Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics-to-Fuel Technology Tools Launched
Jul 2, 2015 | Plastics in Packaging
By Paul Hill
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and Ocean Recovery Alliance (ORA) have released two tools aimed at helping community and business leaders evaluate their potential to adopt plastics-to-fuel technologies, and whether they would be a good fit for meeting local waste management needs and local demand for the relevant commodities. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Releases EDSP Tier 1 Screening Results
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
After years of delay, the US EPA has released the first results for its endocrine disruptor screening programme (EDSP). -
Who's Afraid of TSCA Reform? Not the Plastics Industry
Jul 2, 2015 | Plastics Today
By Norbert Sparrow
When I read that the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2576, the Toxic Substances Control Modernization Act of 2015, on a vote of 398-1, my first reaction was, wow, when do both sides of the aisle ever agree on anything? -
Oregon Chemicals of Concern Bill Clears Senate
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Oregon Senate has voted 18-11 in favour of the Toxic-Free Kids Act, which would establish a list of chemicals of concern, require the registration of articles containing those substances, and call for their phase-out in certain children's products (CW 4 March 2015). -
EPA Receives Test Data for Flame Retardant Substance
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has received test data for the substance phosphorochloridothioic acid, o,o-diethyl ester in response to a test rule. -
Industry Groups Criticise NGO's Sunscreen Guide
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups say a guide that cautions consumers against the use of sunscreen products, containing oxybenzone and retinyl palmitate, is “misleading”. -
(ACC Mentioned) Failed Terror Attack Raises Alarms About Chemical Plant Security
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The attempted bombing of a chemical plant in France as part of an apparent terrorist attack on 26 June, which culminated in an explosion there and involved a beheading, has exposed the vulnerability of chemical plants, according to several security experts. -
Occidental, Engineering Company Join Forces in Ethylene Cracker Project
Jul 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
The Woodlands-based engineering company Chicago, Bridge & Iron has joined in to build storage as part of a $1.5 billion petrochemical project owned by Texas-based Occidental Petroleum Corp. -
EPA Restricts Climate-Warming Chemicals Used in Refrigeration
Jul 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration moved Thursday to restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), the most potent greenhouse gases emitted by human activity. -
EPA Urges Court To Reject Rehearing GHG Permit Suit
Jul 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is asking a federal appellate court to reject industry's bid to reopen the long-running case over the agency's greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting authority in which industry is hoping to block EPA's ability to require GHG limits in stationary source prevention of ... -
Oklahoma Cites Lack Of 'Relief' To Boost New Suit Over Proposed ESPS
Jul 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Oklahoma has filed a novel suit over EPA's proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants that claims the state lacks any other options for “relief” from harms the proposal is already causing, though the suit could face slim prospects as appellate judges recently said courts lack power to hear suits over proposed rules. -
Okla. Challenges Clean Power Plan in New Venue
Jul 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Oklahoma's attorney general launched a quixotic bid yesterday to pre-empt U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan, less than a month after courts dismissed a challenge to the draft rule led by West Virginia and Murray Energy Corp. on the grounds it was premature. -
Suits Over EPA Proposals Unlikely To Succeed Despite Judge's Suggestion
Jul 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Future lawsuits seeking novel judicial review of EPA proposals rather than final rules are unlikely to gain traction after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a suit over the agency's proposed utility climate rules, sources say, despite one judge's suggesting that such a lawsuit could potentially proceed. -
Why Coal Stocks Didn't Get Much Help from the Supreme Court's Mercury Ruling
Jul 2, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden and Benjamin Hulac
Coal stocks surged this week after the Supreme Court found problems with U.S. EPA's regulations to curb coal plant mercury emissions. -
Energy, Interior-EPA Approps, Reg Reform on Tap for July
Jul 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The House this month will continue work on the Interior-U.S. EPA fiscal 2016 spending bill while also diving into a broad energy package, drought legislation and a sweeping overhaul of the federal regulatory process before heading home for the August recess, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told lawmakers yesterday. -
Train Carrying Toxic Gas Derails in Tennessee
Jul 2, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Laura Stevens and Cameron McWhirter
A tank car containing a hazardous flammable chemical derailed and caught fire just south of Knoxville, Tenn., causing the evacuation of 5,000 residents within a two-mile radius of the crash. -
Oil Train Car Derails, Catches Fire in Tennessee
Jul 2, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing
A train car carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire in Tennessee early on Thursday morning. -
Thousands Evacuate as Derailed Train Spews Toxic Fumes
Jul 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Thousands were evacuated from their homes in eastern Tennessee following the derailment and burning of a CSX train carrying a toxic and flammable substance last night.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics-to-Fuel Technology Tools Launched
Jul 2, 2015 | Plastics in Packaging
By Paul Hill
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and Ocean Recovery Alliance (ORA) have released two tools aimed at helping community and business leaders evaluate their potential to adopt plastics-to-fuel technologies, and whether they would be a good fit for meeting local waste management needs and local demand for the relevant commodities.
The '2015 Plastics-to-Fuel Developers Guide' and 'Cost Estimating Tool for Prospective Project Developers' were announced at the Plasticity Forum held in Cascais, Portugal last month.
“We are excited to introduce these new tools,” said Doug Woodring, director and co-founder of ORA. "Sustainable materials management is largely a local issue, but one with important global implications. Our goal is to give communities and government leaders the tools they need to make good decisions that meet local needs. These new technologies can help mitigate the flow of plastics resources into our communities, waters and the ocean.”
“Modern plastics-to-fuel technologies are a critical tool to recapture the value in materials that otherwise would be destined for landfill,” added Steve Russell, ACC's vice president of plastics. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Releases EDSP Tier 1 Screening Results
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
After years of delay, the US EPA has released the first results for its endocrine disruptor screening programme (EDSP).
The results are for tier 1 screening assays for the first 52 chemicals in the programme. Tier 1 screening is used to determine if a chemical has the potential to interact with the the endocrine system and requires more testing under tier 2.
The screening tests showed that for 20 of the 52 chemicals, there was no evidence of potential interaction with any of the endocrine pathways. Fourteen showed potential to interact with one or more pathways, but the agency has “enough evidence to conclude that they do not pose risks”.
All the remaining 18 chemicals showed potential interaction with the thyroid pathway, 17 of them with the androgen pathway and 14 also potentially interacted with the oestrogen pathway.
The EPA made clear that a tier 1 test result, indicating potential to interact with the endocrine system, “should not be construed as meaning that EPA has concluded that the chemical is an endocrine disruptor”.
The agency plans to do tier 2 testing for chemicals that have shown potential to interact with the endocrine system. It is recommending a comparative thyroid assay for four chemicals that showed interaction with the thyroid pathway in mammals, a medaka one-generation reproductive test for 13 that showed interaction with the oestrogen or androgen pathways in wildlife, and a larval amphibian growth and development assay for five chemicals that showed interaction with the thyroid pathway in wildlife. This, it said, would help it “better understand the potential of these chemicals to cause adverse effects through interaction with the endocrine system”.
The EPA also noted that endocrine disruptor screening is just one category of testing it does on chemicals to determine their health and environmental impacts. Substances that did not require further testing in the first EDSP screening could still require other testing as part of the risk assessment done by the EPA.
For tier 2 testing, the agency will allow four years for data generation and one year for its review (CW 24 February 2014).
The agency recently initiated a consultation on three draft test guidelines for tier 2. The tests - the Japanese quail two-generation reproduction test, the medaka fish extended one-generation reproduction test, and the larval amphibian growth and development assay - are designed to identify any adverse endocrine-related effects caused by a chemical, and to establish a dose-response relationship (CW 3 February 2015).
Over the years, the programme, which was established back in 1999, has been strongly criticised by animal welfare NGOs and government watchdogs. For example, the EPA's own Office of Inspector General said, in 2011, it had made little headway in identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals, over the 12 years since it was set up (CW 6 May 2011).
However, progress has been faster in recent years and the agency has announced plans to use automated screening methods to test for endocrine activity in tier 1 - something that will speed up the rate of testing significantly (CW 23 June 2015).
The American Chemistry Council called the release of the tier 1 weight-of-evidence test results a “significant milestone” in the programme.
“The agency’s risk- and exposure-based approach to the EDSP acknowledges that current exposure levels and frequencies are essential elements of risk assessment,” it said. “This methodology provides welcome clarity to the process and will provide EPA with the information needed to make decisions on whether further testing may be needed for the List 1 substances.”
-
Who's Afraid of TSCA Reform? Not the Plastics Industry
Jul 2, 2015 | Plastics Today
By Norbert Sparrow
When I read that the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2576, the Toxic Substances Control Modernization Act of 2015, on a vote of 398-1, my first reaction was, wow, when do both sides of the aisle ever agree on anything? My second thought was, who is the outlier? That happened to be Tom McClintock, a member of that endangered species—the California Republican party—and an unwavering advocate of small government. Even he concedes that the bill is "well-intentioned," but faults it for granting "sweeping new powers" to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Be that as it may, there is widespread consensus that reform is needed in a law that has been static since it was enacted in 1976.
SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association wasted no time in applauding the bill, which passed the House on June 23. "The world is a different place than it was when the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was first enacted in 1976," said SPI President and CEO William R. Carteaux in a prepared statement. "The plastics industry has seen amazing growth and transformation in size and sophistication over the last four decades, but TSCA has remained largely unchanged. By approving H.R. 2576, the House of Representatives has taken a big step in the right direction, toward a regulatory regime that protects consumers without making the plastics industry comply with regulations that are redundant or based on outdated science."
While the need for reform is widely acknowledged, there is uncertainty about the impact it will have on the cost and availability of plastics and other materials incorporating substances of interest, as Ann R. Thryft, Senior Technical Editor at DesignNews, notes in a recent blog post.
A key part of the legislation would provide the EPA with additional resources to manage the thousands of chemicals in use today. "Manufacturers and importers would pay fees to EPA for doing assessments," Dow Chemicals' Director of Product Sustainability and Compliance Connie Deford told Thryft. So, there's that. It may also introduce delays in the supply chain, as companies seek to comply with testing and registration requirements, creating a paucity of supply for products made from substances deemed dangerous until an alternative material or process can be found. As has been seen in Europe, which has taken a lead on chemical legislation, that can have serious consequences. "Alternative methods can sometimes be found to approach an attachment problem, such as using fasteners," Patrick Blanke, Chemistry Compliance Manager for adhesives manufacturer Delo, explained to Thryft. But "sometimes a restricted chemicals performance can't be equaled," he added.
Nevertheless, the plastics industry is on board with the program. As Carteaux noted in his statement, we are on the verge of seeing the establishment of a "21st century regulatory infrastructure for chemicals in commerce that will enable regulators to ensure public safety without placing an undue burden on industry." A similar bill, S-697, awaits a vote in the Senate, and Carteaux is looking forward to moving the "legislation across the finish line."
-
Oregon Chemicals of Concern Bill Clears Senate
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Oregon Senate has voted 18-11 in favour of the Toxic-Free Kids Act, which would establish a list of chemicals of concern, require the registration of articles containing those substances, and call for their phase-out in certain children's products (CW 4 March 2015).
If passed by the House, the legislation will establish an Oregon list of “high priority chemicals of concern for children's health”. This would mirror Washington state's list of 66 chemicals of high concern to children (CHCC), which includes known or suspected developmental and reproductive toxicants, endocrine disrupting chemicals and carcinogens.
Substance types represented on the list include:flame retardants;phthalates;parabens; andsolvents.
Manufacturers of children's products would be required to submit biennial reports to the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) or to the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse, detailing the function and volume of listed chemicals present in each product sold into the state. Contaminants, such as unintended chemical byproducts or trace impurities, present at concentrations of 100ppm or more, must also be reported.
Reported data would be available to the public on a website housed by the OHA.
The scope of the bill (SB 478) encompasses products made for, or marketed to, children under the age of 12, and includes:toys;children's jewellery, footwear and apparel;car seats; andchildren's cosmetics.
Unlike the Washington Children's Safe Products Act (CPSA), the Oregon legislation would go beyond reporting requirements. Manufacturers would be required to remove or replace any listed chemical on or before the third biennial reporting, in those products that are “mouthable,” applied to the skin, or manufactured for use by children under the age of three.
Under the proposed legislation, a manufacturer may apply for a waiver from the phase-out mandates if they can show, through an alternatives assessment, that removal of the chemical is not technically or financially feasible, or if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the chemical is not reasonably anticipated to result in exposure, given its use in the product.
The bill received its first reading in the House on 1 July.
Oregon took up similar measures in 2013 (CW 11 July 2013) and 2014 (CW 7 February 2014) but both failed in the Senate.
-
EPA Receives Test Data for Flame Retardant Substance
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has received test data for the substance phosphorochloridothioic acid, o,o-diethyl ester in response to a test rule.
The substance is used in flame retardants and as an intermediate for pesticides, among others.
The test data relates to reproductive/developmental toxicity.
-
Industry Groups Criticise NGO's Sunscreen Guide
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups say a guide that cautions consumers against the use of sunscreen products, containing oxybenzone and retinyl palmitate, is “misleading”.
The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) says that the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) 2015 sunscreen guide “contains false information, inaccuracies and methodology flaws that ultimately render it misleading and potentially harmful to public health”.
Oxybenzone, also known as benzophenone-3, protects skin from UVA and UVB light. When the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed the safety of several UV-protective substances back in 1978 it deemed it acceptable for use in concentrations of up to 6%.
The substance is subject to an ongoing investigation by Denmark under Echa's Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) for its endocrine disruption potential, but it is currently permitted for use in cosmetics by the European Commission in concentrations of up to 10%.
The Skin Cancer Foundation, an international health NGO, claims that the EWG relied on dated research on oxybenzone that demonstrated allergenic and hormone disruption concerns that do not translate to realistic usage. “In order for a human to attain a similar dose of the ingredient, one would have to apply sunscreen daily for up to 277 years,” said the NGO. It added that newer studies have not demonstrated hormone level changes in users of oxybenzone-containing sunscreens.
A 2012 National Toxicology Program (NTP) study suggests that retinyl palmitate, a form of vitamin A added to some consumer products for its potential to reduce signs of ageing in skin, can hasten the growth of cancerous lesions and tumours in the presence of UV light. The EWG acknowledges that the evidence against retinyl palmitate is “not definitive” but still advises consumers to avoid those products that contain it.
The FDA and the European Commission do not restrict the use of retinyl palmitate in cosmetic products. Canada lists the substance on its Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist as acceptable for use in concentrations up to 1.8%.
The EWG named Johnson & Johnson brand Neutrogena in its “hall of shame”, noting that 80% of the company's reviewed products contained oxybenzone and a third had retinyl palmitate.
“Contrary to the EWG's claims, the global safety profile of the ingredients we use is comprehensive and strong in supporting their safe use, and supported by the US FDA and other external safety experts,” said a spokesperson for Neutrogena. “Consumers should be aware that the EWG test methods lack the rigour of peer-reviewed, scientific evaluation.”
The NGO's ninth annual edition of the guide analyses over 1,700 products; the group reported that it received over one million views within a month of the report's publishing.
The PCPC expressed concern that the “falsely alarming” nature of the report may lead consumers to avoid the use of sunscreen and address sun safety inadequately.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Failed Terror Attack Raises Alarms About Chemical Plant Security
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The attempted bombing of a chemical plant in France as part of an apparent terrorist attack on 26 June, which culminated in an explosion there and involved a beheading, has exposed the vulnerability of chemical plants, according to several security experts.
The facility in question is owned by US-based company Air Products & Chemicals. French authorities have reportedly detained 35-year-old Yassin Salhi for his alleged involvement in the plot to blow up the facility. He apparently drove a van into a warehouse containing canisters of gas, acetone and liquid air, creating an explosion. Salhi is also being accused of decapitating the man in charge of the transportation company that employed him.
The president and CEO of Air Products, Seifi Ghasemi, issued a statement expressing sympathy for the victim and his family. He said the incident ‘reinforces that we all need to take safety and security very seriously, every day, and remain vigilant in everything we do’. All of the other employees are safe and accounted for, according to Ghasemi. Security has been increased at Air Products’ locations around the world as a ‘precautionary measure,’ he said.
‘It’s time for the industry to take seriously the need to reduce both the attractiveness of facilities as terrorist targets and the potential consequences of successful attacks,’ says Paul Orum, a consultant based in Washington, DC who advises public safety advocacy organisations on chemical security. Orum and his colleagues have identified safer alternatives for many industries. For example, polyurethane foam manufacturers can eliminate bulk ethylene oxide by substituting vegetable-based polyols, and titanium dioxide producers can eliminate bulk chlorine gas by generating chlorine on-site as needed without storage, or by using the sulfate process.
David Halperin, an attorney who formerly worked on the US National Security Council staff and Senate Intelligence Committee, agrees that more can be done to ensure the material inside such facilities won’t easily ignite. ‘Better security is a good thing, but the really important thing is inherently safer chemicals,’ he states. ‘[the attack in France] shows that someone can easily gain access to a plant, and if the materials in a plant are susceptible to causing damage if ignited, that is a risk.’
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) called the incident ‘an important reminder that the work of defending against terrorist attacks is never done’. It says it is actively discussing with its members and the US Department of Homeland Security whether additional actions are needed to bolster chemical plant security in the US and abroad, noting that member companies have invested more than $14 billion to further enhance security at their facilities under ACC’s Responsible Care Security Code programme.
The attack in France happened the same day as foreign tourists were murdered at a beach resort in Tunisia, and a suicide bomber attacked a Shia mosque in Kuwait. It was unclear whether these events were related, although Islamic extremist groups are believed to be linked to all three.
‘It appears to be a coordinated effort, and that certainly should raise concerns about chemical plants, as well as refineries,’ warns Richard Sem, the president of the security and workplace violence consulting firm Sem Security Management in Wisconsin, US. He notes that many facilities are in populated metropolitan areas, where an explosion or a dangerous release could conceivably cause significant harm.
-
Occidental, Engineering Company Join Forces in Ethylene Cracker Project
Jul 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
The Woodlands-based engineering company Chicago, Bridge & Iron has joined in to build storage as part of a $1.5 billion petrochemical project owned by Texas-based Occidental Petroleum Corp.
Occidental's OxyChem subsidiary and Mexichem are constructing the ethylene cracker project as part of the Ingleside Ethylene joint venture near Corpus Christi.
Occidental announced a late 2017 deadline to begin operating (Jordan Blum, Fuel Fix, June 30). -- KS
-
EPA Restricts Climate-Warming Chemicals Used in Refrigeration
Jul 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration moved Thursday to restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), the most potent greenhouse gases emitted by human activity.
The Environmental Protection Agency declared Thursday in a regulation that certain uses for HFCs are prohibited and certain alternatives can be used.
HFCs do not naturally occur anywhere and have been used in refrigeration, air conditioning, aerosols, fire retardants and similar applications.
The move is part of President Obama’s second-term push to slow climate change, in part through regulations limiting greenhouse gases. The EPA said the private sector is already moving away from HFCs.
“This rule will not only reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, but also encourage greater use and development of the next generation of safer HFC alternatives,” EPA head Gina McCarthy said in a statement. “It is in line with steps leading businesses are already taking to reduce and replace HFCs with safer, climate-friendly alternatives.”
Without the right regulations, the EPA estimated that HFC use would double by 2020 and triple by 2030.
Some HFCs have have global warming potential between 12- and 14,800-times that of the same volume of carbon dioxide, according to the EPA. They also can stay in the atmosphere and continue to warm the planet for hundreds of years.
HFCs came into use in recent decades as replacements for chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, both of which deplete the ozone layer and are being phased out as part of the international Montreal Protocol.
The EPA estimated that its Thursday action, which it proposed almost a year ago, would save 54 to 64 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2025.
Honeywell International Inc., a major manufacturer of some of the cooling and insulating products affected by the rule, said it supports the EPA’s effort.
“Honeywell applauds the EPA on their landmark action to restrict the use of high-global-warming hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are among the most potent greenhouse gases in use today,” Ken Gayer, a Honeywell vice president, said in a statement.
“The EPA’s action will accelerate the adoption of solutions with far less impact on the atmosphere while also spurring private sector innovation and creating jobs,” he said.
-
EPA Urges Court To Reject Rehearing GHG Permit Suit
Jul 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is asking a federal appellate court to reject industry's bid to reopen the long-running case over the agency's greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting authority in which industry is hoping to block EPA's ability to require GHG limits in stationary source prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits until the agency finalizes a rule establishing a proper de minimis emissions level.
The Department of Justice on behalf of EPA in a July 1 filing in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPAoutlines a host of arguments against industry groups' earlier petition for rehearing en banc to advance their argument that the agency must first define de minimis GHGs for permits.
The groups argue that the delineation was required when the Supreme Court ruled last year in the case, which was then known as Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA.
The EPA filing says the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit lacks jurisdiction over the petition for rehearing because the court has already issued its mandate putting its earlier ruling into effect, which left the de minimis threshold up to EPA and dismissed the case after it was remanded back from the high court without explicit instructions.
The administration also argues that the amended judgment the court issued “correctly applies” the UARGruling because the justices “specifically upheld the application of” best available control technology (BACT) “to stationary sources already subject to the [Clean Air Act's] PSD program, i.e. to anyway sources. . . . In fact, however, the Supreme Court explained that BACT was already being applied to [GHGs] from anyway sources, without any requirement for EPA to first conduct a de minimis determination.” The court “then expressly held that EPA may 'continue to treat [GHGs] as a 'pollutant'” from anyway PSD sources.
“EPA clearly cannot continue to apply BACT to greenhouse gas emissions from anyway sources, and simultaneously be prohibited from applying BACT to those very same emissions until it conducts a rulemaking to determine whether exempting a de minimis level of emissions of greenhouse gases is appropriate,” the filing says.
The agency brief adds that the petitioners “misconstrue a single sentence” from UARG that “merely points out that EPA may determine that there are amounts of greenhouse gases that could be deemed de minimis.”
The filing responds to a May 26 petition by more than a dozen industry groups that asked the D.C. Circuit to reconsider its April decision that let EPA determine how to interpret UARG. The court's per curiam order rejected without comment those identical industry arguments.
EPA has also since announced its intent to issue a de minimis rulemaking, telling its Clean Air Act Advisory Committee April 22 that it has begun work on a proposal, which it plans to release in June 2016. The agency also issued a direct final rule establishing a process to rescind GHG-only permits that the high court deemed unlawful.
-
Oklahoma Cites Lack Of 'Relief' To Boost New Suit Over Proposed ESPS
Jul 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Oklahoma has filed a novel suit over EPA's proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants that claims the state lacks any other options for “relief” from harms the proposal is already causing, though the suit could face slim prospects as appellate judges recently said courts lack power to hear suits over proposed rules.
The suit, filed July 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, seeks a declaration that EPA lacks authority for its planned Clean Air Act section 111(d) rule for existing utilities. It also asks for a preliminary injunction to prohibit issuing or enforcing the existing source performance standards (ESPS) as proposed and a permanent injunction against any similar rule in the future.
Oklahoma previously signed on to a lawsuit filed by several states in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, State of West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, that challenged as unlawful a consent decree between the agency and environmentalists that committed EPA to writing GHG rules for new and existing power plants. That suit also asked the court to bar EPA from issuing the ESPS until the agency ends the regulation of utilities under its Clean Air Act section 112 maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule.
The D.C. Circuit in June rejected that suit as well as related legal challenges filed by coal mining firm Murray Energy, with a three-judge panel saying that it lacked authority to hear suits over proposed rules. The court also noted that the agency is poised to issue the rule sometime this summer.
Nevertheless, EPA critic Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) is again attempting a novel legal push for a federal court to invalidate a proposed rule by challenging the ESPS.
Oklahoma acknowledges its suit is “not the usual challenge to an agency rulemaking.” It says the “ordinary” air law section 307 power to challenge final EPA air rules is not adequate because the state would be forced to take significant actions to change its electric system while pursuing such a lawsuit. The complaint estimates that a ruling from the appellate court could take at least nine months, and it “may take much longer. While opponents of the rule could seek a judicial stay of implementation, “that is still likely to take months.”
“By that time, Oklahoma will have either implemented or taken irreversible steps towards implementing most, if not all, of the changes [needed to comply], meaning that they will be implemented even though the [ESPS] is certain to be invalidated,” according to the complaint.
As such, the state argues that the federal district court in Oklahoma has power to review the proposed ESPS under federal courts’ “residual” authority granted under title 28, section 1331 of the U.S. Code, which grants federal courts what is commonly known as “federal question jurisdiction.”
'Reviewability' Presumption
“There's a presumption of reviewability under federal law when federal statutes don't provide specifically for review in a particular circumstance,” says a source familiar with the matter.
The source adds that the authority became available after the D.C. Circuit's ESPS ruling finding it did not have statutory authority to review the suits, and is available until EPA finalizes the rule.
Filing the suit in the Oklahoma district court also be an attempt to gain a more favorable litigation venue. Agency critics have said they anticipated they could have a tougher time at the appellate stage of the litigation because the D.C. Circuit has more judges appointed by Democratic presidents, though the judges on the panel that dismissed the Murray suits were all appointed by Republicans.
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) recently told reporters, “We always knew that litigation with the D.C. Circuit was going to be problematic and an uphill climb because of the nature of the court and their leniency. We’d like to get a venue outside of the D.C. [Circuit] to take another crack at this issue. In talking with some of the other governors, I know that they are looking at perhaps a different venue to challenge the EPA’s rule.”
In addition to Pruitt, the latest suit is brought by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, whose director is appointed by Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R), who has also issued an executive order preventing the department from crafting a compliance plan for the ESPS.
Because EPA’s proposal would require changes at a “breakneck” pace, the proposal “has left states no choice but to begin work now on the necessary changes to their laws and programs governing electricity, well before any court has an opportunity to review a ‘final’ rule,” Oklahoma says in a brief in support of its motion for preliminary injunction. “The whole point of their rush is to create irreversible facts on the ground so that no court ‘will be able to unscramble this particular omelet’ -- the epitome of irreparable injury,” the state adds.
The state argues that federal courts have “residual” jurisdiction to hear challenges to “plainly” illegal actions, even before they are final, if waiting to challenge a final action would injure petitioners.
It cites a 1958 Supreme Court ruling in Leedom v. Kyne, which allowed employees to challenge a non-final action by the National Labor Relations Board.
The state also cites as a “close parallel” a 1978 2nd Circuit ruling in PepsiCo, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in which the court found that an injunction is appropriate when “an agency refuses to dismiss a proceeding that is plainly beyond its jurisdiction as a matter of law.”
That case, which concerned an FTC proceeding accusing PepsiCo of hindering competition through territorial-exclusivity contracts, found such relief appropriate because the agency’s actions implicate “enormous waste of governmental resources and the continuing threat of a complete restructuring of an industry.”
“That is exactly the threat that Oklahoma now faces due to Defendants’ conduct of a regulatory proceeding that is plainly beyond their legal authority. In fact, even worse than in PepsiCo, Defendants’ actions are already inflicting serious and irreparable injuries on Oklahoma,” the state says.
Legal Arguments
The source familiar with the matter says there are two key questions that will govern whether the court issues an injuction: whether EPA's proposal is “blatantly unlawful” and whether Oklahoma is suffering “irreparable harm.”
Oklahoma’s suit includes several legal arguments that EPA critics have raised to show that the ESPS is “plainly” illegal.
The arguments include the threshold claim raised in the previous round of ESPS litigation that EPA lacks authority under Clean Air Act section 111(d) to regulate power plants' GHG emissions because it already regulates plants’ mercury emissions under section 112 of the law through the MACT -- although the Supreme Court recently remanded that rule to the D.C. Circuit after faulting EPA for not considering costs in its initial determination that regulation of power plants under that section was “appropriate and necessary.”
That Supreme Court ruling preserves' critics threshold ESPS argument for now because the high court did not vacate the rule, meaning plants technically remain regulated under section 112.
In the new ESPS litigation, Oklahoma also says EPA’s proposal to set targets using GHG reduction measures that are “outside-the-fence” of power plants is not legal, and that the proposal also violates the state’s right under the air act to consider sources’ remaining useful lives.
The source points to the 111/112 threshold issue, as well as the outside-the-fence argument, as evidence that the proposal is plainly illegal. “These are central planks of an agency's” rulemaking, the source says.
The state also says the proposal violates the Constitution because it “unlawfully commandeers the states,” and because it “unlawfully coerces the states,” by threatening to withhold highway funding or impose “substantial injuries on states’ citizens.”
Further, the state's suit argues it is suffering irreparable harm due to early regulatory steps that must be taken to comply, as well as power sector decisions that would remain in place even if the rule were scrapped by the courts.
The source notes that such arguments are likely to be raised in any future motion to stay the rule in the D.C. Circuit, if the Oklahoma litigation is unsuccessful. The issues will be “similar but even more acute should these issues come up in the future,” the source says.
-
Okla. Challenges Clean Power Plan in New Venue
Jul 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Oklahoma's attorney general launched a quixotic bid yesterday to pre-empt U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan, less than a month after courts dismissed a challenge to the draft rule led by West Virginia and Murray Energy Corp. on the grounds it was premature.
Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) filed a suit in federal court in Tulsa that reiterates an argument that appeared in the previous challenge: that a long-standing discrepancy in the Clean Air Act prohibits EPA from regulating the same source category for different pollutants under two different sections of the law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the combined suit by Murray Energy, West Virginia and 14 states including Oklahoma last month on the grounds that the rule is still in draft form. It will be final this summer, and similar challenges are likely to be filed at that time (Greenwire, June 9).
But Pruitt's filing goes beyond the legislative "glitch" argument put forward by West Virginia and Murray Energy to argue that EPA's rule also errs in demanding emissions reductions beyond the fence line at a power plant that can only be achieved through changes in dispatch and demand-side efficiency. It also raises constitutional concerns, contending that the rule constitutes "commandeering and coercion" of states in violation of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and would cause "irreparable harm" to Oklahoma's economy.
The Oklahoma filing is also a bid to circumvent the Washington, D.C., appellate court, which has already ruled that challenges to the draft are premature. By relying on a precedent established in the Supreme Court's 1958 decision on Leedom vs. Kyne, Pruitt is attempting to run this challenge through the federal district court -- something that will not be possible after the rule is final.
In a statement accompanying the filing, Pruitt called the EPA rule "an unlawful attempt to expand federal bureaucrats' authority over states' energy economies in order to shutter coal-fired power plants and eventually other sources of fossil-fuel generated electricity."
Advertisement
This is not the first time a state has attempted an end run around the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Last year, Nebraska filed suit in federal district court, but that challenge to EPA's rules for new and modified power plants was found to be premature, also (Greenwire, Oct. 8).
Pruitt spokesman Lincoln Ferguson said in an email that the suit was intended to accelerate the court's process. "If we wait to challenge the final rule, we will be waiting many, many months for the case to be briefed, argued and decided. We simply cannot afford to wait," he said.
Washington, D.C.-based industry lawyers said that this week's Supreme Court ruling on EPA's Mercury and Toxics Standards (MATS) underlines the importance of challenging costly regulations early. The court left the rule in place but remanded it to the D.C. Circuit, a move its critics say casts doubt on its future.
"The Supreme Court MATS case illustrated that postponing relief until after implementation of a rule can result in billions of wasted dollars and substantial plant closures in pursuit of an illegal rule," said Scott Segal, who represents industry clients at Bracewell & Giuliani. "Preliminary relief would be preferable under the circumstances."
If the lower court upsets the MATS rule, which is written under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, that would undermine plaintiffs' argument that EPA may not regulate carbon under Section 111(d), as it does in the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, June 30).
-
Suits Over EPA Proposals Unlikely To Succeed Despite Judge's Suggestion
Jul 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Future lawsuits seeking novel judicial review of EPA proposals rather than final rules are unlikely to gain traction after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a suit over the agency's proposed utility climate rules, sources say, despite one judge's suggesting that such a lawsuit could potentially proceed.
A three-judge panel of D.C. Circuit Judges Brett Kavanaugh, Karen LeCraft Henderson and Thomas B. Griffith in a June 9 ruling rejected three separate cases -- In re: Murray Energy, Murray Energy, et al. v. EPA, et al., andWest Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al. -- that asked the court to take the unprecedented step of reviewing the agency's proposed greenhouse gas rules, with industry claiming the rules were already causing utilities economic harm.
The panel unanimously rejected industry and states' claims that early harms from the proposed climate existing source performance standards (ESPS) or alleged flaws in a lapsed settlement agreement between EPA and environmentalists that may have led to the ESPS could support a legal challenge.
But Henderson in an opinion concurring with the overall decision to scrap the suit backed the arguments behind industry's third claim, that the All Writs Act allows a court to block a proposed rule if circumstances warrant -- even if the agency has not taken "final action," which is usually necessary before a suit can begin.
Kavanaugh's majority opinion, joined by Griffith, flatly rejected the All Writs Act claim as beyond their authority. But Henderson said the court has jurisdiction to issue a writ blocking a proposed rule, although she said she would choose not to do so since EPA is very close to finalizing the ESPS sometime this summer.
"Granting the writ would be inappropriate in this instance because the EPA has represented that it will promulgate a final rule before this opinion issues. . . . Keeping in mind that the common law writs are 'drastic and extraordinary remed[ies] reserved for really extraordinary causes,' the overtaking of these petitions by the imminent issuance of a final rule, in my view, moots the requested relief." Henderson said in her concurrence.
Although her opinion suggests that at least she might be open to the D.C. Circuit hearing future All Writs Act claims over proposed EPA regulations, observers downplay the success of any such suit.
One industry attorney says Henderson's backing is not enough to give EPA critics hope that a future panel could invoke the All Writs Act to block a proposed rule where final action is farther off from the agency finalizing it.
"It's not at all likely to happen, just as a matter of jurisprudence. . . . If the D.C. Circuit were to ever accept challenges at the proposal stage, it would have the effect of vastly expanding its docket putting a huge roadblock in front of any agency's ability to finalize a regulation," the source says.
An environmentalist adds that the three-judge panel that heard the ESPS cases was a "dream situation" for agency critics since all three judges are seen as somewhat critical of EPA's policies.
"There was a lot of chest-bumping when they announced that panel, because you had three Republican appointees, and Kavanaugh in particular has been very outspoken [against EPA]. The idea was that if they could get anyone on their side, it would be this panel. Looking at how it turned out, I don't think after this ruling you will see very many petitioners challenging rulemaking proposals in the D.C. Circuit," the source adds.
The source adds that although conservative judges may oppose EPA's policies, they will also typically be reluctant to expand judicial authority -- such as by claiming power to review proposed rules that they have never before claimed.
"Consensus is that the two conservative judges in the majority reflected the views of the rest of the court. It's very hard to see any of the Democratic-appointed judges on the court being attracted to that theory. It's very hard to see any of the more traditionally conservative judges being attracted to that theory," the source says.
-
Why Coal Stocks Didn't Get Much Help from the Supreme Court's Mercury Ruling
Jul 2, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden and Benjamin Hulac
Coal stocks surged this week after the Supreme Court found problems with U.S. EPA's regulations to curb coal plant mercury emissions.
Peabody Energy Corp. shares finished 9.9 percent higher, Alpha Natural Resources Inc. spiked midday and ended up 2.6 percent, and Arch Coal Inc. holdings rose 4.8 percent by the closing bell Monday.
But investment experts say most coal plants and electric utilities will see no major benefit from the ruling.
"Utilities have already largely implemented the EPA rule, installing scrubbers on surviving plants and shutting down other plants where economics made implementation cost prohibitive," MorningStar equity analyst Travis Miller said in a note after the ruling. "In addition, with low-cost natural gas continuing to drive the construction of new natural gas generation, we think the ruling is too far past to necessarily undo the impact of MATS."
Indeed, coal stocks had already dipped back down Tuesday and yesterday, another sign that the industry is in structural decline, rather than in a cyclical slowdown or blip that can rebound based on court action on climate regulations.
About half the country's coal capacity had complied with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards by an April 2015 deadline, while the other half requested yearlong extensions,according to MJ Bradley & Associates.
Advertisement
The Supreme Court's decision doesn't let those coal-burning units with extensions off the hook, though. The justices ruled that EPA unlawfully failed to consider how much the regulations would cost to implement in deciding to limit mercury emissions, but it remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration.
It's impossible to know how the D.C. Circuit will respond, but judges could vacate the rule while EPA reconsiders the cost issue (Greenwire, June 30). Environmental advocates have said they will fight to keep that from happening. If the rule is waylaid, some coal plants that have not yet made changes could run longer without emissions controls, said Dennis Pidherny, a public power analyst for Fitch Ratings.
"For a number of the issuers that we rate, they've been agonizing over whether or not to spend the money putting on additional pollution controls," Pidherny said. "The uncertainty may allow them to continue to operate without those scrubbers for a longer period of time."
Investors might have been banking on that uncertainty when they poured money into coal producer stocks Monday.
Or it might have been that coal stocks were "horribly discounted and they were looking for any good news to snap some up," said Fitch coal analyst Monica Bonar.
Philip Smyth, an investor-owned utilities analyst for Fitch, said the ruling's impact won't be "meaningful from a big picture point of view" and natural gas prices have a much bigger influence on coal's competitiveness.'Regulatory risk still remains'
Any delay in implementing the rest of the changes under the mercury rule could give companies time to consider how to react to a host of climate regulations. They could have a better idea of how EPA's finalized Clean Power Plan will play out in their states, for example, Pidherny said.
On the other hand, if the court's response undercuts MATS requirements, the industry could have a harder time complying with those upcoming carbon emissions requirements, he said.
EPA air chief Janet McCabe said in a blog post Tuesday that the ruling would have no bearing on the Clean Power Plan (ClimateWire, July 1).
But analysts at Fitch and MorningStar think the precedent will force EPA to more cautiously weigh costs.
"At the end of the day, EPA did the analysis -- it just looks like going forward they'll have to slow down and do a more thorough analysis before the rule," said Monica Bonar, a Fitch coal analyst.
Miller warned that this won't make coal any safer an investment, though.
"Although we think the Supreme Court ruling will force the EPA to more carefully push future regulation and will make the industry more fervent in its claims of EPA overreach, we caution investors that regulatory risk still remains a key risk to coal stocks," he said.
The coal sector has lost roughly 63 percent of its value during the past year, and during yesterday's trading it was the worst performer of all Dow Jones sectors, sliding nearly 6 percent. Since 2012, more than 30 coal mining companies have filed for bankruptcy protection.
Shares of companies that climbed Monday saw their gains wiped out yesterday.
Peabody started the nosedive yesterday after lowering shareholder expectations for its second-quarter performance with new information. In response, shares plummeted 18.31 percent, and Peabody finished as the fourth worst-performing stock.
The St. Louis-headquartered firm said Tuesday that harsh rain and flooding had cut production by 5 million to 5.5 million tons at its facilities in the West, triggering a $40 million loss. The company also warned of a $20 million loss due to lower Australian coal prices.
In early June, Peabody, the largest private-sector coal operator, announced it would cut 250 jobs in Indiana and Wyoming, and in a filing posted Tuesday, the firm said it is eliminating 250 other positions in Australia.
By the end of yesterday, Alpha had dipped 7.7 percent, Arch dropped 4.8 percent, and Walter Energy Inc. and Cloud Peak Energy Inc. gave back 3.7 and 9.4 percent of their gains.
Alpha may soon be undergoing a debt restructuring, and Wyoming's environment department has informed the company that it no longer qualifies for "self-bonding" and will have to have insurance or cash on hand to clean up abandoned mining facilities. Peabody and Arch, which also have facilities in the state, are "getting tarred with that brush, as well," Bonar said.
"It's just a tough market," she said, adding that a cooler-than-usual summer has done nothing to spur electricity and coal demand.
"You've had, more recently, [metallurgical] coal find a new bottom," Bonar said.
-
Energy, Interior-EPA Approps, Reg Reform on Tap for July
Jul 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The House this month will continue work on the Interior-U.S. EPA fiscal 2016 spending bill while also diving into a broad energy package, drought legislation and a sweeping overhaul of the federal regulatory process before heading home for the August recess, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told lawmakers yesterday.
McCarthy's memo doesn't specify the timing for the month's agenda, but the chamber next week is expected to resume consideration of the $30.17 billion Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 2822). The House adopted more than a dozen amendments to the bill during floor debate last week, but more controversial amendments are expected after the July Fourth recess (E&E Daily, June 26).
Also on the pre-August recess agenda is the Energy and Commerce Committee's "Architecture of Abundance" energy package. Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) last week described the bill as largely noncontroversial but noted outstanding disagreements over provisions in the efficiency title, as well as the possible inclusion of provisions to overturn the federal ban on crude oil exports (E&E Daily, June 26).
A committee spokesman today said a hearing by Whitfield's subcommittee is planned for next Thursday on a bill (H.R. 702) sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) that would fully repeal the ban.
McCarthy said the House will also vote on the major regulatory overhaul bill (H.R. 427) sponsored by Rep. Todd Young (R-Ind.), which would require congressional approval for regulations with an estimated impact of more than $100 million (E&ENews PM, April 15).
The measure, known as the "REINS Act," has been a top priority of Republicans for years but struggled to gain traction in the Democratic-led Senate. With Republicans fully in charge of Congress, the companion measure by GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul (R-Ky.) may fare better in the Senate this time around.
Advertisement
Also slated to come up before August is the House's latest attempt to address the drought that has crippled California and other Western states. The bill (H.R. 2898), offered by Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), aims to boost water transfers to the thirsty farming communities in the Central Valley and parched cities in Southern California (E&ENews PM, June 25).
The measure would also change the scientific calculations used to protect endangered smelt and salmon species in the region. Past efforts to address Endangered Species Act protections for the fish have been a major sticking point for drought legislation.
Additionally, the House will vote on a bill (H.R. 2647) that would expedite logging sales on federal lands. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), would streamline National Environmental Policy Act reviews for logging projects that reduce wildfire risks, boost forest resilience to insects and disease, and protect water supplies.
The bill, approved by the House Agriculture Committee last month, would also allow categorical exclusions for some projects that span up to 15,000 acres. It contains provisions intended to limit legal challenges to logging plans (Greenwire, June 17).
In a statement today, House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said the bill will be considered next week as part of a package that would establish criteria for making catastrophic wildfires on public lands become eligible for emergency declarations.
The House will also move to extend the Highway Trust Fund before heading home in August, although McCarthy's memo doesn't address the thorny questions of how long the extension will last and how it will be paid for. The fund is scheduled to run dry before the end of the fiscal year in September (E&ENews PM, June 19).
-
Train Carrying Toxic Gas Derails in Tennessee
Jul 2, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Laura Stevens and Cameron McWhirter
A tank car containing a hazardous flammable chemical derailed and caught fire just south of Knoxville, Tenn., causing the evacuation of 5,000 residents within a two-mile radius of the crash.
The train was traveling to Waycross, Ga., from Cincinnati, Ohio, when a single tank car derailed and caught fire around midnight in the area of Maryville, Tenn., rail operator CSX Corp. said in a statement.
No civilians were injured by the fumes, but 10 law enforcement officers helping with the evacuation were taken to a nearby hospital to be treated for exposure to the fumes, said Marian O’Briant, spokeswoman for the Blount County Sheriff’s Office. Their injuries weren't considered serious, she said. By about 8:30 a.m. EDT Thursday, the one railcar that caught fire was still burning and the people evacuated were being told they couldn’t return to their homes for 24 hours to 48 hours, she said.
Denso Corp., a Japanese auto-parts supplier, has a manufacturing operation near the crash site that had to be evacuated early Thursday morning, said Julie Kerr, a spokeswoman. About 3,000 people normally work at its Maryville facility, but they had to send the night shift home and have canceled more shifts since, she said.
“Everyone’s safe,” she said. “We just had to shut it down.”
The tank car contained acrylonitrile, used in the manufacturing of plastics, which can be dangerous when inhaled, according to CSX. Additional tank cars containing the substance are located on either side of the derailed car, with a total of 27 out of 57 cars carrying hazardous materials on the train.RELATED
U.S. Crude-by-Rail Rules Face Fresh Challenge (May 14)U.S. Lays Down Strict Railcar Rules (May 1)Secrecy of Oil-by-Train Shipments Causes Concern (May 22, 2014)
The railroad said it is working with first responders and relief agencies in Maryville, which has a population of more than 27,000. A local high school was established as an outreach center for evacuees. Federal Railroad Administration officials were on scene and will begin an investigation to determine the cause of the derailment once the site is safe, Acting Administrator Sarah Feinberg said in a statement.
The train wasn't carrying any crude oil, CSX said. The U.S. Department of Transportation recently established new rules for the carrying of hazardous flammable liquids, aimed at making rail transportation safer. The new rules call for installing new braking systems on trains carrying more than 70 cars of flammable materials, as well as phased-in upgrades to tank cars.
Communities, environmental groups, the rail industry and others have all challenged the new rules.
-
Oil Train Car Derails, Catches Fire in Tennessee
Jul 2, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing
A train car carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire in Tennessee early on Thursday morning.
The train, operated by CSX, derailed near Maryville, the company said.
"Around midnight, a train en route from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Waycross, Ga., derailed the single-tank car loaded with acrylonitrile, a hazardous material used in a variety of industrial processes including the manufacture of plastics," CSX said in a statement. "The substance is flammable and presents an inhalation risk. First responders have ordered an evacuation of residences and businesses in a two-mile radius."
The train, which was being powered by two locomotives, had 27 cars that were full of crude oil, according to the company. Another 18 cars were carrying other types of freight and 12 cars were empty.
CSX officials said they are "working with first responders and relief agencies."
"CSX personnel are on hand at an Outreach Center that has been established at Heritage High School," the company said. "Displaced residents are being offered assistance, including lodging."
The incident is the latest in a series of high-profile accidents in recent years that have spurred regulators in the United States and Canada to crack down on oil trains, which have grown in number by more than 4,000 percent during the domestic oil production boom.
The Federal Railroad Administration is promising to quickly launch an investigation of the derailment.
"Overnight, a tank car on a CSX train derailed near Maryville, Tennessee," acting FRA Administrator Sarah Feinberg said in a statement. "First responders are on the scene, and residents within a two-mile radius were evacuated. FRA investigators and hazmat inspectors are on site. Once it is safe, FRA will begin a thorough investigation to determine the cause of the derailment.”
-
Thousands Evacuate as Derailed Train Spews Toxic Fumes
Jul 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Thousands were evacuated from their homes in eastern Tennessee following the derailment and burning of a CSX train carrying a toxic and flammable substance last night.
The fire was still burning at 6:05 a.m. today, Blount County Fire Department Lt. Johnny Leatherwood said, more than six hours after authorities were first called to the scene.
About 5,000 people within a 2-mile radius of the derailment near Maryville, Tenn., were evacuated, along with several businesses, Leatherwood said.
No deaths have been reported, he said, though six or seven police officers had to be decontaminated and treated at a local hospital after exposure to the fumes (AP/New Orleans Times-Picayune, July 2).
The train carrying acrylonitrile, a chemical compound used to make plastics, was headed from Cincinnati to Waycross, Ga., when it veered off the rails, said Kristin Seay, a spokeswoman for CSX (Burnside/Brumfield, CNN, July 2). -- BTP
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested