Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/4
-
Transportation Security: Protecting Passengers and Freight
Apr 6, 2016 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253 / 10:00 AM -
Cyber Preparedness and Response at the Local Level
Apr 7, 2016 | Homeland Security Committee
Location: Austin College, 1301 East Brockett, Sherman, Texas / 11:00 AM -
Blackout! Are We Prepared to Manage the Aftermath of a Cyber-Attack or Other Failure of the Electrical Grid?
Apr 14, 2016 | Transport, Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Location: 2167 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Blog) No Shortcuts to Sound Science
Apr 1, 2016 | American Chemistry Council
By Gregory G. Bond
One of the most important jobs a public health researcher can undertake is asking stimulating questions that could, through meticulous and valid research, help policymakers make informed decisions about how best to protect human health and the environment. https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/04/no-shortcuts-to-sound-science/ -
(ACC Mentioned) Walker Signs Bill Banning Bans on Plastic Bags
Apr 1, 2016 | Wisconsin Gazette
By Lisa Neff
“Paper or plastic?” isn’t going away anytime soon in Wisconsin. Gov. Scott Walker signed legislation March 30 protecting plastic bags from community bans. -
Mercury Case Has Implications for TSCA Revamp: Attorneys
Apr 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2015 on an Environmental Protection Agency rule setting limits on mercury pollution could “impose unintended requirements” complicating the government's ability to regulate toxic chemicals, if reform legislation is enacted as currently written, more than 30 legal expertswrote. -
Compromise that Strengthens, Not Weakens, TSCA is the Key to Getting a New Law
Apr 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
My recent blog post about the public’s right to know the names of chemicals in health and safety studies brought a response from the Vice President for Government and Public Relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), a trade association of specialty chemical firms. -
Shimkus Addresses National Issues in DU Visit
Apr 1, 2016 | Shelbyville Daily Union
Traveling around the district before heading back to Washington D.C. in a few days, Representative John Shimkus (R - IL15th District) stopped at the Daily Union office Wednesday afternoon. -
Food Firms Push to Phase Out Bisphenol A
Apr 1, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
Facing mounting pressure from consumer advocates and environmental activists, Campbell Soup and Del Monte Foods have announced timetables for replacing bisphenol A (BPA)-based coatings in food cans. -
Breaking News: Asbestos Legal in the U.S.
Apr 1, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Linda Reinstein
No April Fools joke here. Asbestos - a known human carcinogen - has not been banned and is still legal in the United States. -
New Law Will Ban 5 Chemicals from Kids Products, Furniture
Apr 3, 2016 | AP
Five toxic chemicals will be banned from home furniture and children's products such as toys, car seats and nursing pillows under a bill Gov. Jay Inslee has signed into law. -
Getting Chemicals Out of Health Care Settings, with a Little Help
Apr 1, 2016 | GreenBiz
By Amanda Cattermole
The Hippocratic Oath declares that disease should be prevented whenever possible because prevention is preferable to cure. -
There’s No Need to Panic Over Fracking-Related Quakes
Apr 1, 2016 | The Washington Post
By The Editorial Board
“Drilling is Making Oklahoma as Quake Prone as California,” one headline blared. “Fracking fallout: 7.9 million at risk of man-made earthquakes,” read another. -
Senate Returns to Supreme Court Drama, Unfinished Energy Bill
Apr 4, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
The Senate returns from spring break today for a busy four-week stretch that will see continued negotiations over moving energy reform legislation and aid package for Flint, Mich. -
Clean Power Plan Supporters Back EPA's Authority
Apr 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency is using its authority under Section 111(d) to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants with its Clean Power Plan exactly as Congress intended, more than 200 current and former legislators and two key Senate aides said in defense of the rule (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, amicus briefs filed 4/1/16). -
Many Unknowns in Clean Power Plan, Oklahoma Official Says
Apr 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
Oklahoma's top environmental official told conference attendees April 1 that states did not have the resources to develop compliance plans for the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan—only to have the goal posts moved. -
Tech Giants Back EPA in Climate Rule Legal Challenge
Apr 1, 2016 | Reuters
By Valerie Volvcovici
Technology companies Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon on Friday declared support for the Obama administration in a lawsuit facing its central plan to combat climate change, saying the rule is needed to drive a transition to cleaner energy. -
The U.S. Is a Big Oil Importer Again
Mar 31, 2016 | Bloomberg Businessweek
By Matthew Philips
In the three months since the U.S. lifted its 40-year ban on crude oil exports, a curious thing has happened. Rather than flooding global markets, U.S. crude shipments to foreign buyers have stalled. -
House Republicans Push Back on Offshore Drilling Rule
Apr 1, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Top House Republicans are asking the Obama administration to rewrite a forthcoming rule on offshore oil drilling. -
Chemical Facility Auditing Proposal Defended by EPA's Giles
Apr 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
An Environmental Protection Agency proposal that would require chemical plants to hire independent third parties to perform compliance audits under the agency's Risk Management Program is supported by evidence that those audits are more effective, the agency's top enforcement official said. -
Circle of Life Brings Chemical Plant Safety
Apr 1, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Chris Tomlinson
A dangerous pesticide plant in LaPorte ,where four workers died in 2014, is shutting down. That's the good news. -
Two M/W Workers Killed in Wreck of Amtrak Palmetto
Apr 3, 2016 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono
Amtrak Train 89 had 341 passengers and seven crew members on board at the time. Information obtained by Railway Age indicated that the victims were the equipment operator and a track supervisor. Debris from the crash flew into the first two cars, injuring some passengers. -
Railroad Officials Clash With Lawmakers Over Safety Bill
Apr 1, 2016 | CBS Minnesota
By Pat Kessler
Minnesota railroad officials are strongly opposing a bill at the state legislature which toughens up rail safety laws, calling it unnecessary. -
Admin Urges Court to Reject Industry Appeal
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
Obama administration attorneys today urged a federal court to reject industry groups' procedural appeal over where the litigation over a contentious clean water regulation will play out.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Transportation Security: Protecting Passengers and Freight
Apr 6, 2016 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253 / 10:00 AM
U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, will convene a hearing titled “Transportation Security: Protecting Passengers and Freight” on Wednesday, April 6, at 10:00 a.m.
While airport security is a major and highly visible function of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), by law the agency is designated as responsible for all transportation security matters including trains, subways, buses, and ports. Recent attacks by ISIS, including those in Belgium on March 22, have underscored that terrorists can inflict significant casualties at transportation targets without attempting to board airplanes or subjecting themselves to security screenings. TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger, who was in Brussels on March 22, will deliver testimony about TSA efforts to prevent attacks on passenger and freight targets that could lead to mass casualties.
Witness:The Honorable Peter Neffenger, TSA Administrator and Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security
* Witness list subject to change
Hearing Details:
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
10:00 a.m.
Full Committee hearing
This hearing will take place in Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253. Witness testimony, opening statements, and a live video of the hearing will be available on www.commerce.senate.gov.For reporters interested in reserving a seat, please contact the press gallery:
• Periodical Press Gallery – 202-224-0265
• Radio/Television Gallery – 202-224-6421
• Press Photographers Gallery – 202-224-6548
• Daily Press Gallery – 202-224-0241
Individuals with disabilities who require an auxiliary aid or service, including closed captioning service for the webcast hearing, should contact Stephanie Gamache at 202-224-5511 at least three business days in advance of the hearing date.
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/4/transportation-security-protecting-passengers-and-freight
-
Cyber Preparedness and Response at the Local Level
Apr 7, 2016 | Homeland Security Committee
Location: Austin College, 1301 East Brockett, Sherman, Texas / 11:00 AM
This field hearing will provide Members an understanding of how State and local officials prepare for, respond to and investigate cyber incidents. Additionally, the hearing will provide an opportunity to learn about different cyber training opportunities for State and local officials to bolster cyber preparedness and response.
https://homeland.house.gov/hearing/cyber-preparedness-response-local-level/
-
Apr 14, 2016 | Transport, Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Location: 2167 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:00 AM
http://transportation.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=400038
-
(ACC Blog) No Shortcuts to Sound Science
Apr 1, 2016 | American Chemistry Council
By Gregory G. Bond
One of the most important jobs a public health researcher can undertake is asking stimulating questions that could, through meticulous and valid research, help policymakers make informed decisions about how best to protect human health and the environment.
But it is a long journey from raising initial questions, to designing and conducting robust research, to then having that research independently validated and replicated before the results can ultimately be used to set sound public health policy.
And not every question asked or study conducted — even if the issues raised are initially concerning and important — will ultimately be independently confirmed and lead to a consensus opinion among scientists and, therefore, serve as a solid basis for helping to guide policy decisions.
Understanding endocrine active chemicals
This point could not be more evident this week, as scientists gather at a meeting of endocrinologists in Boston, where some participants are raising important questions about how and whether exposures to substances in the environment can affect human health by interacting with the endocrine system.
Unfortunately, a small group of researchers at this meeting have fallen victim to what has become the all too common temptation to over-hype their initial findings, ignore the critical importance of independent verification, and call for immediate policy changes.
In doing so, they ignore years of extensive study by government and other scientists ,and they over-interpret outcomes which bear on important chemical exposure and human health issues.
Questions regarding chemical exposure and health effects must continuously be asked, but it’s important to remember that many of the research findings being reported to help answer these questions is only preliminary. Researchers are trained to be quite diligent about cautioning readers about the relevance or utility of their findings so early in the scientific process.
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
While scientists and endocrinologists continue to ask and address important questions, for nearly two decades, regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been doing the hard work to help answer them.
EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) uses a step-by-step, science based process to first identify chemicals that may merely interact with the endocrine system (called “endocrine-active chemicals”), and the to identify the subset of those chemicals that cause adverse health effects as a result of their interaction with the endocrine system (or “endocrine disruptors”) in real-life exposure scenarios.
At the time of the EDSP’s launch in 1998, the EPA had for decades already been using a number of standardized test methods to detect adverse effects of chemicals caused by a number of mechanisms of action, including through interaction with the endocrine system. And EPA took action to regulate chemicals on the basis of the test results to reduce risks to human health and the environment.
The EDSP has added a new set of tools to augment EPA’s existing kit for the purposes of identifying Endocrine Disruptors.
3 important things to know about assessing chemicals for endocrine risks
As part of a risk-based approach to screening, testing and regulating chemicals, three important factors are essential to have a credible, validated, and protective approach.Endocrine activity does not equal endocrine disruption: Just because a chemical interacts with the endocrine system does not necessarily mean an adverse health effect will result. Lumping all substances that can interact with the endocrine system under one label – “endocrine disrupting chemicals” – isn’t just a misnomer; it misrepresents the science.Hazard + Exposure together determine real-world risk: To understand actual risk of harm, scientists must consider real-world scenarios in which people interact with substances, considering whether, when, how and at what levels humans may actually be exposed. Hazard and exposure together determine the actual risk a substance may pose – assessments and conclusions based on hazard characteristics alone are incomplete, not trustworthy, and can lead to regrettable results.Sound decisions are based on the weight of the evidence: A “weight-of-the-evidence” approach evaluates the totality of scientific evidence to assess if the science supports a given conclusion. This approach ensures that the most credible, reliable studies have the greatest influence.
There are no shortcuts to sound science or sound policy. Basing the value and reliability of research and analysis on these three tenets will help ensure, in the midst of clamoring voices and competing studies, our policies and perspectives are ultimately guided by real, tangible and scientifically verifiable results.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/04/no-shortcuts-to-sound-science/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Walker Signs Bill Banning Bans on Plastic Bags
Apr 1, 2016 | Wisconsin Gazette
By Lisa Neff
“Paper or plastic?” isn’t going away anytime soon in Wisconsin. Gov. Scott Walker signed legislation March 30 protecting plastic bags from community bans. AB 730 prohibits local governments from regulating the commercial use of plastic bags or other “auxiliary containers” such a cups, bottles or other packaging.
The measure also prohibits local governments from enacting measures that attach a fee or surcharge on plastic bags.
There are no communities in Wisconsin with such bans; Eau Claire in 2013 considered a measure intended to reduce the use of plastic bags.
However, more than 100 communities in other states have enacted restrictions on single-use plastic bags, considered a major source of global pollution. In 2007, San Francisco became the first city in the nation to adopt a ban.
Additionally, Hawaii adopted statewide restrictions in 2012 and California lawmakers passed restrictions in 2014, which are on hold pending the outcome of a ballot initiative in November.
The goal with the restrictions is to decrease trash and litter, as well as reduce the use of the natural resources required to manufacture the bags, which generally are made from fossil fuels.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates between 500 billion and a trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide each year and bags used for an average of 12 minutes before they get discarded.
About 2.2 billion pounds of fossil fuel and 3.9 billion gallons of fresh water are needed to produce the 100 billion plastic bags annually used in the United States, according to the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, a group based in New York that’s been a leader on the ecology side of the issue. The manufacturing process creates about a billion pounds of solid waste each year and produces 2.7 million tons of CO2.
At Surfrider Foundation, an environmental group that conducts regular cleanups of waterways, activists emphasize that the bags and other petroleum-based plastics never really break down — thus, about every square mile of ocean is polluted with about 46,000 pieces plastic.
The plastic pollution contributes to flooding and threatens wildlife, as animals ingest or become entangled in the materials.
Despite the environmental concerns with plastic bags, protecting their use and challenging bans is big business.
A force behind the “preemption” bills such as the one signed by Walker is the American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC, the national organization of legislators and businesses that promotes corporate interests and conservative policies.
Also, an offshoot of ALEC, the American City County Exchange, adopted a resolution encouraging local elected officials to not regulate single-use containers and packaging, “such as reusable bags, disposable bags, boxes, cups, and bottles that are made of cloth, paper, plastic, extruded polystyrene, or similar materials.”
ALEC’s campaign against plastic bag bans is backed by plastic manufacturers and a trade group, the National Federation of Independent Business, which has had funding from the Koch brothers' Freedom Partners and Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, according to the Center for Media and Democracy.
Florida banned plastic bag bans in 2008. Missouri and Arizona passed bag bans last year, but Arizona’s legislation faces a legal challenge.
In Wisconsin, these entities lobbied for the ban on bans: Alliance of Wisconsin Retailers, American Chemistry Council, American Progressive Bag Alliance, Koch Companies Public Sector, Kwik Trip, Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, Midwest Food Processors Association, Wisconsin Beverage Association, National Federation of Independent Business, Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association, Wisconsin Grocers Association , Wisconsin Independent Businesses Inc., Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Wisconsin Paper Council, Wisconsin Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Associates and Wisconsin Restaurant Association.
These groups that opposed the legislation: Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club-John Muir Chapter, League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Dane County Cities and Villages Association, Clean Wisconsin, Dane County, the City of Milwaukee and the City of Madison.
Bag restrictions
More than 100 municipalities have enacted restrictions aimed at reducing or eliminating the use of single-use plastic bags. Hawaii and California have statewide restrictions, but California’s law is on hold.
Alaska: 2 municipalities
California: 88 municipalities
Colorado: 5 municipalities
Connecticut: 1 municipality
District of Columbia: 1 municipality
Hawaii: Statewide
Iowa: 1 municipality
Maine: 1 municipality
Maryland: 21 municipalities
Massachusetts: 8 municipalities
New Mexico: 1 municipality
New York: 5 municipalities
North Carolina: 9 municipalities
Oregon: 3 municipalities
Texas: 9 municipalities
Rhode Island: 1 municipality
Washington: 11 municipalities
Source: Surfrider FoundationDid you know?
In 2002, Bangladesh became the first country to ban single-use plastic bags, which can exacerbate flooding.Spring cleaning on the river
Milwaukee Riverkeeper is organizing clean up crews to remove litter and debris from 50 sites in the Milwaukee River basin. The annual Spring River Cleanup takes place April 23, the day after Earth Day.
Each year, thousands of volunteers remove tons of trash from the waterways in the Greater Milwaukee area. In 2015, about 3,500 volunteers hauled away 70,000 pounds of trash.
For more information or to register, go online to Milwaukee Riverkeeper at milwaukeeriverkeeper.org.
http://wisconsingazette.com/2016/04/01/walker-signs-bill-banning-bans-on-plastic-bags/
-
Mercury Case Has Implications for TSCA Revamp: Attorneys
Apr 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2015 on an Environmental Protection Agency rule setting limits on mercury pollution could “impose unintended requirements” complicating the government's ability to regulate toxic chemicals, if reform legislation is enacted as currently written, more than 30 legal expertswrote.
It is crucial for House and Senate lawmakers, currently in negotiations about how to reconcile two approaches to overhauling the Toxic Substances Control Act, to “make clear that EPA should not have to consider costs when deciding whether to regulate a chemical,” the law professors, legal scholars and other attorneys said in a March 31 letter to congressional leaders.
In 2015, the Supreme Court held the EPA should have considered compliance costs to utilities before determining it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate toxic pollutants through its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 2015 BL 207163, 80 ERC 1577 (2015)).
The group of legal scholars now argues that rationale could be interpreted to apply to chemical regulation as well, based on how the Senate legislation (S. 697) is currently written. They say the words “as appropriate” and “appropriate” appear throughout the bill's text.
“While S. 697 does not contain the phrase ‘appropriate and necessary,' there are several provisions requiring EPA to take actions ‘as appropriate' that could undercut directives to exclude cost considerations found elsewhere in the legislation,” the letter said.
“A court could extend the Supreme Court's reasoning in Michigan v. EPA on ‘appropriate and necessary' to the use of ‘appropriate' in several sections of S. 697, imposing unintended requirements of cost considerations that in turn undermine EPA's ability to effectively—and expeditiously—manage risks posed by harmful toxic chemicals,” the legal experts wrote.
Sent to Top Lawmakers
The letter comes as key Senate and House lawmakers work to reconcile differences between a broad Senate bill overhauling the nation's primary chemicals law (S. 697) with a narrower House version (H.R. 2576).
Two Senate Republican aides told Bloomberg BNA April 1 they are getting closer to merging the two bills, but there has been no breakthrough to date.
House and Senate staff have been working through “intense” negotiations in hopes of a deal. Both chambers passed their versions of chemical reform by overwhelming margins in 2015 (51 DEN A-5, 3/16/16).
The March 31 letter was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the committee's ranking member; Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the committee's ranking member.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86252735&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86252735&jd=86252735
-
Compromise that Strengthens, Not Weakens, TSCA is the Key to Getting a New Law
Apr 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
My recent blog post about the public’s right to know the names of chemicals in health and safety studies brought a response from the Vice President for Government and Public Relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), a trade association of specialty chemical firms.
The response devotes considerable space to arguing for something we don’t oppose: why it’s important for a company to be able to protect information relating to the process by which a chemical is made. We have no quarrel with that: EDF has never sought to change the provision of TSCA that precludes EPA from disclosing such information, even in the context of a health and safety study. That provision is preserved in both the Senate and House bills, and that has been and remains acceptable to us.
Let me be crystal clear: EDF has not sought to alter TSCA’s requirement that EPA withhold the identity of a chemical even in a health and safety study if revealing that identity would reveal process information.
What we do strongly oppose, however, is the effort to expand TSCA’s exclusion so as to allow a company always to hide from the public the identity of the chemical in a health and safety study – even where knowing that chemical’s name would not reveal the process used to make it. That is exactly what the provision in the House TSCA reform bill that SOCMA is pressing for would do.
This would be a major weakening of current TSCA that would severely limit the public’s right to know about health and environmental impacts of chemicals in use today.
SOCMA’s response argues this would be okay for two reasons: First, EPA will know the chemical’s identity, so no one else needs to know. And second, the public should be content with a “generic” name. Let me briefly address each of these arguments.
Does the public need to know, if EPA knows?
In the sidebar of my earlier blog post, I gave a couple of examples of why the public needs to know what specific chemical is linked to identified health effects, but let me elaborate a bit. Put aside for the moment the strong argument that consumers, workers and citizens have a right to know such information for chemicals to which they may be exposed.
All significant decisions made by EPA under both bills would be subject to public notice and comment – a cornerstone of good government that I doubt is at issue here. In such public debates over decisions on the safety of chemicals, how is it even remotely fair for one party – the public – not to know or be able to access information on the chemical in question that the other two parties (EPA and the company that makes the chemical) have access to? How could such a skewed system lead to decisions that the public would have any confidence in?
Members of the public should have the ability to participate in such proceedings without one hand tied behind their backs. And they should have the ability to independently evaluate health information on chemicals to which they may be exposed.
Can’t the public make do with “generic names”?
Instead of knowing specific chemical identities, SOCMA argues we should just make do with “generic names” – which are specifically designed not to let you identify the chemicals in question. Using current EPA guidance for the selection of such generic names, companies could use a name that would literally refer to hundreds or thousands of possible chemicals. How useful would that be? (This and other arguments are laid out elsewhere, where we’ve provided a thorough critique laying bare the many inadequacies of this “generic name” approach.)
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by chemical industry representatives that even subtle changes in a chemical’s structure can lead to large changes in toxicity, persistence, bioaccumulation potential, and so on. The toxic chemical PFOA is being phased out of production. Many of its replacements, which are structurally similar chemicals, are being touted by their manufacturer as being much less persistent and toxic. Yet a generic name could completely obscure any differences between PFOA and its replacements. Searches done using such a generic name, if they yielded anything, could turn up information relating to any of the chemicals covered by the generic name – with no ability to determine what information pertains to what chemical. That could not only be confusing or unhelpful; it could be misleading, suggesting a specific chemical has toxicity or other properties that it in fact does not have, or the converse.
Here’s another example of a chemical that EPA initially identified only by its generic name – “Halogenated Alkane” – based on a company’s confidential business information (CBI) claim. That generic name could literally refer to any of hundreds of chemicals. EPA recently declassified information on this chemical, which discloses the specific chemical identity as 1,1,1,3,3-pentachloropropane. Included were a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and a number of health and safety studies. These documents reveal the chemical to have considerable toxicity. The MSDS states, among other warnings:POSSIBLE REPRODUCTIVE HAZARD May cause birth defects or other reproductive harm based on animal data.INHALATION – TOXIC. Exposure to high concentrations of vapor or mist can cause central nervous system depression with symptoms of headache, dizziness, stupor, loss of consciousness or death, depending on concentration and duration of exposure. Overexposure to vapors has been associated with severe adverse effects on the liver, kidney, and nasal epithelium. Exposure to high concentrations of similar materials can cause irregular heartbeat, cardiac arrest and death.CHRONIC EFFECTS – Studies in laboratory animals indicate that exposure to vapors of this material can cause adverse effects on the liver, kidney, and nasal epithelium. Overexposure to similar materials has been shown to cause adverse effects on the fetus, such as birth defects.
Until EPA’s declassification – and under the House bill – none of these disturbing effects could have been linked to this chemical – not by any member of the public, workers handling this chemical, health or environmental researchers or other professionals, or companies using or contemplating using this chemical. None of these stakeholders would have been able to search for this information even had they somehow known the specific chemical identity, because only the generic name had been disclosed. All they would have known would be that some mystery “Halogenated Alkane” now on the market had these toxic properties.
The House bill would allow the indefinite masking of the specific identity of such a chemical, replacing it with a virtually useless generic name that could refer to any of hundreds or thousands of chemicals.
While SOCMA is accurate in saying that “the hazard information from the study speaks for itself, independent of what name is used to identify the particular chemical being assessed,” what wouldn’t be discernible at all is whether any of those potential health effects can be linked to the chemical that actually causes them!
The nature of compromise
EDF believes that the Senate bill represents a solid compromise on CBI. SOCMA claims: “As it stands, the Senate bill’s CBI language completely trumps private interests.” In fact, every element of those provisions represents compromise between legitimate competing public and private interests. Here are a few of the provisions that lean in the industry’s direction:The carving-out of a slew of information types that are presumed protected from disclosure, without any requirement they be substantiated or subject to time limits. Among these are the identities of new chemicals prior to commercial production, which TSCA does not expressly protect in the context of health and safety studies.The maintenance of allowance for use of generic names where specific chemical identity is legitimately deemed confidential, outside of the context of health and safety studies for chemicals in use.Requirements that health and environmental professionals and first responders provide a statement of need in order to gain access to confidential information they need to do their jobs.Agreement to a standard 10-year period for protection from disclosure (much longer than we advocated for) for CBI claims under most circumstances, with unlimited ability of companies to seek extensions of that protection.A requirement that EPA only review a subset of most types of CBI claims.A requirement that EPA notify companies when CBI is shared with a state even where the state has in place procedures comparable to those of EPA to ensure protection of that information.
To its credit, SOCMA supports some aspects of the Senate bill’s compromise on CBI that also appear in the House bill. But it’s dug in on this one, which would severely weaken current law.
The majority of the chemicals and related industries has recognized that TSCA needs strengthening, including in ensuring it provides meaningful public access to health information on chemicals. What SOCMA is insisting on – that companies always be able to hide the identities of chemicals in health and safety studies – would undermine public confidence in the new law. That’s something none of us, including SOCMA and its members, can afford.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/04/01/compromise-that-strengthens-not-weakens-tsca-is-the-key-to-getting-a-new-law/#more-5062
-
Shimkus Addresses National Issues in DU Visit
Apr 1, 2016 | Shelbyville Daily Union
Traveling around the district before heading back to Washington D.C. in a few days, Representative John Shimkus (R - IL15th District) stopped at the Daily Union office Wednesday afternoon.
Shimkus won his Congressional seat in the March primary election, defeating challenger Kyle McCarter. Shimkus said that after a few months of campaigning, he is “ready to get back to business in Washington.”
Because he had a challenger, Shimkus said this campaign “made me look at myself and my record.”
“I think my record is pretty strong. I listen to my people and try to do my best for them.”
Shimkus was asked a few questions about some of the recent events.
Security on Capital Hill and Washington, D.C.
Congress was not in session when a lone shooter was captured at the visitors center near Capital Hill last week. No one was injured in the incident except the suspect.
“I haven’t been briefed, but my understanding is our security works. The world is a dangerous place. We have law enforcement that have been asked to put their lives on the line and they did their job, everyone was safe. They did what they had to do.”
Shimkus said the visitors center at the Capital is a more secure place, which is underground almost two city blocks from the Capital.
Relations with Cuba
Shimkus said he is disappointed with President Obama’s recent trip to Cuba because of the political state of the country.
“The famers like it because they could sell more corn and beans, but the contracts have actually gone down and there is less selling now.”
“I’m a democracy and freedom guy. I was disappointed that he (Obama) went and to be seen with Castro. But they did get into a debate about political and religious freedom, which I’m glad they did.
“When the leader of the free world is seen with a dictator who has people in jail for no other reason than free speech, I don’t think it’s helpful.”
Shimkus said he doesn’t agree with opening Cuba back up to America.
“I wish we could see a political transformation and there be political free speech. I think it’s happening without me. I can’t stop it. If people want to go there and spend their money there, people have to understand that their money is going to a regime that deprives people their freedom.”
Filling the Supreme Court seat
Shimkus voiced his opinion about the Supreme Court seat open by the death of Antonin Scalia.
“It’s always safe to go back to the Constitiution and the Constitution says the President can nominate and the Senate needs to evaluate. The Constituion doesn’t say how many justices there has to be. People don’t realize that.
“We should be asking these justices to interpret the Constitution based upon the language of the law. They need to be reminded that their job is to rule on the Constitutionality of the law based upon what the Constitution says not based upon what they think it said or not based upon what they think the founding fathers would have said had they written it today instead of 200 years ago.
“I enjoy the debates and if they don’t vote on it, I don’t think you have to have nine.
“They (GOP) are rolling the dice on getting a Republican as President and getting a conservative justice. They need to get a justice who will interpret the Constitution as it is written.”
Congress’ priorities on return to session
Shimkus said that one of the top priorities when Congress reconvenes is the Toxic Substances Control Act.
“Our expectation is to get a bill passed and on the President’s desk. It was created in 1976 and hasn’t been revised and it’s not working very well.”
Shimkus also said the budget and spending bills are also priorities.
“If we can get the budget and spending bills passed, that would be pretty good. It will take much of the summer to get them ready.”
He added that national security, ISIS, and phone encryption issues are continuing issues in the Congress.
http://www.shelbyvilledailyunion.com/news/local_news/shimkus-addresses-national-issues-in-du-visit/article_72388a01-cd51-5e44-85b8-9b7d656952ca.html
-
Food Firms Push to Phase Out Bisphenol A
Apr 1, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
Facing mounting pressure from consumer advocates and environmental activists, Campbell Soup and Del Monte Foods have announced timetables for replacing bisphenol A (BPA)-based coatings in food cans.
Epoxy-based coatings, made from the raw materials BPA and epichlorohydrin, have long been favored for the interior lining of food cans because they are flexible, resist corrosion, and don’t alter the flavor of the foods inside.
But the possibility that BPA in high enough doses may act as an endocrine disruptor has made its use in food-contact applications controversial. Polycarbonate, also made with BPA, has been phased out of baby bottles, and EPA banned BPA for infant formula cans. Food companies have pledged in recent years to seek alternatives across their product lines.
Campbell promised four years ago to phase out BPA-containing coatings. Now the firm says it has delivered about 2 million cans lined instead with acrylic- and polyester-based coatings. The company hopes to complete the replacement across the U.S. and Canada by the middle of next year for products including its eponymous soup, Swanson broth, and SpaghettiOs pasta.
Campbell executive Mark Alexander acknowledges that the transition has taken a long time. “Today, we are not where we would have hoped to be when we made that announcement,” he wrote on a company blog. Finding a replacement suitable for tomato-based recipes took a while because those acidic products can react with linings. He also cited the cost and complexity of changing 2 billion cans annually across 600 products.
Del Monte says all of its fruit and tomato products as well as most of its vegetables will convert to BPA-free linings at the beginning of May.
The companies’ announcements coincided with the release of a report by a consortium of consumer and environmental advocacy groups—including the Breast Cancer Fund, Ecology Center, and the Mind the Store campaign—that criticizes the food industry’s lack of alacrity in removing BPA.
The consortium purchased 192 canned foods from grocery stores and examined their linings using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. It found that 129 of the cans contain BPA-based epoxies, including all of the 15 Campbell cans tested as well as 10 of 14 Del Monte cans. It also found overwhelming use of epoxy in private label cans at retailers such as Kroger and WalMart.
“We expected that the explosion in consumer demand for BPA-free packaging would have resulted in swifter action by canned food brands and retailers,” the report said.
In the non-epoxy can liners, the consortium says it detected styrene acrylics, oleoresins, polyvinyl chloride copolymers, and polyesters. The consortium noted that little is known about the health effects of some of the substitutes. And some, it pointed out, are made with known or suspected carcinogens such as vinyl chloride and styrene.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i14/Food-firms-push-phase-bisphenol.html
-
Breaking News: Asbestos Legal in the U.S.
Apr 1, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Linda Reinstein
No April Fools joke here. Asbestos - a known human carcinogen - has not been banned and is still legal in the United States.
Shocking, right? Well how about this - even though the asbestos industry knew by as late as the 1930s that asbestos causes incurable cancers, asbestos was widely used in the construction, shipbuilding, and the automotive industries for decades.
It may seem ludicrous that a toxin so notoriously deadly as asbestos would be imported into our country and used in manufacturing to this day, not only is that the case, but deaths from asbestos continue as well. In fact, each year, up to 15,000 Americans die from preventable asbestos-caused diseases, such as mesothelioma.
Before my husband, Alan, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, I had never heard of the disease - I couldn’t even pronounce it. We soon learned doctors couldn’t cure it. We were a typical American family - trusting that our government would protect our air, water, and soil from toxins. We were wrong.While we searched for treatment and a cure, we uncovered the truth about the man-made asbestos disaster and our anger intensified.
In hope for more time, Alan chose to have a radical surgery which removed a rib and his left lung, stripped off his pericardium and surgically replaced his diaphragm—all in hope of more time with us. In 2005, the cancer came back on his remaining lung. He felt like he was breathing through a pinched straw, every breath, every minute, every day. When his oxygen levels became critically low, he was tethered to supplemental oxygen. He fought a hard battle with chemotherapy for nearly a year and in 2006 Alan took his last breaths with our daughter and me by his side. My family is not alone. Every day, 40 Americans die from preventable asbestos-caused diseases.
What is most appalling about asbestos-caused deaths is that they could have been prevented. The asbestos industry knew that exposure to asbestos caused incurable respiratory diseases and mesothelioma, lung, gastrointestinal, laryngeal, colorectal, and ovarian cancers. However, instead of protecting the public, the industry chose to cover up the dangers of asbestos in order to protect profits.
The industry leaders also knew that asbestos-caused diseases often take decades to manifest. The longer they could cover up the deadly nature of asbestos, the more likely the casualties would be someone else’s problem.
It didn’t take long for the the companies manufacturing or using asbestos to grab the Big Tabaco Playbook to hide the truth, create doubt, and lobby Congress for financial bailout bills. Denial, deception, and document suppression worked. Asbestos use increased with the start of World War II, and the U.S. consumption of asbestos peaked in 1973.Too few Americans know the facts about asbestos and the current danger it presents in our lives. While Alan was fighting for his life, we co-founded the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) to change that. Dedicated to awareness and prevention, on April 1st we begin the 12th Global Asbestos Awareness Week. This week, ADAO will feature important educational resources from leading organizations, along with guest blogs, videos, and asbestos victims’ stories.
This public education effort is so incredibly important in the fight against asbestos-caused diseases because while promising medical research continues, prevention remains the only cure. Many people may think they already know what they need to know about asbestos - it is deadly and costly to remove if you find it in your home. But few know how to identify asbestos in their homes, schools, workplaces; or manage the risk during repairs, renovation, construction, or post-disasters.
Asbestos fibers can be nearly 700 times smaller than a human hair and are odorless, tasteless, and indestructible. Renovations and unintended disturbances can cause asbestos fibers to be released into the air.
Before you renovate your home, work with a professional to prevent potential asbestos exposure and follow these three rules if you find asbestos in your home.
1. Don’t Damage or Disturb the Asbestos. Take every precaution to avoid damaging or disturbing asbestos-containing material.
2. Don’t Touch the Asbestos. Leave undamaged asbestos-containing materials alone, and keep activities to a minimum in any areas having damaged material that may contain asbestos.
3. Work with a Professional. The EPA highly recommends that sampling and minor repair also be done by a trained and accredited asbestos professional.
If you were shocked to learn that asbestos is still legal in the U.S., help us educate others by sharing this information.Presently, the U.S. House and U.S. Senate are working to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 - the dangerously outdated law that has allowed asbestos use to continue in America.
While Congress can’t bring back my husband or the thousands of others who have lost their lives to a preventable disease caused by asbestos, Congress can choose to protect the public by banning asbestos and demanding responsibility from the industry. With greater responsibility, accountability, and transparency, asbestos exposure and deaths can be prevented. As life lessons have taught me, “Hear Asbestos. Think Prevention.” It’s no April Fool’s joke; asbestos kills.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-reinstein/breaking-news-asbestos-legal-in-the-us_b_9588696.html
-
New Law Will Ban 5 Chemicals from Kids Products, Furniture
Apr 3, 2016 | AP
Five toxic chemicals will be banned from home furniture and children's products such as toys, car seats and nursing pillows under a bill Gov. Jay Inslee has signed into law.
The legislation approved Friday bans five chemical flame retardants from children's products and furniture starting July 1, 2017. Flame retardants are commonly added to consumer products to slow the spread of fire.
House Bill 2545 also directs the departments of Ecology and Health to review whether six additional flame retardants should be considered chemicals of concern to children and recommend whether their use in consumer products should be restricted.
Supporters say the measure will protect children from dangerous chemicals and reduce household exposure to the chemicals.
Industry, business and other groups had lobbied against the measure.
http://www.king5.com/news/local/new-law-will-ban-5-chemicals-from-kids-products-furniture/118068709
-
Getting Chemicals Out of Health Care Settings, with a Little Help
Apr 1, 2016 | GreenBiz
By Amanda Cattermole
The Hippocratic Oath declares that disease should be prevented whenever possible because prevention is preferable to cure.
Furthering this oath, the Healthier Hospitals Initiative (HHI), a program involving more than 1,300 hospitals and health care centers in the United States and Canada, has developed a safer chemicals program as part of its broader sustainability mission.
U.S. health care spending accounted for nearly 18 percent of GDP in 2014. The health care sector’s immense purchasing power is effectively tipping the marketplace in favor of suppliers adopting safer chemicals policies and practices.How?
The Healthier Hospitals Initiative, launched in 2012, gives each hospital the tools it needs to meet a series of six challenges. The program has created a platform to help health care organizations bring about widespread, meaningful change — and measure their impact.
Hospitals and health care systems enroll in the program and then make commitments that can drive the institution towards being a safer, healthier setting for patients to recuperate from illness or surgery.
Collaboration is one of the keys to the success of HHI. Once enrolled, participants have access to a suite of tools as well to other stakeholders and thought partners to help them establish targets, gather metrics and ultimately show progress.
Once they join the initiative, hospitals choose from among six challenges:
1. Engaged leadership
2. Healthier food
3. Leaner energy
4. Less waste
5. Safer chemicals
6. Smarter purchasing
Each challenge has two to four areas of focus and HHI provides resources, tips, tools and infographics to help enrolled members as they respond to the challenges.
Many chemicals used in the health care industry can have a lasting negative effect on individual health, public health and the environment.
The Safer Chemicals Challenge
More chemicals are used in health care than in any other sector. Many chemicals used in the health care industry can have a lasting negative effect on individual health, public health and the environment. Harmful chemicals used in some health care products have been linked to a range of health problems.
The Safer Chemicals Challenge asks hospitals to consider four focus areas and four levels of commitment. Level 1 requires commitment to one focus area whereas Level 4 requires commitment to all four focus areas. They are:
1. Green cleaning
Participants agree that at least 90 percent of their cleaning products purchases will be from two specific third party-certified labels, Green Seal or UL Ecologo. The cleaning categories are carpet, window, all purpose, bathroom and general floor care.
2. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) reduction
DEHP is often added to plastics to make them flexible. PVC is a plastic used in a variety of end products, but both have been identified as potentially toxic if they leach out of plastics.
The challenge is to achieve mercury-free status, or at least develop and implement a mercury elimination plan.
The challenge is for hospitals or health care systems to eliminate DEHP and PVC from at least two of the following categories: Breast pumps; enteral nutrition products; parenteral infusion devices and sets; general urological instruments; exam gloves; vascular catheters; and nasogastric tubes.
3. Healthy interiors
The challenge is to ensure that 30 percent of a participant's annual volume of purchased furniture does not contain formaldehyde, perfluorinated compounds, polyvinyl chloride, antimicrobials and flame-retardants (where code permits). It applies to all furniture in a hospital room including seating, beds, storage, dressers and drawers.
HHI provides guidance, standards, validation requirements, fact sheets and a list of approved furniture manufacturers that have met these goals.
4. Mercury elimination
The challenge is to achieve mercury-free status, or at least develop and implement a mercury elimination plan.How are data and information collected and tracked?
Data collection obviously is a critical need in order to affirm that participants are adhering to their commitments. Participants upload self-reported data, not subjected to third-party validation, to the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's extranet. HHI staff review the data to identify any discrepancies or outliers. There is no incentive to falsify data as they are analyzed and presented in aggregate.Successes
Since the start of the HHI, the initiative has grown quickly and provided case studies, best practices, webinars and other ways to communicate to its members. Here are some examples of successes in the Safer Chemicals Challenge.
Dignity Health, the fifth largest health system in the nation and the largest hospital provider in California over a five-year period, successfully removed nearly 1.9 million pounds of PVC material from IV containers.
Spectrum Health, which provides permanent, civilian-contracted medical professionals to U.S. Military Treatment Facilities, Veteran Affairs clinics and other federal government agencies transitioned to environmentally preferred cleaners. The outcome was a healthier work environment for staff, a healthier recovery environment for patients and reduced overall cleaning costs.
Beaumont Health System, a regional healthcare provider that currently operates three facilities with a combined 1,728 beds, met the Healthy Interiors challenge by avoiding the chemicals of concern in 26 percent of its annual furnishings spend, thus meeting the HHI challenge. Through a rigorous evaluation of its purchasing patterns, Beaumont was able to identify desk chairs as what it purchased in the largest volume. Beaumont identified a chair that did not contain halogenated flame-retardants, perfluorinated chemicals and PVC and therefore met the challenge requirements with a nominal cost increase.
Suppliers to the health care industry who rise to the challenge of meeting HHI’s precautionary approach to disease prevention are positioned to take advantage of related markets for safer chemicals in other sectors. Suppliers of chemically safer products can benefit from surging interest in real estate, hospitality and additional such markets.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/getting-chemicals-out-health-care-settings-little-help
-
There’s No Need to Panic Over Fracking-Related Quakes
Apr 1, 2016 | The Washington Post
By The Editorial Board
“Drilling is Making Oklahoma as Quake Prone as California,” one headline blared. “Fracking fallout: 7.9 million at risk of man-made earthquakes,” read another. To some opponents of the drilling techniques that have unlocked massive stores of U.S. oil and natural gas, reports of fracking-related earthquakes are yet more evidence that drilling must end.
In fact, as with many of fracking’s risks, its potential to induce seismic activity along otherwise relatively quiet fault lines is serious — but probably manageable. It justifies regulating the industry, not shutting it down.
This week’s big news came from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which released a startling earthquake hazard map with a big, red blob over Oklahoma. For the first time, the government’s earthquake monitor incorporated human-induced tremors into a one-year hazard projection. The resulting map showed that some parts of the country with a lot of fracking rival California’s tectonically active Bay Area in the severity of the projected hazard. This should come as no surprise to anyone living in affected areas. Most of the quakes are small, but parts of Oklahoma felt a 5.1 magnitudeearthquake in early February.
So, is fracking causing earthquakes across large swaths of the country? As best as scientists can figure, only in an indirect way. Small earthquakes are possible when drillers inject fluid into rock formations to fracture them and let oil and gas escape. A study released this week attributed many tremors detected on the surface in Western Canada to this process.
But fracking per se does not seem to be the big problem in the United States. Rather, scientists point to how drillers dispose of the wastewater that flows out of their wells. Some of this is sent back into the ground in separate wastewater injection wells. This process puts pressure on the subterranean geology and can result in noticeable shifts. Though fracking-induced earthquakes seem to be a bigger issue in Canada, “the largest earthquakes we are seeing here are related to wastewater injection,” the USGS’s Justin Rubinstein told us.
These findings lead to a very different conclusion than the one the ban-fracking crowd prefers. If wastewater disposal is the underlying problem, regulators can force drillers to dispose of their wastewater differently. Wastewater recycling should be maximized for a variety of reasons, including this one. Whatever is inevitably left over can be put somewhere else. This could raise costs a bit; so be it.
Policymakers should neither ignore fracking’s risks nor give in to the overheated criticisms of some environmental groups. The goal must be to fully account for fracking’s risks to the ambient environment and the atmosphere in regulation, then let the country reap the economic and environmental benefits of low-cost and cleaner-burning natural gas.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-need-to-quake-in-your-boots-over-fracking-related-temblors/2016/04/01/3f127cfe-f77c-11e5-a3ce-f06b5ba21f33_story.html
-
Senate Returns to Supreme Court Drama, Unfinished Energy Bill
Apr 4, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
The Senate returns from spring break today for a busy four-week stretch that will see continued negotiations over moving energy reform legislation and aid package for Flint, Mich.
Policy discussions will be punctuated by the highly partisan fight over the Supreme Court nominee and anxious appropriators who are due to get their spending bill allocations by the middle of the month. Here's what to watch for:Supreme fight
Senate Democrats and President Obama will continue this week to press Republicans to hold hearings and a confirmation vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. But so far, GOP opposition to both actions remains intact.
Obama will be in Chicago on Thursday to make the case for Garland. Expect Senate Democrats to tout polls showing voters favor hearings. They will likely highlight the willingness of a handful of Republican senators to at least meet with Garland as he makes courtesy calls on Capitol Hill.
"Republicans got an earful back home, and try as they might to escape this issue, their constituents weren't going to let them," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters Friday in a preview of a message Democrats will make this week (Greenwire, April 1).
Republicans though, have shown no signs of moving ahead with even a hearing. So far, only a handful of the chamber's 54 GOP members have even scheduled a meeting with Garland. Most say they don't want one.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who supports a Senate vote on the nominee, will meet with him tomorrow, but she has yet to say whether she would back him.
Another Republican, Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, will meet with Garland the same day, but he will likely use the meeting to make the case for why the next president should pick the court nominee.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) initially said filling the high court vacancy should wait until there is a new president but now says she will meet with Garland. Their session has yet to be scheduled.
Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman, who is fighting for re-election in a competitive state, has also agreed to meet with Garland, according to the Associated Press.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who is running for a seventh term in November, has not ruled out meeting Garland. He said he'll decide this week after a phone call with the federal appeals court judge.
If GOP opposition to moving forward with the nomination holds, Grassley believes Senate Democrats will eventually move to force a symbolic floor vote on Garland.
Under Senate rules, the minority party can force the Senate to vote to discharge a nominee from committee. However, a simple majority can overcome the motion to discharge.
That vote, certain to fail in the GOP-controlled chamber, would likely be weeks away. For now, Democrats seem intent on trying to ratchet up the pressure on Republicans to hold hearings.Flint aid package
Shortly before recess, Michigan Democratic Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters took to the floor to blast Utah Republican Mike Lee for holding up a $220 million aid package for Flint, Mich., and other cities with contaminated drinking water.
"It seems like we go round and round and round and round. We need to stop and have a vote," Stabenow said before the Senate adjourned last month.
Lee did not directly respond to the criticism, but his spokesman confirmed Friday that he still has a legislative hold on the Flint package.
A hold is a Senate legislative tool that allows any senator to block legislation from coming to the floor. Supporters can overcome the hold by convincing 60 senators to vote for cloture.
Lee remains concerned about spending offsets for the Flint aid. Both sides have agreed to pay for the package by cutting the Energy Department's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program, but the time frame for making the reductions remains in conflict.
Some GOP leaders who worry that Democrats will try to attach the aid to other bills and will continue to charge Republicans with ignoring the needs of the lead-ravaged city may support cloture.
Backers of Flint also worry that their window for action might be closing. They had hoped to use the spotlight of last month's presidential primary in Michigan to force action. With that chance lost, some Democrats now are eyeing providing the funds as part of the upcoming fiscal 2017 spending bills.Energy bill
Senate action on broad energy legislation has become intertwined with the Flint aid, much to the chagrin of the bill's defenders.
Senate leaders were close to a deal last month to move forward on the energy bill with about three dozen amendments. But the action was contingent on the chamber first taking up the Flint measure.
Senate GOP leaders have since floated the idea of separating the energy package from the Flint aid, and then filing for cloture on it.
Murkowski, who authored the bill as Energy and Natural Resources Committee chairwoman, said last month that the procedural move was "clearly an option," but she worries that the reform bill could still stall down the line without an agreement on amendments.
While negotiators have not disclosed all the new potential amendments to the energy bill, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has said he'll hold up the legislation to block consideration of an amendment to expand revenue sharing from offshore drilling.
Murkowski, who has labored to move the package since February, knows that time may not be her ally. By May, the Senate is likely to turn to spending bills that will eat up much of the chamber's limited legislative calendar before the elections.
If Congress hopes to pass an energy bill this year, its best hope may be in a post-election lame-duck session, but both chambers would need to pass their own versions first. The House passed its own narrower version late last year.Spending bills
Appropriators are due to get their top-line allocations for the 12 annual spending bills by April 15. They already know they won't be getting much more money than last year.
The Senate has agreed to follow the overall discretionary level of $1.07 trillion for fiscal 2017 set by last year's budget deal, which would be a $3 billion increase over current spending.
The modest increase all but guarantees that most departments and agencies will be flat-funded for the coming year. It also means that White House proposals for big increases for the Energy Department to develop new clean-energy technologies and for U.S. EPA to advance climate change priorities won't happen this year.
"We are going to have to make some hard decisions this year to make sure the highest priorities are funded," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, said recently.
No markups have yet been scheduled for any of the spending bills, but those could come quickly once subcommittees get their individual allocations.
Senate GOP leaders have said they hope to spend May, June and July moving individual spending bills for the first time in years. For now, Democrats say they are open to that plan, but potentially partisan policy riders could still scuttle progress.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/04/04/stories/1060035005
-
Clean Power Plan Supporters Back EPA's Authority
Apr 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency is using its authority under Section 111(d) to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants with its Clean Power Plan exactly as Congress intended, more than 200 current and former legislators and two key Senate aides said in defense of the rule (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, amicus briefs filed 4/1/16).
Congress deliberately conferred broad authority on the EPA in the Clean Air Act to ensure it had the flexibility to address unanticipated environmental concerns, the members of Congress said in an amicus brief filed April 1 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
“Indeed, Congress conferred particularly broad authority on EPA with respect to the gap-filling provision, because it understood that EPA would need flexibility in implementing a provision designed to address such a diverse array of pollutants and sources, both known and unknown,” the members of Congress said.
The brief was signed by all members of House and Senate Democratic leadership as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a presidential candidate. Former Sen. David Durenberger (Minn.) and former Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (N.Y.) were the only Republicans to joint the brief.
No Intent to Limit Authority Seen
Leon G. Billings and Thomas C. Jorling, former aides to the then-Senate Committee on Public Works who helped draft the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act, also argued in an amicus brief that Congress had intended the EPA use Section 111(d) to regulate pollutants—such as carbon dioxide—that are neither criteria pollutants subject to air quality standards nor toxics regulated under Section 112 of the act.
“There was no suggestion in these provisions of any intention to limit the agency's exercise of authority to act against harmful air pollutants; rather, it was clear that Congress meant to create a three-pronged regulatory regime with Section 111(d) as an essential component,” they said.
The former aides and legislators' arguments echo similar points made in an earlier brief by former EPA administrators William D. Ruckelshaus and William K. Reilly, both of whom served under Republican presidents, that Congress intended for the Clean Air Act to be a flexible tool for the agency to respond to unforeseen environmental concerns (63 DEN A-2, 4/1/16).
The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), issued under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, sets carbon dioxide emissions limits on the power sector in each state that will be achieved through heat rate improvements at individual power plants, expanded use of natural gas generating capacity or investments in new renewable energy projects.
The rule is being challenged by 27 states as well as several utilities and industry groups. They argue the EPA has exceeded its Clean Air Act authority and that the Clean Power Plan actually regulates how electricity is generated rather than how much pollution is emitted.
Rule Said to Follow Intent of Congress
However, lawmakers supporting the rule said the EPA's use of Section 111(d) follows the intent of Congress.
“By enacting a gap-filling provision that would give EPA flexibility to address new pollution problems, Congress ensured that the federal government would be able to respond to new and diverse challenges not anticipated at the time the law was enacted, and that EPA could tailor regulations to the specific nature of the pollutant and source,” they said.
Though 200 current and former members of Congress, primarily Democrats, have filed in support of the Clean Power Plan, another 200 members of Congress, primarily Republicans, previously argued that the rule oversteps the EPA's Clean Air Act authority (36 DEN A-1, 2/24/16).
Some opponents of the Clean Power Plan have argued that the EPA is barred from regulating carbon dioxide from power plants under Section 111(d) because those units are already regulated under Section 112, citing conflicting amendments to Section 111(d) signed into law when the Clean Air Act was last amended in 1990.
However, former Senate aides Billings and Jorling said that interpretation goes against Congress's explicit intent for Section 111(d) to serve as a backstop to regulate pollutants that are neither criteria pollutants nor air toxics.
“If the Section 111(d) exclusion relating to Section 112 is applied source-wide, as petitioners contend, a source subject to reduction requirements for [hazardous air pollutants] could emit, without any limitation, any non-[hazardous air pollutant] and non-Criteria air pollutant. This interpretation would shield these sources from regulation under Section 111(d), creating precisely the gap that Section 111(d) was intended to fill.”
Clean Power Plan Represents ‘Best System.'
Section 111(d) requires the EPA to determine the “best system of emission reduction,” but opponents of the rule argue that the agency is limited to only those steps that can be taken at the regulated utilities themselves. Instead, the Clean Power Plan pursues emissions reductions by shifting generation from coal-fired utilities to less polluting natural gas or renewable generation.
The EPA in its own brief had defended generation shifting as an acceptable method of emissions reduction (60 DEN A-1, 3/29/16).
The National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors also defendedthe EPA's interpretation, arguing that generation shifting would provide the greatest emissions reductions at the lowest cost, particularly compared with more expensive heat rate improvements at individual power plants.
“Interpreting the ‘best system of emission reduction' in the manner proposed by petitioners would limit EPA's options to heat-rate improvements and technological fixes that are more costly and less effective, essentially erasing the word ‘best' from the statute,” they said.
Businesses Make Case for Rule
Business groups also came to the Clean Power Plan's defense, arguing the rule is key to driving the U.S. toward more renewable electricity generation.
Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp., which collectively in 2015 used more 10 million megawatt-hours of electricity,argued that investors are increasingly pushing companies to address climate change and sustainability as part of their business plans. The EPA's Clean Power Plan will help foster the growth of new renewable generation.
“To the extent the Clean Power Plan expands renewable energy sources and use, it does so within a national framework that provides flexibility to the states to ensure that existing fossil fuel-based generation and renewable energy facilities are used in an integrated manner, and at levels that allow businesses to realize the many benefits of renewable electricity,” the companies said.
Dominion Resources Inc., which owns several coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, also said the Clean Power Plan's targets are achievable provided the rule's flexibility is retained and market-based approaches are allowed.
“From Dominion's perspective, the rule is compatible with current trends toward additional renewable and natural gas generation in the power sector based on market conditions and customer demands, as well as already-finalized state and federal environmental requirements aimed at pollutants that have long been subject to federal regulation under the Clean Air Act,” the company said.
Sustainable business groups including the American Sustainable Business Council, U.S. Black Chambers Inc., and Green America also praised the flexibility the rule gives to states to craft the lowest cost compliance options.
“The plan is the opposite of centralization,” they said. “It employs a cooperative federalism approach that preserves the states’ traditional control over energy policy. It allows states to achieve the national goals of reducing CO2 emissions by directing and implementing their own plans in ways that stimulate economic growth and create jobs for their citizens.”
The D.C. Circuit has scheduled oral arguments in the Clean Power Plan litigation for June 2 and possibly June 3 before Judges Judith Rogers, Karen LeCraft Henderson and Sri Srinivasan. However, the U.S. Supreme Court already has stayed the rule's implementation until litigation is complete (West Virginia v. EPA, U.S., No. 15A773, 2/9/16).
Petitioners' reply briefs are due April 15.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86252743&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86252743&jd=86252743
-
Many Unknowns in Clean Power Plan, Oklahoma Official Says
Apr 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
Oklahoma's top environmental official told conference attendees April 1 that states did not have the resources to develop compliance plans for the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan—only to have the goal posts moved.
“There are so many pieces of it nobody knows,” Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment Michael Teague told Bloomberg BNA on the sidelines of the 45th American Bar Association Conference on Environmental Law in Austin, Texas.
The Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), issued under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, sets carbon dioxide emissions limits on the power sector in each state that will be achieved through heat rate improvements at individual power plants, expanded use of natural gas generating capacity or investments in new renewable energy projects. The rule is being challenged by 27 states, several utilities and industry groups.
Plan Halted by High Court
The U.S. Supreme Court in February ordered the Clean Power Plan be halted until the case can be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and through any subsequent Supreme Court consideration (27 DEN A-1, 2/10/16).
Planning, Modeling
Teague said “a lot” of planning and modelling “needs to be done” in the absence of an understanding of all the details of how the rule would have to be implemented.
“I appreciate that we have a stay and that we get some time because there's a lot of aspects to the Clean Power Plan that we still need to figure out,” the Oklahoma official said during a luncheon keynote speech.
Oklahoma's “greatest concern,” Teague said, is making sure the courts figure out what the rule is going to look like.
In his comments to Bloomberg BNA, Teague said, “Don't make us come up with a compliance plan or an implementation plan that puts you in this direction and then have the court go, ‘No, no, you're supposed to be over there,’ and you've got to do it again,” he said.
He said states can comply after the courts figure out what the final objective for the Clean Power Plan will be.
“For Oklahoma right now, we're going to reduce our carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, from our power plants by 40 percent over the next 15 years, and we have the cheapest electricity in the country,” he said.
In April 2015, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) signed an executive order declaring that Oklahoma won't file a state implementation plan with the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide from the state's power plants plan (84 DEN A-19, 5/1/15).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86252746&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86252746&jd=86252746
-
Tech Giants Back EPA in Climate Rule Legal Challenge
Apr 1, 2016 | Reuters
By Valerie Volvcovici
Technology companies Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon on Friday declared support for the Obama administration in a lawsuit facing its central plan to combat climate change, saying the rule is needed to drive a transition to cleaner energy.
As large energy users, the companies filed a joint amicus brief to the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to support the Environmental Protection Agency as it defends its signature Clean Power Plan against a challenge by industry groups and more than half of U.S. states.
"The Clean Power Plan reflects reasonable and attainable assumptions about the increasing availability of renewable generation in the nation’s power sector," the companies wrote in the filing they submitted to the federal court.
The regulation is designed to lower carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector by 2030 to 32 percent below 2005 levels, encouraging each state to replace dirtier fossil fuels with cleaner energy sources.
The rule is the United States' main tool to meet the emissions reduction target pledge it made at December's U.N. climate talks in Paris, but it was challenged by 27 states, along with business and industry groups in the D.C. Circuit court.
In February, the rule faced a major blow when the Supreme Court put it on hold pending the outcome of the litigation in the lower court. But the death of Justice Antonin Scalia a few days later renewed hopes for its survival.
A three-judge panel of D.C. Circuit court had unanimously rejected the same request for a stay that the Supreme Court accepted. The panel is viewed by lawyers on both sides as relatively favorable for the administration.
The technology companies, which all rely largely on renewable energy through power-purchase deals or their own facilities to power their energy-intensive data centers, said the EPA rule would help all businesses "invest and benefit from clean energy."
Earlier this week, the EPA filed a 200-page brief defending its rule, which said carbon emissions pose a "monumental threat" to the health and welfare of Americans.
On Friday, 44 current and former senators, as well as 164 current and former House members from 38 states also filed supportive briefs.
The D.C. Circuit panel will hear oral arguments on the merits of the case on June 2.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-usa-tech-idUSKCN0WY58C
-
The U.S. Is a Big Oil Importer Again
Mar 31, 2016 | Bloomberg Businessweek
By Matthew Philips
In the three months since the U.S. lifted its 40-year ban on crude oil exports, a curious thing has happened. Rather than flooding global markets, U.S. crude shipments to foreign buyers have stalled. At the same time, imports into the U.S. jumped to a three-year high in what looks to be a reversal of a yearslong decline in the amount of foreign crude brought into the American market.
As of March 25, the four-week average of imports was running at 7.9 million barrels a day, 9.8 percent higher than the year before. “That’s not a one-week blip,” says Tim Evans, an energy analyst at Citi Futures. “We’re seeing a consistent pattern.”
.S. producers, who reaped the benefits of the shale revolution, no longer enjoy a steep price advantage over foreign rivals in selling to domestic refiners. Production has fallen by about 600,000 barrels a day from its peak of 9.6 million in 2015. Now refineries are buying foreign oil to replace the lost U.S. output—and, along with traders, are storing much of the less-expensive imported oil to sell when prices rise.
During the early years of the U.S. shale boom, the millions of barrels of light, sweet crude had one big problem: no affordable access to refiners on the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. To tap into the cheaper oil pooling in Oklahoma, pipelines that used to bring imported oil up from the Gulf were reversed to take shale oil down to the coast. Refiners in Philadelphia and New Jersey also began buying North Dakota crude instead of foreign oil, moving it by train across the country. By October 2014, U.S. imports had fallen by about 40 percent from a high in 2006.
Analysts say that West Texas Intermediate crude has to be $3 to $5 cheaper than imported oil to pay for those pipeline and transportation costs. From 2011 to 2014, U.S. oil was on average $12.61 cheaper than equivalent foreign oil. The discount slowly narrowed as pipeline projects were completed and U.S. crude began to flow more freely from the middle of the country down to the Gulf Coast. A week before the Senate approved lifting the export ban on Dec. 18, WTI traded around $3 below Brent. Over the next month, the discount disappeared, and, for the first time in six years, WTI traded at a premium to Brent for a few days in January. WTI is now less than a dollar cheaper than foreign barrels available on the Gulf Coast.
So refineries along the coasts are choosing to buy imports instead of WTI. One of the biggest winners is Nigeria, which is regaining lost market share. Imports from Nigeria surged to 559,000 barrels a day in mid-March, compared with an average of 52,000 for all of 2015. Refiners are also taking more heavy oil from Mexico and Venezuela. Not only is it about $9 a barrel cheaper than WTI, it’s also what U.S. refineries prefer to handle.
The irony of the shale boom, and all the light crude it unlocked, is that it came just as U.S. refiners were spending billions to process heavy oil. “In theory, there was always going to be a linkage between freeing up U.S. barrels and replacing them with foreign crude that U.S. refiners are better suited to run,” says Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners.
For some of the weakest U.S. producers with the highest costs, lifting the ban didn’t matter because they can’t compete on the global market, says Abudi Zein, co-founder of ClipperData, which uses customs data and ship-tracking information to estimate global oil flows. For U.S. producers with the highest costs, “they’ll never be able to export because all of a sudden they’re competing with Saudi Arabia and Iraq.”
The U.S. is hoarding a lot of the imported oil. As of March 25, U.S. commercial crude inventories hit 534 million barrels. That’s near the all-time high in 1929, when U.S. commercial storage hit 545 million barrels, as huge oil finds coincided with the beginning of the Great Depression.
Today, with oil so cheap, producers and traders are opting to wait for prices to rise instead of selling, especially with the futures market signaling that oil prices will rise. Traders can lock in those prices by taking out a contract for delivery a few months down the road. A barrel of WTI for delivery in October is about $3.50 higher than the current price of about $39. That premium has dipped in recent months, but it’s still enough to pay for insurance and storage costs—with money left over.
“Putting away oil is one of the few risk-free plays in the world right now,” says Philip Verleger, an energy consultant and former director of the office of energy policy at the Department of the Treasury. Fears of a lack of storage space for oil haven’t come true. As of September 2015, the U.S. had 551 million barrels of working oil-storage capacity, 50 million more than it did two years before, according to government figures. Genscape, an oil-market-surveillance company, estimates that in the Midwest and the area along the Gulf Coast, the pace of construction has increased since September to about 574,000 barrels of new storage—big enough to hold a 747—a week.
The construction has helped keep leasing costs relatively low, says Ernie Barsamian, a principal at The Tank Tiger, a tank-storage broker. Average prices for a one-year lease of a storage tank run about 60¢ to 70¢ per barrel a month, he says. Barsamian estimates it costs about $40 to $50 a barrel to build a storage tank and that companies that own them can make their money back in five years or so.
As long as futures prices remain higher than current ones, the incentive will remain to pump oil and store it. That leaves the U.S. stuck in a strange pattern where “the higher inventories go, the more downward pressure that puts on near-term prices, which only increases the incentive to store it,” says Citi Futures’ Evans. The only way to break that cycle is for interest rates to rise, says Verleger, which would increase the financing costs to build storage tanks. “As long as money is cheap, it’ll make sense to build storage tanks in the U.S.”
The bottom line: U.S. oil production has fallen by about 600,000 barrels a day since peaking in 2015, and imports have filled the gap.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-31/the-u-s-is-a-big-oil-importer-again
-
House Republicans Push Back on Offshore Drilling Rule
Apr 1, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Top House Republicans are asking the Obama administration to rewrite a forthcoming rule on offshore oil drilling.
Regulators at the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement are close to finalizing a rule designed to prevent undersea well blowouts at drilling rigs.
The rule is the most significant measure stemming from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
The oil industry has said the rule will be costly to comply with, and Republicans in Congress have largely agreed.
In a letter to the head of the administration’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Reps. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) said they worry the rule will be so stringent it will “severely limit both existing and future safe energy development in our nation’s outer Continental Shelf.”
The pair — Bishop is chair of the Natural Resources Committee, and Calvert heads the Appropriations panel that deals with Interior appropriations — said the rule could force drillers to impose standards so strict they may be “unable to move forward on approving multi-billion dollar investments to develop our nation’s offshore energy resources.”
They asked OIRA to pull back and revise the rule, reopening the public comment period along the way. The drilling industry, they said, is too important, economically, to hamstring.
“Energy production in the Gulf of Mexico produces 16 percent of our nation’s oil and 5 percent of our natural gas — and is a key driver for economic opportunity not only in the Gulf states but throughout our nation,” they wrote. “From manufacturing, to refining, to the American families who are now seeing lower prices at the gas pump, all benefit from the increased energy production on our lands and waters.”
The Interior Department’s chief of staff said in February that it intends to move forward with the rule, despite industry opposition.
“We really believe, strongly, that this well control rule has always been a fundamental part of the reform effort, and it needs to be completed, so that we can continue raising the bar on safety,” Tommy Beaudreau said then.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/274942-house-republicans-push-back-on-offshore-drilling-rule
-
Chemical Facility Auditing Proposal Defended by EPA's Giles
Apr 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
An Environmental Protection Agency proposal that would require chemical plants to hire independent third parties to perform compliance audits under the agency's Risk Management Program is supported by evidence that those audits are more effective, the agency's top enforcement official said.
Cynthia Giles, the EPA's assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said March 31 that there are “multiple” studies that show the independence of an auditor makes a “huge difference” in ensuring that a facility is in compliance with regulatory requirements. The third-party auditing requirement is part of a February EPA proposal that aims to improve safety at facilities that house chemicals in the wake of a deadly fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas.
Current regulations require facilities to conduct compliance audits after a reportable release, but facilities are allowed to self-audit. The EPA said in its proposal (RIN 2050-AG82) that poor compliance audits have been identified as a contributing factor to past chemical accidents, including a 2005 explosion at BP's Texas City Refinery.
“Independence really matters,” Giles said during remarks at an American Bar Association conference in Austin, Texas. “We could see from that [third-party requirement], our hope is, a substantial reduction” in serious incidents.
The proposed third-party auditing requirement was criticized by various industry organizations at a March 29 public meeting hosted by the agency .
Jennifer Gibson, vice president of regulatory affairs at the National Association of Chemical Distributors, said the proposal is based on an incorrect assumption that internal auditors are biased or lenient. The proposed third-party auditing requirement would “severely limit” the number of people qualified and eligible to perform the audits, Gibson said.
The EPA estimated in its proposal that the third-party auditing requirement would cost industry about $5 million annually. The agency is taking public comments on its proposal until May 13.
http://www.bna.com/chemical-facility-auditing-n57982069324/
-
Circle of Life Brings Chemical Plant Safety
Apr 1, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Chris Tomlinson
A dangerous pesticide plant in LaPorte ,where four workers died in 2014, is shutting down. That's the good news.
The bad news is that 470 jobs that existed before the accident will slowly disappear as the facility is decommissioned. Some of those people are going to have a hard time finding new work, and their families will suffer. That's a real loss.
That's not the end of the story, though.
DuPont is sitting on some of the most valuable real estate in the Houston area, and once the old plant is gone, the lot won't be empty for long.
Low natural gas and crude oil prices has spurred a building boom along the Houston Ship Channelwith an occupancy rate of 98 percent. Real estate brokers call it one of the best industrial markets in the country.
A new plant will almost certainly be constructed, though it's far too early to think about the details. DuPont is undergoing a merger with Dow Chemical, so who knows if that will produce a company interested in a new facility.
DuPont also leases much of their land near LaPorte to other chemical companies, so that is certainly a possibility. DuPont is unlikely to let that real estate asset go underutilized.
One look at the history of the old plant gives us a clue of what's to come. When it was built during World War II, the LaPorte plant was state of the art, one of the best in the country. DuPont set a new standard for safety, but after years of re-purposing, additions and piecemeal renovations, it became unsafe. The plant's useful life was ending.
A new facility will meet the latest safety standards and leverage the coolest technology. Someone will make it a showplace for what a great company they are, just as DuPont did 70 years ago.
The sad part, though, is that people had to die for this to happen. And other old plants that also have persistent safety problems continue to operate, apparently waiting for someone to die before the owners will take action.
Companies and facilities undergo life cycles just like people. The key here is stop ending people's lives before recognizing that a facility's time has passed.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/outside-the-boardroom/article/Circle-of-life-brings-chemical-plant-safety-7222399.php
-
Two M/W Workers Killed in Wreck of Amtrak Palmetto
Apr 3, 2016 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono
Amtrak Train 89 had 341 passengers and seven crew members on board at the time. Information obtained by Railway Age indicated that the victims were the equipment operator and a track supervisor. Debris from the crash flew into the first two cars, injuring some passengers.
Amtrak suspended service along the Northeast Corridor between New York and Philadelphia and SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) also briefly halted its operations. New Jersey Transit was continuing to offer its regular Sunday service along the Northeast Corridor, and would accept Amtrak tickets between New York and Trenton during the service interruption.
This was the second Amtrak wreck involving fatalities in the space of about a year. On May 12, 2015, the derailment of New York-bound Amtrak train no. 188 at Frankford Curve in Philadelphia left eight people dead more than 200 others injured. 188 derailed due to an overspeed condition.
This incident begs important safety questions: Amtrak completed installation of ACSES (Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System, its form of Positive Train Control), on the Northeast Corridor late last year. ACSES/PTC is required to include "roadway worker protection" designed to prevent tragedies such as what occured at Chester, Pa., on the NEC. If roadway worker protection was available and functional, how could this accident have happened? Does this accident indicate that ACSES—indeed, no PTC system—is 100% fool-proof and fail-safe? Was the piece of track equipment described in various reports as a "backhoe" actually working on the track, or was it off-track but improperly cleared? Some reports have suggested that it was sideswiped, not hit head-on.
Noted one industry observer: “A fully functioning PTC system would have a GPS receiver and data radio on every piece of railroad m/w equipment to indicate whether or not it has cleared the track so that the dispatcher can grant an authority for the train to proceed through the work zone.”
Added another: “Just like any other engineering system, PTC only works when used properly, meaning it is still necessary for a track gang to formally establish a work zone. It is not known if the workers were actually on track, where track should be out of service, or working under a fouling order. Prior to PTC, a track outage would have been protected by a stop barricade that is clamped to the rail and provides a positive shunt, which means even if a train is misrouted into the block, the most favorable signal it would receive would be a Restricting. The message here is that, in the "old days," with cab signals and positive shunt barricades, the work zone would have been protected.
Only a thorough, time-consuming investigation will uncover the facts. The NTSB and the FRA have investigators on the scene.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/news/two-killed-in-wreck-of-amtrak-palmetto.html
-
Railroad Officials Clash With Lawmakers Over Safety Bill
Apr 1, 2016 | CBS Minnesota
By Pat Kessler
Minnesota railroad officials are strongly opposing a bill at the state legislature which toughens up rail safety laws, calling it unnecessary.
The bill greatly expands rail safety requirements, and requires railroads to provide more detailed information faster about trains carrying hazardous materials, like oil.
Minnesota passed new rail safety laws in 2015, and the railroads say the state does not need new ones.
But state emergency officials made an extraordinary plea Friday to force railroads to give them detailed information they say they need before a potential disaster.
One top emergency official was openly frustrated by the railroad’s response.
“This is what I got in the first four pages of the emergency response plans,” said Rick Larkin, St. Paul’s Emergency Management director.
Larkin then held up a sheet of paper with the content completely redacted in black.
“This is what I requested under my official duties, as the Emergency Management Director for the city of St Paul,” he said.
The emergency director in Minnesota’s largest county also says railroads are not giving him the specifics he needs to plan for catastrophic train derailments.
“That leaves us all, as an emergency management community, very, very nervous about how these incidents will go,” said Eric Waage, Hennepin County’s Emergency Management director. “And we have been fortunate so far as these things occur in very remote places. I’m very nervous about them happening in a highly concentrated area with populations at risk.”
Railroads say Minnesota train derailments are actually down: From 88 in 1990, to 28 in 2015.
They are telling lawmakers there is no reason to more than double the number of state train inspectors from four to nine.
“This strikes me as, like, doubling the size of your police force after crime has been reduced by two-thirds,” said Brian Sweeney, a government relations official for BNSF Railroad. “There’s just no apparent reason to do this.”
And one railroad representative went further. He said railroad officials encountered emergency management officials outside the hearing room, and scheduled a private meeting for May 2 to try to resolve their concerns — specifically excluding Minnesota lawmakers.
“We’re going to have the conversation,” said John Apitz, who represents Minnesota Regional Railroads Association. “You all are not invited, so, if you don’t mind, we’ll just get on with that.”
But emergency officials say they will back tougher state laws to force railroads to give them more information before an emergency.
“Your community emergency managers need to know what’s under this black spot,” said Larkin, holding up the heavily-redacted railroad document.
Minnesota has 4,000 miles of railroad track, the sixth largest in the country. It is also a major carrier of oil trains from the Bakken Oil Fields in North Dakota.
Federal government is predicting train traffic will rise dramatically in in the next few years.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/04/01/train-safety-bill-dispute/
-
Admin Urges Court to Reject Industry Appeal
Apr 1, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
Obama administration attorneys today urged a federal court to reject industry groups' procedural appeal over where the litigation over a contentious clean water regulation will play out.
Industry groups are asking the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision that federal appellate courts -- not local district courts -- have jurisdiction to hear such challenges under the Clean Water Act.
Critics of the new Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule from U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers argued that keeping the cases in appeals court would amount to "an enormous waste of party and judicial resources" if it turned out the court lacked jurisdiction in the first place (Greenwire, March 1).
The industry groups requested that all of the court's active judges reconsider the decision made by a three-judge panel, in what's known as en banc review.
But the Obama administration today urged the court to deny that petition for rehearing. Justice Department attorneys wrote that en banc review "would undermine the stated goals of efficiency and uniformity that are asserted by the parties seeking rehearing."
"Either the full Court would affirm the panel decision, in which case many more months would have passed to no purpose whatsoever; or the full Court would reverse the decision, leading to multiple district court proceedings and the very 'waste of resources,' 'chaos,' 'duplicative proceedings,' 'nationwide confusion,' 'absurd' results, 'procedural morass,' 'mischief,' and 'delayed justice' that the petitioners for rehearing claim they are seeking to avoid."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/04/01/stories/1060034984
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested