in the field, provide the greatest value for complex facilities with large numbers of personnel and extensive change management requirements, as well as for multiple distributed facilities where standardized, uniform MOC procedures are a must. The best MOC solutions even allow users to submit and modify change requests, perform risk analyses, conduct inspections, issue approvals, and manage action items directly from their tablet or smartphone.
Petroleum and chemical processors should consider technology resources like a dedicated MOC software solution if they want to maximize MOC program and PSM system performance at their facilities. Not only do such solutions help simplify compliance, reduce costs, and provide a solid framework for a highly-refined MOC program—they ultimately help you ensure the safety and security of your facilities, your workers, and the communities you serve.
https://www.manufacturing.net/article/2018/08/managing-change-drive-chemical-process-safety-management
-
Washington to Finally Focus on Threat to Supply-Chain Risk Management
Aug 28, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Ernesto DiGiambattista
Policymakers in Washington have recently begun to consider measures that take aim at supply-chain risk management (SCRM). The disconcerting reality, however, is that they are already behind the curve, as the status quo for SCRM is not keeping pace with today’s dynamic threat landscape.
Washington needs to show urgency in addressing cybersecurity concerns because they have largely been neglected for so long. Reluctance to commit adequate resources to security has created the vulnerable environment we now inhabit, and continuous and proactive approaches to security, versus periodic and reactive, can no longer be overlooked.
Rhetoric must also finally translate into discernible change. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DoD), the Intelligence Community (IC), and other agencies have coordinated a program to collectively address SCRM, but the program only has two full-time employees. Acknowledging a clear issue that should have been addressed long ago is vital, but even more so is tangible action such as reasonable funding and adequate staffing. The Trump administration’s calls to give every civilian agency the same authorities as the Department of Defense, as well as for the establishment of a Federal IT Security Council and Critical IT Supply Chain Risk Evaluation Board, is a welcomed and much needed approach for increasing resources for cybersecurity.
With China, Iran, and Russia developing increasingly sophisticated technologies focused on hacking our critical infrastructure, policymakers must act with urgency to combat such threats. Opting to continue down a decentralized path would be reckless. Centralizing risk assessment, as advised by the DHS and DoD, is one way in which government agencies can finally transition from outdated, splintered modes of protection to a state of the art, coordinated approach to SCRM.
Specific actions, in addition to centralizing risk assessment, should be taken. Risk assessments should be conducted early and often to proactively detect and mitigate threats. Annual risk assessments, commonplace for many organizations, are insufficient at protecting critical infrastructure: they do not ensure continuous visibility into security postures and leave gaping holes of opportunity.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, has called for a national strategy to bring national security and civilian agencies alike up to necessary standards. Thompson is quite scathing in his assessment that, “the Trump Administration lacks a coherent, government-wide strategy to adequately address the challenges we continue to face from Russia and China.” Currently the proposal does lack nuance, and those in the cybersecurity community have grown accustomed to being frustrated with government response that can be slow or misguided, but there is little use in doubling down on cynicism when good-faith efforts and statements are in their preliminary stages.
Instead, it is imperative to acknowledge that the Federal Information Technology Supply Chain Risk Management Improvement Act of 2018, albeit modest, is a step in the right direction in addressing supply-chain risk management. There are signs that lawmakers and agency officials are beginning to realize that annual risk assessments are inadequate—especially when continuous and proactive approaches to security are now available and align far better with the threat environment.
What else should public and private sector leaders consider when crafting cybersecurity strategies? Organizations of all types support our critical infrastructure and are embracing digital and cloud transformation to advance business goals. Speed of innovation has become paramount, especially around developing applications that drive and advance the business. Security has been an afterthought because it is viewed as a drag on speed. But instead of focusing on just speed, it is agility (speed + purpose) and velocity (speed + quality control) that combine to produce optimal, secure outcomes. When merely application development speed is the only consideration in choosing development methodologies, purpose and quality control are neglected.
A development framework that enables agility and velocity while embedding security continuously and holistically helps organizations understand and manage security risk. And when considering the specificities of a cybersecurity strategy there are key considerations that decision-makers should consider to maximize outcomes: the understanding that we cannot tacitly endorse the cybersecurity status quo any longer. Today’s threat landscape is dynamic and the stakes are high: a continuous and proactive approach to security that promotes agility and velocity is the only way forward.
Ernesto DiGiambattista is CEO and Founder of CYBRIC and Board Member of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/403958-washington-to-finally-focus-on-threat-to-supply-chain-risk
-
PG&E Taking Action After FERC Fine for Cybersecurity Breach
Aug 28, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
San Francisco-based Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) acknowledged Monday that it has been taking corrective action following a $2.7 million fine by FERC for a 2016 lapse that left critical confidential information exposed on the internet for more than two months.
§ Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here:
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115583-pge-taking-action-after-ferc-fine-for-cybersecurity-breach?v=preview
-
FRA Awards $203 Million for Positive Train Control Installation
Aug 28, 2018 | Transport Topics Online
The Federal Railroad Administration recently awarded more than $200 million to support 28 projects that aim to deploy positive train control systems in 15 states.
Positive train control (PTC) is technology that automatically stops the vehicle before certain accidents occur, such as train-on-train collisions and high-speed derailments.
The agency on Aug. 24 announced the $203 million in awards funding, made possible through the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements program.
“These $200 million in grants will help the railroads continue to implement positive train control, a technology that could help reduce accidents and save lives,” Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said.
Just as trucking fleets are mandated by federal law to have electronic logging devices in cabs, trains are bound by the Rail Safety Improvement Act to ensure that PTC systems are installed before Dec. 31, 2018. The mandate requires the systems on the main lines of Class I railroads and entities providing regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation over which any toxic hazardous materials are transported.
Batory
The administration said 15 railroads have installed 100% of the system hardware. Twelve other railroads said they have installed 95% to 99% of the hardware identified in their PTC implementation plans. That’s an improvement from December 2016, when freight railroads had PTC active on just 16% of required tracks while passenger railroads stood at 24%.
FRA Administrator Ronald Batory said, “While we are seeing progress among a majority of railroads, we want to see everyone meet their requirements.”
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 designated $250 million for the deployment of PTC systems, $203 million of which was awarded Aug. 24. FRA considered economic vitality as well as innovative approaches to improving safety and expediting project delivery when determining grant winners.
FRA plans to issue a notice of funding opportunity soon for the remaining $46 million.
The companies and transportation agencies awarded grants represent Alaska, California, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Washington.
The largest grant, for up to $29 million, was awarded to the Rio Metro Regional Transit District, which serves central New Mexico. The funding will be used to implement PTC systems on the New Mexico Rail Runner Express, a commuter rail system for people in Albuquerque and Santa Fe.
FRA’s report shows that the number of “at-risk” railroads has dropped to nine from 12.
The New Mexico Rail Runner Express is one of those nine at-risk railroads identified in FRA’s report.
The agency considers any railroad that has less than 90% of its PTC system hardware installed as of June 30 to be at risk. The nine railroads control approximately 665 route miles that are subject to the statutory mandate — approximately 11% of the route miles that must be governed by a PTC system.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/fra-awards-203-million-positive-train-control-installation
-
Cascades Route Will Have PTC by Dec. 31, Amtrak and WSDOT Say
Aug 28, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
Amtrak and Washington state transportation officials anticipate a positive train control (PTC) system will be installed on the Amtrak Cascades corridor — including the Point Defiance Bypass — prior to the federal Dec. 31 deadline.
PTC likely would have prevented the fatal accident that occurred last Dec. 18 on the bypass track in DuPont, Washington, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) officials have said. Amtrak expects to return rail service to the bypass between Tacoma, Lakewood, Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) and DuPont in spring 2019, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) officials reported on the department's website.
The schedule allows time for crews to monitor how PTC is working on the current Amtrak Cascades route before passenger-rail service returns to the bypass, WSDOT officials said.
"Amtrak, Sound Transit and BNSF [Railway Co.] are all working together to ensure PTC is operating seamlessly in the entire Pacific Northwest and they are confident they will meet the Dec. 31, 2018, federal deadline for implementation in our region," they wrote.
The schedule also allows time for the National Transportation Safety Board to complete its investigation and issue recommendations related to the derailment in DuPont, WSDOT officials said.
On Dec. 18, 2017, an Amtrak Cascades train derailed on a highway overpass in DuPont. Three passengers were killed and dozens of passengers and the crew members were injured. Eight people in highway vehicles below the overpass also were injured. The accident occurred on the first day of a new passenger-rail service along the bypass.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/Cascades-route-will-have-PTC-by-Dec-31-Amtrak-and-WSDOT-say--55467 -
EPA Asks Supreme Court Not to Take Up Case on Planet-Warming Chemicals
Aug 28, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doesn’t want the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of a court ruling that overturned the agency’s limits on certain Earth-warming chemicals used in air conditioners.
Trump administration attorneys told the high court in a Tuesday brief that the EPA is no longer pursuing the type of regulation that the lower appeals court overturned, so the appeal by companies wishing to reinstate the rule is unnecessary.
The case concerns a 2015 rule under which the Obama administration sought to limit the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The chemicals have been used in recent years to replace ozone-depleting chemicals, but HFCs are potent greenhouse gases, so the EPA sought to stop their use as well.
The Trump administration defended the HFC restrictions before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but lost. Now EPA officials are exploring other ways to regulate HFCs.
“Given EPA’s current position, the question presented is of limited prospective importance,” the Trump administration told the court. “Granting review to consider an interpretation of EPA’s authority that EPA itself no longer supports would serve little or no purpose.”
“This court’s review therefore is unwarranted,” attorneys said.
Companies that make HFC replacements, led by Honeywell International Inc., appealed the 2017 decision overturning the regulation, along with environmentalists led by the Natural Resources Defense Council. Although the decision overturned an EPA rule, the EPA did not file its own appeal.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/403967-epa-asks-supreme-court-not-to-take-up-case-on-planet-warming
-
Cities Ask Appeals Court to Revive Lawsuit Against Big Oil
Aug 28, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
Two California cities are asking an appeals court to reverse a judge's dismissal of lawsuits that sought to make oil companies pay for climate change damages.
San Francisco and Oakland filed paperwork Friday with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California, challenging multiple decisions made by Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The cases target Chevron Corp., BP PLC, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC. The cities argued the companies make and sell products that when combusted create a public nuisance, causing sea-level rise and other impacts. The suits also said the companies knew the global dangers of warming for decades and hid that information while protecting their assets.
Alsup, a Clinton appointee, last month granted a request from the oil companies to toss the cases. Alsup said climate change is a reality, but that evaluating blame for warming impacts is a political issue and not one for the courts to decide (Climatewire, June 26).
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement that "it's time for these corporations to pay their fair share for the harm they have caused San Francisco."
"The defendants have a longstanding track record of selling and promoting fossil fuels while deceiving the public about climate change," Herrera said. "Our belief remains that they are liable for the harm they have caused."
Herrera noted that the suits "forced these fossil fuel companies to acknowledge the validity of climate science." The oil companies didn't challenge climate science at a high-profile "tutorial" on climate science Alsup held in March.
The cities in their appeal challenged Alsup's dismissal, along with the judge's earlier decision to keep the cases in federal court. The cities had originally filed their complaints in state court. The oil companies moved the cases to federal court, and Alsup ruled that was the proper venue.
However, a similar case went a different way. Imperial Beach, San Mateo, Marin County, Richmond, Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County in California also are suing oil companies for climate damages. Federal Judge Vince Chhabria — located in the same courthouse as Alsup — earlier this year ruled that those cases belonged in state court, where they started. The oil interests appealed that decision, and that's also pending before the 9th Circuit.
San Francisco and Oakland in their appeal have good arguments, said Ann Carlson, co-director of UCLA's Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
"Judge Alsup's failure to remand the case back to state court was, in my view, erroneous," Carlson said.
She said that the 9th Circuit is likely to reverse him on it, unless the cities' lawyers made a procedural error by not appealing the decision to keep the cases in federal court at the time Alsup made it.
In his ruling dismissing the cases, Alsup said that climate change "deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case."
He added that "courts must also respect and defer to the other co-equal branches of government when the problem at hand clearly deserves a solution best addressed by those branches. The Court will stay its hand in favor of solutions by the legislative and executive branches."
Carlson said she believes the appellate court will at a minimum reject Alsup's reasoning for dismissing the federal common law nuisance claim.
"I don't believe the court will find that separation of powers and foreign affairs concerns invalidate a federal common law claim," she said in an email. "It is possible that the Court will dismiss plaintiffs' claims on different grounds — that the federal common law nuisance claim has been displaced by the Clean Air Act."Industry faces other climate suits
In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions because EPA regulates those through the Clean Air Act. In that case, states sought to cap greenhouse gas emissions in the power sector.
The appellate court also could allow a federal common law nuisance claim to go forward instead of sending the cases back to state court, Carlson said.
"Whether the court will dismiss the federal claim is, in other words, hard to predict but at a minimum I predict that the Ninth Circuit will reject Judge Alsup's reasoning," Carlson said.
The San Francisco and Oakland cases are among several filed by cities against oil companies for climate change damages. In addition to the other California cases, there are suits from cities and counties in Colorado, Maryland, Washington state and New York.
A federal judge last month, however, dismissed New York City's case against the five largest oil companies.
Judge John Keenan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said that "climate change is a fact of life," and one not contested by the oil companies. But it's not an issue for the courts to solve, he said, and "must be addressed by the two other branches of government." New York City has said it would appeal that decision (Climatewire, July 20).
The Manufacturers' Accountability Project (MAP), an ally of the oil industry, said it was confident the San Francisco and Oakland cases wouldn't advance.
"If the 9th Circuit agrees to hear these cases, it is highly likely the court will concur with Judge Alsup's decision that they should be dismissed," said group Executive Director Lindsey de la Torre. "The U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Alsup and now Judge Keenan in New York have made it abundantly clear that the courts are not the appropriate venue to address this issue."
She called for "politicians and trial lawyers to put an end to this frivolous litigation. These lawsuits do nothing to advance meaningful solutions, which manufacturers are focused on every day."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/28/stories/1060095349
-
Normal Exposure to Air Pollution Shaves the Equivalent of One Year of Education from Memory: Study
Aug 28, 2018 | The Washington Examiner
By Anna Giaritelli
Exposure to air pollution has been linked to a "huge" decrease in brain function and is a direct cause of reduced mental capacity in people, according to a new study by an American scientific journal.
Researchers who studied a group of people living in China found those who breathed in toxic air saw drops in language and math test scores, the equivalent to losing a year of education, according to the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science's Monday report.
“Polluted air can cause everyone to reduce their level of education by one year, which is huge,” Xi Chen, one of the researchers, told the Guardian. “But we know the effect is worse for the elderly, especially those over 64, and for men, and for those with low education. If we calculate [the loss] for those, it may be a few years of education.”Here are the 9 dumbest things the resistance has fundedWatch Full Screen to Skip Ads
Researchers warned that bad air that caused these problems for people in China was also present in 95 percent of the world, including America's suburbs and cities.
The Washington, D.C.,-based organization concluded the elderly are the most likely to be effected by this decline in mental health, and less-educated men saw the biggest declines among that group.
"The damage on the aging brain by air pollution likely imposes substantial health and economic costs, considering that cognitive functioning is critical for the elderly for both running daily errands and making high-stake decisions," the PNAS study stated.
The report is the first to look at the effects of air quality on both males and females of all ages, not just school children, as previous ones have considered.
Among the 20,000 people exposed to air that included nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide as part of the China Family Panel Studies from 2010 to 2014, men saw greater drops in their ability to do math than women.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/normal-exposure-to-air-pollution-shaves-the-equivalent-of-one-year-of-education-from-memory-study
-
Sizzling Weather May Help 2018 U.N. Climate Talks in Poland
Aug 28, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Agnieszka Barteczko
Sizzling weather this summer will put pressure on almost 200 governments to reach a deal in Poland in December on the details of a global plan to limit climate change, the incoming president of the U.N. talks said.
Environment ministers will meet in Katowice, the heart of Poland's coal-producing region, Silesia, to agree rules for the 2015 Paris climate accord. That accord set a sweeping goal of ending the fossil fuel era this century, but the text was vague on details.
"Paris is empty without Katowice," Michal Kurtyka, a former deputy energy minister of Poland who will preside at the Dec. 3-14 talks, told Reuters.
Poland, which generates most of its electricity from coal, is hosting the annual U.N. climate talks for the third time.
"The Paris agreement includes certain principles. However, the way they will be implemented will be described in the Katowice package. So the more detailed and concrete it is, the better," Kurtyka said.
Hot weather this summer that set off wildfires from California to Greece has made officials more determined to reach a detailed deal in Katowice, he said.
"For sure this is something that affected millions of people all over the world.(...) Societies in particular countries will act on politicians. I think that this will increase political determination for the solutions to be as concrete and as detailed as possible," Kurtyka said.
Many issues remain to be discussed at an extra session in Bangkok next month, he said, where "a vision of the whole should be built".
Some of the sticking points include the way the countries report on their emission reductions, adapting to climate change and financing tools, he said.
Environmentalists have complained about foot-dragging by the countries involved. French Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot resigned on Tuesday in frustration over sluggish progress on climate goals.
Writing the "rule book" - formally known as "implementation guidelines" - is the biggest test of the international commitment to the Paris Agreement since U.S. President Donald Trump said in June last year that he would pull out.
"If some countries, such as for example the U.S., conclude that they are not ready to follow the Paris agreement direction, then I'd assume that all other countries will seek to keep their presence so that they are part of the agreement," Kurtyka said.
"I will strive for all parties to become signatories, whereas the question I will ask at the end will be: Do I hear a voice of objection? I hope not".
The choice of Poland for the climate talks is itself a point of contention, because of its dependence on coal. In February, the European Union's top court said the country had failed to uphold air-quality standards, one of several environmental conflicts between Poles and the EU.
"The opinions that Poland is not a reliable climate talks host due to the significant share of coal in power production, are formulated from the EU perspective. The world is more diverse than that," Kurtyka said.
Kurtyka was appointed the climate talks president in April. He replaced the former Environment Minister Jan Szyszo, who had been initially named to preside at the conference in Katowice.
Szyszko had approved the increased logging in the ancient Bialowieza Forest back in 2016, another of Poland's conflicts with the European Union.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/08/28/world/europe/28reuters-climatechange-poland.html
-
French Environment Minister Quits with Criticism of Macron
Aug 28, 2018 | The Washington Post
By James McAuley
French President Emmanuel Macron’s reputation as a leading climate change activist suffered a blow Tuesday with the abrupt resignation of his environment minister.
Nicolas Hulot, an outspoken environmentalist and former journalist, unexpectedly announced his departure in the midst of a routine interview on France Inter radio. He cited constant disappointments with what he considers the French government’s lax approach to tackling climate change, as well as its dependence on nuclear power.
“I no longer want to lie to myself,” he said. “I don’t want to give the illusion that my presence in the government signifies that we are answering these problems properly. So I have made the decision to leave the government.”
The French president has been widely seen as the chief defender of the landmark 2015 Paris Climate Accords, as well as one of the few world leaders willing to stand up to President Trump on the issue. After Trump announced in June 2017 the United States would withdraw from the Paris agreement, Macron pledged to “Make Our Planet Great Again.” He has received positive press for luring U.S. climate scientists to France.
Hulot suggested on Tuesday there was little substance behind these grandiose declarations.
“Have we begun to reduce the use of pesticides? The answer is no. Have we started to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The answer is no. Or to stop the erosion of biodiversity? No.”
Hulot’s resignation was particularly striking because it took Macron’s government by surprise.
French government spokesman Benjamin Griveaux, a guest on BFM TV at the same time as Hulot’s bombshell interview, confessed Macron had not been warned in advance. Some of Hulot’s other government colleagues, making the usual rounds on the morning shows, were visibly stunned when presented with the news.
“Is that a joke?” asked Marlène Schiappa, France’s gender equality minister, her face angled in an amused smile.
They also struck back at Hulot’s criticisms.
“I hear his disappointment, but we must give him and the government credit for what has been done over the course of a year,” Griveaux said, citing incremental progress on saving species and transitioning away from nuclear energy. “We can’t have results in just one year, and Nicolas Hulot knows that.” Macron was elected in early May 2017 and took power shortly thereafter.
Hulot’s departure means the loss of one of the most popular members of Macron’s entourage. The minister is a former TV personality whose program endeared him to many in the generation of younger voters who came of age in the 1990s.
It also adds to a quiet but constant stream of turbulence at the Elysee Palace. Although Macron is often seen abroad as the composed, stable antidote to the political tumult in the London of Brexit and the Washington of Trump, four members of his cabinet have resigned after charges related to political corruption.
Additionally, Macron’s chief of staff, Alexis Kohler, is under investigation for influence peddling and for violating conflict-of-interest rules. Culture Minister Françoise Nyssen is under investigation for having illegally enlarged the premises of the publishing house she ran before entering the government. Budget Minister Gerard Darmanin was investigated for rape earlier this year, although the charges were later abandoned. Hulot, too, came under fire in February for allegedly sexually assaulting a granddaughter of former French president François Mitterand in the late 1990s — an allegation from 2008 he denied. The government stood by him.
All throughout the long, hot summer, the French government has also been plagued by a scandal concerning one of Macron’s former personal security guards, Alexandre Benalla, who was caught on camera beating and dragging two protesters during the annual May Day demonstrations.
The way Macron appeared to protect Benalla before the footage was revealed in the French press has cost him significantly. The most recent Ifop poll, published Sunday, showed 66 percent of the French public is dissatisfied with his performance, a five point boost from the month before. By contrast, only 34 percent of those consulted expressed a favorable view.
The Hulot resignation may additionally portend a shift in the public identity of a government that styles itself as “neither right nor left.” From the beginning, the key players in the Macron cabinet were defectors from France’s traditional center-right party, and Hulot’s absence will mean even less of a voice for those on the left.
Macron’s nominally centrist party, “La République En Marche” (“Republic on the Move”), holds an absolute majority in the French parliament. But what remains of a political opposition immediately seized on Hulot’s resignation as the sign of further trouble ahead.
“The resignation of Nicolas Hulot serves as a vote of censure against Macron,” announced Jean-Luc Mélénchon, the outspoken leader of the far-left France Unbowed faction, on Twitter. “Macronism begins its decomposition.”
The president himself took the news of the day in stride. On an official visit to Copenhagen, Macron refrained from criticizing Hulot, saying he hoped “always to be able to count on the engagement of this free and convinced man.”
He also refused to entertain the substance of Hulot’s critiques. “This is a fight that does not happen overnight,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/french-environment-minister-quits-with-criticism-of-macron/2018/08/28/2a39e8e0-aaca-11e8-9a7d-cd30504ff902_story.html?utm_term=.549b75f3ede1
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested