Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/20/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Index Slips Entering Second Quarter, ACC Says
May 20, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The Specialty Chemicals Market Volume Index, a tool created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) entered the second quarter of 2016 on a soft note, slipping 0.3 percent on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis in April. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Output Flat in April on Mixed Regional Results
May 20, 2016 | Zacks
By Zacks Equity Research
U.S. chemical output stalled in April on mixed production results across the seven chemical producing regions – according to the latest monthly report from the American Chemistry Council ("ACC"). -
(ACC Mentioned) N America April PS Sales Fall 6.7% Year on Year
May 19, 2016 | ICIS
By David Love
US, Canadian and Mexican polystyrene (PS) total sales/captive use for April were down by 6.7% from the same month a year ago, according to data made available on Thursday by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
(ACC Mentioned) Bipartisan Agreement has Congress on Path to Approve Updated TSCA
May 20, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
U.S. lawmakers have reached a bipartisan agreement to reconcile the bills passed last year in the House and Senate that would overhaul chemical safety regulations for the first time in 40 years. -
(ACC Mentioned) Deal Reached on US Chemical Regulation Reform
May 20, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Agreement has finally been reached on how to overhaul the 40-year-old law that governs US chemicals policy after several false starts. -
A Toxic Combo of Bad Regulations, Lawyers
May 20, 2016 | The Orange County Register
By Joseph Perrone
Californians are familiar with the ubiquitous warning labels on consumer products and businesses, from fishing rods and Christmas lights to coffee shops and parking garages. Required under Proposition 65, these labels supposedly notify consumers of exposure to unhealthy chemicals. -
State Regulators Criticize 'Deeply Troubling' TSCA Deal
May 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Six states are pushing back against an emerging congressional deal on chemicals legislation, calling it insufficiently protective for their residents. -
Blue-Leaning States Blast Chemical Safety Bill
May 20, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental officials in six liberal states are warning that Congress is going too far in blocking states’ rights to regulate chemicals. -
Hey TSCA, Txt Me
May 20, 2016 | Politico Pro - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
Congressional negotiators say they have a deal to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, H.R. 2576, but no one has seen the text aside from the lucky few invited to one of their closed-door conclaves. -
EPA Sets Drinking Water Advisory for Industrial Chemicals
May 20, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
The EPA has advised water utilities to lower the amount of perfluorooctanoic acid, a toxic industrial chemical, in drinking water. -
EPA Faces Scrutiny Over Draft RDX Assessment's Cancer, Other Findings
May 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's draft assessment of the human health risks of exposure to Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX), a munitions explosive, is drawing criticism from a retired National Toxicology Program (NTP) scientist who argues the agency is downplaying the chemical's carcinogenicity and from the Defense Department (DOD), which is questioning several aspects of the assessment it argues are overly strict. -
Teflon Chemical's Legacy Grows as EPA Starts Crackdown
May 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
U.S. EPA's clampdown on chemicals used to make Teflon cookware, plastics and fabrics is likely to take a long time. The agency issued a health advisory yesterday aimed at limiting concentrations of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in drinking water to 70 parts per trillion. -
US FDA Consults on Food Contact Phthalate Petition
May 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a consultation on a food additive petition filed by ten NGOs that asked the agency to revoke regulations that allow the use of 30 ortho-phthalates in food contact materials (FCMs). -
Massachusetts Senate Passes Flame Retardant Bill
May 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The Massachusetts Senate has unanimously passed a measure that would ban at least eleven flame retardants from children’s products and residential upholstered furniture. -
Regulation as a Platform for Innovation
May 20, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Aileen Nowlan
To get anything accomplished, you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. One unsung story buried in last week’s release of EPA’s new source methane rules may make good options even better – driving innovation and offering industry more options to meet the methane challenge. -
LNG Safety Rules Could Get Band-Aid Fix
May 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Federal safety rules for liquefied natural gas facilities are woefully out of date, relying on a standard published before the shale gas revolution, but any change to the rules could take years. -
Years of Neglect Led to Calif. Oil Spill -- PHMSA
May 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Transportation Department's pipeline safety agency says it will warn other pipeline operators and could pursue enforcement after its investigation found a series of errors that led to an oil spill on a Santa Barbara, Calif., beach last year. -
Tank Overflows, Spills 105K Gallons of Briny Mix in N.D.
May 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A tank owned and operated by a Texas-based energy firm overflowed and resulted in a spill of 105,000 gallons of a saltwater-oil mixture and 16,800 gallons of oil. -
Metra Seeks $3.7 Million Grant for PTC Disaster Recovery System
May 20, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
Metra announced Thursday that it has applied for a federal grant to help fund a $3.7 million disaster recovery system for the commuter railroad's positive train control (PTC) system.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Index Slips Entering Second Quarter, ACC Says
May 20, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The Specialty Chemicals Market Volume Index, a tool created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) entered the second quarter of 2016 on a soft note, slipping 0.3 percent on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis in April. The trend has been choppy and April’s decline was preceded by revised flat activity in March and a 0.1 percent drop in February. Weakness in oilfield chemicals and mining chemicals, among other segments, weighed on overall volumes. Of the twenty-eight specialty chemical segments we monitor, eleven expanded in April, three were flat, and fourteen declined. No segments experienced large gains (1.0 percent and over) in underlying market volumes.
The overall specialty chemicals volume index was off 1.8 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) also on a 3MMA basis. Year-earlier comparisons were generally in the 4.0 percent to 6.8 percent range during 2012-2014 but since February 2015 they have fallen below that range as the downturn in the oil and gas sectors affected headline volumes. In addition, the strong U.S. dollar has adversely affected a number of export-oriented customer industries. Weakness spread to other segments as well and year-earlier comparisons have been negative since second quarter 2015. Still, on a Y/Y basis, gains are fairly widespread among most market and functional specialty chemical segments. With few exceptions, however, year-earlier comparisons have been moderating.
Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics and food, among others.
Specialty chemicals differ from commodity chemicals. They may only have one or two uses, while commodities may have multiple or different applications for each chemical. Commodity chemicals make up most of the production volume in the global marketplace, while specialty chemicals make up most of the diversity in commerce at any given time, and are relatively high value with greater market growth rates. Some areas where specialty chemicals are used include adhesives, cleaning materials, cosmetic additives, construction materials, food additives, fragrances and detergents.
http://www.chemengonline.com/u-s-specialty-chemicals-index-slips-entering-second-quarter-acc-says/
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Output Flat in April on Mixed Regional Results
May 20, 2016 | Zacks
By Zacks Equity Research
U.S. chemical output stalled in April on mixed production results across the seven chemical producing regions – according to the latest monthly report from the American Chemistry Council ("ACC").
The Washington, DC-based chemical industry trade group said yesterday that the U.S. Chemical Production Regional Index ("CPRI") was flat for the reported month following a 0.4% increase a month ago and a 0.1% decline in February. The U.S. CPRI, which is measured using a three-month moving average, was created by Moore Economics to track chemical production in seven regions nationwide. It is comparable to the Federal Reserve’s industrial production index for chemicals.
Per the ACC, activity for the U.S. manufacturing sector – the largest consumer of chemical products – was flat for the second straight month in April. The sector is a major driver for the chemical industry which touches around 96% of manufactured goods.
U.S. manufacturing activity slowed in April, weighed down by fewer new factory orders, depressed oil prices and a strong dollar. The sector has been hamstrung by sluggish export growth due to weak global demand and a strong greenback.
Within the manufacturing sector, production rose in several chemistry end-user markets in April including motor vehicles, machinery, electronics, petroleum refining, iron and steel and plastic products.
Per April reading, the Gulf Coast was the only chemical producing region to rake in a gain in output. Production from that region edged up 0.1% for the reported month. Output was flat across Midwest, Ohio Valley, Mid-Atlantic, West Coast and Southeast while declining 0.1% in Northeast.
By segments, chemical production was mixed in April. Gains across fertilizers, dyes and pigments, chlor-alkali, other inorganic chemicals, industrial gases, plastic resins, pharmaceuticals and consumer products were neutralized by lower production of organic chemicals, adhesives, coatings, other specialty chemicals, synthetic rubber, and manufactured fibers.
Overall chemical production went up 1.1% year over year in April with all regions except West Coast (flat year over year) scoring gains.
The U.S. chemical industry, a more than $800 billion enterprise, is heavily linked to the overall condition of the nation’s economy. It has been consistently leading the U.S. economy’s business cycle due to its early position in the supply chain.
The chemical industry is still in gradual recovery mode from the trough of the great recession. The industry’s recovery is expected to continue this year, supported by continued strength in the automotive market, positive trends in the construction space and significant shale-linked capital investment. Chemical makers are gaining from strategic measures including expansion into high-growth markets, aggressive cost management and productivity actions and acquisitions.The ACC envisions domestic chemical production to rise 2.9% in 2016 and 4.4% in 2017. The trade group also sees the momentum to continue through the second half of the decade riding on new capital investments and capacity additions.
Chemical makers including Dow Chemical (DOW - Analyst Report), LyondellBasell Industries (LYB - Analyst Report), BASF (BASFY - Snapshot Report), Eastman Chemical (EMN - Analyst Report), Celanese (CE - Analyst Report) and Westlake Chemical (WLK - Snapshot Report) are investing heavily on shale gas-linked projects to take advantage of ample natural gas supplies which is expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years. The ACC, last month, said that domestic chemical investment related to shale gas has reached as high as $164 billion, more than 60% of which are from firms outside the U.S.
The shale gas bounty and abundant supply of natural gas liquids has been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the U.S. and have provided American petrochemicals producers a compelling cost advantage over their global counterparts. The ACC expects this competitiveness to drive export demand and new capital investment in the country.
However, the chemical industry still faces certain roadblocks including a weak agriculture market, soft demand in the energy space, lumpiness in Europe and a cooling Chinese economy.http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/218107/us-chemical-output-flat-in-april-on-mixed-regional-results
-
(ACC Mentioned) N America April PS Sales Fall 6.7% Year on Year
May 19, 2016 | ICIS
By David Love
US, Canadian and Mexican polystyrene (PS) total sales/captive use for April were down by 6.7% from the same month a year ago, according to data made available on Thursday by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Total sales and captive use include exports and all domestic sales of PS broken down by end use sectors, including: food packaging and food service (down by 0.1%); consumer and institutional (down by 17.3%); resellers and compounders (down by 21.3%); and resellers/distributors (down by 19.2%).
Food and packaging is by far the largest end use sector for PS, accounting for 63% of total sales/captive use in April.
Month on month, total North American PS sales/captive use fell by 10.3% in April, the ACC said. Year to date, PS sales/captive use was down by 1.3% in April.
North American PS producers include Americas Styrenics, Group Idesa, INEOS Styrolution, Resirene and Total Petrochemicals USA.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/05/19/10000198/n-america-april-ps-sales-fall-6-7-year-on-year/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bipartisan Agreement has Congress on Path to Approve Updated TSCA
May 20, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
U.S. lawmakers have reached a bipartisan agreement to reconcile the bills passed last year in the House and Senate that would overhaul chemical safety regulations for the first time in 40 years.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates the manufacture, transportation and use of thousands of chemicals, from resins to flame retardants, but has not been successfully reauthorized or reexamined since it was signed into law in 1976.
Lawmakers plan to have the compromise measure “passed, signed and on the president’s desk” by the end of the month, said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and one of the leaders of negotiations in ironing out the differences between the more than 200 page bill passed by the Senate in December (S 697) and the more targeted, less sweeping House version passed last June (HR 2576).
Votes by the full chambers could come as early as May 24, Inhofe said. President Barack Obama is expected to have the bill on his desk before the Memorial Day break.
The compromise legislation will provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with more power to obtain information about a chemical before passing judgment on its use or risks, while providing industry with a single regulatory process, protection for proprietary information and a pathway to prioritize approval of new chemicals before they hit the market.
States will still have the right to seek a federal waiver to impose their own rules on any given chemical.
The full text of the finalized legislation was not available, but the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee issued a summary of the details of the agreement, including:
• A risk-based safety standard for all new and existing chemicals, with a “worst-first” approach to prioritization.
• Expanded EPA authority to require the submission of health and safety data for untested chemicals, while reducing animal testing.
• “Aggressive and attainable deadlines” for chemical approval by EPA.
• Requirements for EPA to make a finding on a new chemical’s safety before it enters the market.
• Requirements for EPA to consider the most vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women and children, when assessing chemical safety.
• Funding for EPA to implement the new law.
• Deadlines for companies to comply with new EPA rules.
• Creation of “a more uniform regulatory system to ensure interstate commerce is not unduly burdened, while retaining a significant role for states in ensuring chemical safety.”
Preemption of existing state laws was a significant difference between the House and Senate bills, as well as a major sticking point for Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the top Democrat on the Senate committee.
California’s chemical regulation laws, from Proposition 65 to its Green Chemistry Initiative, are particularly well-known but Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont and Washington also have their own restrictions on some chemicals born out of the vacuum of decades of federal inaction.
According to a statement from Boxer, the new agreement would leave states free to act on any chemical on their own until EPA takes steps to regulate a specific chemical and that the agency has three and a half years to do so.
“I believe our agreement is respectful of the federal government’s role and the state government’s role,” she said.
While environmental and consumer advocacy groups remain split on the bill’s rewrite, the EPA has been supportive of the most recent drafts of the TSCA overhaul, as has industry.
“As with any compromise, this legislation balances the priorities and interests of multiple stakeholders while producing an agreement that pragmatic industry, environmental, public health and labor groups can ultimately support,” said American Chemistry Council President and CEO Cal Dooley in a statement, calling the final version of the bipartisan legislation “the product of tireless negotiation” and “strong Congressional leadership.”
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160520/NEWS/160529985/bipartisan-agreement-has-congress-on-path-to-approve-updated-tsca
-
(ACC Mentioned) Deal Reached on US Chemical Regulation Reform
May 20, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Agreement has finally been reached on how to overhaul the 40-year-old law that governs US chemicals policy after several false starts. Key Democrats and Republicans arrived at a compromise measure that was unveiled yesterday. The proposal is expected to pass both chambers of Congress imminently, and head to President Obama’s desk for signing before the end of the month.
This legislation to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which originally passed the House by near unanimous consent in June 2015 and cleared the Senate in December 2015, is the product of three years of intense negotiations between a key group of Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
The new TSCA rewrite would require the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to restrict the use of any chemical that the agency finds to present an unreasonable risk. Certain exemptions are available for substances deemed essential to national defence, for example, according to a summary of the deal released.
Overall, the bill gives the EPA the authority to immediately begin a risk evaluation of any chemical it designates as high priory, such as asbestos. It also requires up-front substantiation of industry claims that disclosure of confidential data could damage a firm’s business and mandates that so-called ‘confidential business information’ protections expire after 10 years unless renewed.
In addition, the measure also authorises the EPA to conduct testing to determine whether a chemical should be a high priority for a safety review. Decisions made by the EPA will pre-empt existing and future state laws to restrict chemicals, in order to create uniform regulations. The agreement also specifies that if the EPA fails to follow through with plans to regulate a chemical within a three-and-a-half year period, then states are free to act. An environmental and political ‘triumph’
‘This is a major environmental reform, it’s a major triumph of bipartisanship,’ said one of the bill’s key authors, Democratic senator Tom Udall, at a 19 May press conference outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC. Republican senator David Vitter, who co-authored the legislation with Udall, called it ‘the first major statutory environmental law’ passed in the US in over 25 years, and he predicted that it will be signed into law the week of 23 May.
The measure is headed to become law despite the fact that two key Democrats, Frank Pallone and Paul Tonko, withdrew their support for the bill on 17 May. They argued that it was weaker than current law.
However, a bipartisan group of Senate and House leaders announced just hours later that they were finalising TSCA reform. Those onboard included former bitter opponents on this issue – Senators Vitter and Barbara Boxer. Shortly thereafter, the EPA also released a statement of support.
‘The TSCA legislative draft that EPA has seen is a clear improvement over current law and is largely consistent with the administration’s principles for TSCA reform,’ an EPA spokesman said. ‘Critically, the bill would address the fundamental flaws that have hindered EPA's ability to protect human health and the environment from chemical risks.’
Groups as varied as the Environmental Defense Fund, the US Chamber of Commerce, as well as the American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) have backed the reform.
‘All signs are pointing to this moving forward,’ SOCMA’s Dan Newton tells Chemistry World. He says the bill has enough support in the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass. President Obama has signalled his intent to sign such a measure.
After the bill passes the House, the Senate is expected to take it up in very short order through a unanimous consent agreement, with very limited discussion on the floor and no amendments.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/05/us-chemical-regulation-reform-toxic-substances-control-act
-
A Toxic Combo of Bad Regulations, Lawyers
May 20, 2016 | The Orange County Register
By Joseph Perrone
Californians are familiar with the ubiquitous warning labels on consumer products and businesses, from fishing rods and Christmas lights to coffee shops and parking garages. Required under Proposition 65, these labels supposedly notify consumers of exposure to unhealthy chemicals. It sounds beneficial – but the newest warnings, required as of this week, show just how little the system benefits Californians, save for a few trial lawyers.
Warnings are required for Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in a wide variety of items, such as rigid plastics, lining in canned food and beverage products, and thermal paper used for receipts. A year ago, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment – going against other regulatory authorities – declared BPA to be a reproductive toxin. OEHHA then gave one year for businesses to comply with providing warnings to consumers.
While it’s important that the public be protected from chemicals that cause harm, that’s not the case here.
BPA’s safety has been well established by regulatory agencies. The European Food Safety Authority notes, “EFSA’s scientific experts concluded that BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group (including unborn children, infants and adolescents) and that current available evidence shows no low-dose health effects of BPA.”
The FDA states its “current perspective, based on its most recent safety assessment, is that BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods. ... [T]he available information continues to support the safety of BPA for the currently approved uses in food containers and packaging.” The FDA also sent a letter to OEHHA, disagreeing with the state’s classification of BPA as a reproductive toxin.
In other words, California’s making much ado about nothing.
While the new warnings about BPA won’t provide much to consumers besides unnecessary stress, they do provide an opportunity for opportunistic lawyers. Private parties can file lawsuits for Prop. 65 violations under the law’s “bounty hunting” provision, and some law firms have made a living out of shaking down small businesses.
Here’s how it works: A law firm may go around testing products for trace amounts of a chemical that violates Prop. 65 – and again, the presence of this chemical may have zero implication for consumer health. For example, acrylamide can be found in fried vegetables like potatoes – but you’d have to eat 62 pounds of potato chips a day for life to be exposed to enough acrylamide to harm you.
One manufacturer was sued for a golf club cover containing a phthalate, DEHP, even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says “[s]kin contact with products containing DEHP will probably cause no harmful effects because it cannot be taken up easily through the skin.”
A business may then get a letter demanding it pony up tens of thousands of dollars in settlement fees for failure to give proper warning, or face a lawsuit that will potentially cost it even more – even if it wins in court. Many out-of-state businesses don’t even know about the law until they’re hit with a demand letter.
The lawyers’ bounty has been a misfortune for California businesses, which have paid over $250 million since 2000 to settle Prop. 65 lawsuits. The vast majority of that money went to lawyers. Last year, $26.2 million was paid in settlements, with 68 percent of that going to attorneys.
There are over 800 unique chemicals on the Prop. 65 list, so every business – especially those based outside California – is ripe for the picking. If you see a slew of new warning labels on plastics, don’t worry that your health might be at risk. But it should be a notice that the combination of bad regulations and lawyers can be hazardous to our sanity.
Joseph Perrone is chief science officer for the Center for Accountability in Science.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bpa-716490-lawyers-health.html
-
State Regulators Criticize 'Deeply Troubling' TSCA Deal
May 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Six states are pushing back against an emerging congressional deal on chemicals legislation, calling it insufficiently protective for their residents.
In a statement yesterday, the heads of environmental agencies for Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington said more changes must be made before the bill is approved.
Basil Seggos, the acting commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, said the deal was "deeply troubling, as the draft legislation will restrict New York state's ability to protect our citizens from toxic chemicals."
A joint statement added the deal asks states to give up too much in exchange for "the promise of federal protection that is too meager."
Joining Seggos on the statement were Rob Klee, the commissioner of Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; John Stine, the commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; Tom Burack, the commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services; Deb Markowitz, the secretary of Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources; and Maia Bellon, the director of Washington's Department of Ecology.
The state officials' comments echo the position of Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and New York Rep. Paul Tonko, the top Democrat on the panel's Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. They called the emerging deal "worse than current law" earlier this week (E&E Daily, May 19).
The officials said lawmakers could win their support by making it easier for states to obtain waivers to continue to enforce state rules, preserving states' ability to ban chemicals, and changing or removing a provision that blocks state action when EPA has begun, but not completed, a regulatory action on a chemical.
"We appreciate the hard work that some members have already devoted to protecting state authorities, and urge final TSCA reform legislation to maintain states' abilities to protect our citizens," the statement said.
The agreement has also failed to sway the environmental organizations that backed Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) for years as she sought to slow or win changes to the bill.
Scott Faber, the vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, said the group viewed the bill as insufficient. Among its faults are that it may present too many obstacles to state action and may not provide EPA with enough funding to take quick action on chemicals or use sufficiently tough criteria for deciding whether a chemical is unsafe, Faber said. He said EWG is also worried the bill's process for designating chemicals as a low priority will be abused to ignore potentially harmful substances.
Still, Faber said EWG did not fault Boxer for signing onto the plan. He said without Boxer, who received EWG's inaugural Courage Award at a fundraiser last year, the bill would have been far worse (E&E Daily, Dec. 3, 2015). The bill also contains some promising sections, such as tougher rules for new chemicals and greater authority for EPA to order tests of suspect substances, Faber said.
"I think anyone who believes this bill is better than current law has a better legal crystal ball than I do," Faber said.
Boxer acknowledged at a news conference yesterday that many organizations "don't love this bill" (Greenwire, May 19).
Boxer said House members sought to negotiate the issue of pre-emption as a way to improve the bill but had largely failed.
"The House said they could make it better," Boxer said. "So far, they haven't made it better, but, you know, as long as the sun comes up and the sun comes down, we've got a little time. I hope that they can, in fact, make the improvements that they need."
The House and Senate could vote on the final plan next week, which would clear the way for President Obama to sign it into law.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/20/stories/1060037622
-
Blue-Leaning States Blast Chemical Safety Bill
May 20, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental officials in six liberal states are warning that Congress is going too far in blocking states’ rights to regulate chemicals.
Top regulators in Washington State, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont said the most recent draft they’ve seen of legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act would hobble their ability to protect their citizens from unsafe chemicals.
“To be clear, there are good elements in the legislation,” they said in a statement late Thursday. “However, state authorities are excessively and unnecessarily preempted, in exchange for the promise of federal protection that is too meager.”
A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers is putting the finishing touches on a chemical reform bill compromise between the chambers.
In return for giving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sweeping new authority and resources to test and regulate chemicals, the legislation would greatly limit states’ ability to regulate them, in an attempt to end what industry sees as a “patchwork” of laws.
For decades, states have taken the lead in regulating chemicals, and the new bill would retain some limited authority for states to act. But the six state leaders in Thursday’s statement said they need more power.
“We urge those working on the bill to improve the provisions dealing with state preemption. This could include making waivers more accessible to states, preserving state abilities to ban chemicals (as currently exists under TSCA), and removing or reforming the proposed regulatory ‘pause’ that blocks a state from regulating a chemical that the EPA is only examining,” they said.
State preemption was the main reason that major Democrats did not sign onto the legislation until recently, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) still do not support the bill, due largely to the preemption provision.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/280684-state-officials-push-against-chemical-safety-bill
-
May 20, 2016 | Politico Pro - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
Congressional negotiators say they have a deal to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, H.R. 2576, but no one has seen the text aside from the lucky few invited to one of their closed-door conclaves. House Republicans Thursday night posted text of the Senate-passed bill on the Rules Committee website to comply with procedural rules and allow for a floor vote early next week. While the House won’t be in session tomorrow, sources tell ME to expect that link to be updated with the bicameral deal, although last-minute tweaks to get more Democrats on board remain possible. The Rules Committee is scheduled to take up the bill on Monday night to set up a Tuesday vote.
Meanwhile, environmental officials from Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington State said the deal goes too far in preempting their ability to do more than the federal government to regulate chemicals, and they called for changes to the deal. “This could include making waivers more accessible to states, preserving state abilities to ban chemicals (as currently exists under TSCA), and removing or reforming the proposed regulatory 'pause' that blocks a state from regulating a chemical that the EPA is only examining,” said a joint statement from the states' environment officials.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/05/tough-time-for-the-energy-bill-waiting-on-the-tsca-text-how-will-southern-california-keep-the-lights-on-without-aliso-canyon-214412
-
EPA Sets Drinking Water Advisory for Industrial Chemicals
May 20, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
The EPA has advised water utilities to lower the amount of perfluorooctanoic acid, a toxic industrial chemical, in drinking water.
The health advisory, issued yesterday, follows high levels of the chemical, called PFOA, in drinking water in New York, Vermont and New Hampshire. The man-made chemical is used in non-stick cookware, waterproof clothing and dozens of other industrial applications.
Earlier this year, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation said Honeywell and Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics must pay to clean up PFOA found in drinking water.
The EPA had been investigating PFOA under the Toxic Substances Control Act because it is very persistent in the environment and remains in people’s blood for a very long time. It can cause developmental problems in lab animals.
Manufactures have voluntarily phased out the chemical, but it hasn’t been banned by the EPA.
Thursday’s health advisory, while not legally enforceable, says drinking water with PFOA concentrations of 70 parts per trillion or more is not healthy for human consumption. The previous guideline was 400 parts per trillion.
State agencies can set their own stricter guidelines. New York and New Hampshire have set limits of 100 parts per trillion, while Vermont’s limit is 20 parts per trillion, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The EPA also set a 70 parts per trillion guideline for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), used to make products stain resistant. The earlier guideline was 200 parts per trillion.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/05/20/epa-sets-drinking-water-advisory-for-industrial-chemicals/
-
EPA Faces Scrutiny Over Draft RDX Assessment's Cancer, Other Findings
May 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's draft assessment of the human health risks of exposure to Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX), a munitions explosive, is drawing criticism from a retired National Toxicology Program (NTP) scientist who argues the agency is downplaying the chemical's carcinogenicity and from the Defense Department (DOD), which is questioning several aspects of the assessment it argues are overly strict.
"I was surprised and shocked when I read EPA's cancer weight-of-evidence (WOE) conclusion for [RDX]," Ron Melnick, a retired senior toxicologist with NTP, writes in May 9 comments. "It is obvious to me that the WOE determination for RDX is inconsistent with both the data that are summarized in the [Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)] Draft Toxicological Review of RDX and with the cancer descriptors provided in EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment."
In the draft assessment, EPA proposes classifying RDX as showing "suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential," but Melnick says "the data for RDX matches the descriptor 'likely to be carcinogenic to humans' because it 'induced dose-related increases in tumors in two species (mouse and rat), in both sexes, and at two sites (liver and lung).'"
EPA, he says, has done "a poor job of explaining how or why" it opted for the suggestive evidence WOE descriptor. He urges EPA to correct "the serious defects" in the assessment, arguing "the inappropriate application of the cancer descriptor differs markedly from evaluations of animal cancer data performed by the NTP, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and previously by EPA; and most importantly, it sets a bad precedent for future assessments of environmental carcinogens."
DOD representatives also questioned the agency's suggestive evidence determination during a public meeting on the assessment May 10 at EPA's Arlington, VA, offices, echoing concerns raised in 2014 during interagency comments on an earlier draft of the assessment that the data show RDX is unlikely to be carcinogenic.
In the Sept. 30, 2014, DOD comments, which EPA released May 9 along with other interagency comments, the military argued that EPA's cancer analysis did not show evidence of statistically significant increases of tumor in any of the individual studies. As a result, DOD says, EPA should not perform a quantitative analysis of the data.
Charge Questions
In separate comments, DOD urged EPA to include in its charge questions to science advisors who will peer review the draft assessment questions regarding the appropriate cancer classification, such as, "could the carcinogenic weight of evidence, including no statistically significant dose-dependent increases in tumors from animal studies, and negative genotox data, support a finding that RDX is unlikely to be carcinogenic?"
A DOD researcher, Desmond Bannon, who attended the May 10 bimonthly IRIS public meeting reiterated the agency's concerns, specifically EPA's decision to "derive a slope factor for a 'suggestive' carcinogen."
But Melnick argues that EPA's calculations of tumor incidence is in error with regard to one of the toxicology studies, which he suggests as one factor leading to the lower cancer classification. Melnick writes, "the report . . . emphasizes the number of hepatocellular carcinomas in male F344 rats (two in the 8 and 40 [milligrams per kilograms (mg/kg)] groups and one in the controls)," but "neglects to note" that there are a different number of animals in the control group and in the group that received the 40 mg/kg dose.
Adjusting for this difference changes the tumor incidence values to "1.8% and 6.5%, respectively . . . the latter value exceeds NTP's historical control rate for this tumor. Surely the EPA staff and managers know that it is inappropriate to highlight tumor numbers that are not adjusted for differences in the number of animals at risk. Misleading information should not be used to justify the lower cancer WOE descriptor," Melnick writes.
Melnick's concerns were not discussed during the May 10 meeting, which focused on three science topics, all relating to the non-cancer portion of the IRIS assessment: the validity of the hazard marker used as the basis for EPA's oral non-cancer risk estimate, or reference dose (RfD); the models available to calculate the RfD and RDX's neurotoxicity.
Official NTP comments from Oct. 27, 2014, indicate few concerns with the assessment, including its cancer classification.
"The data cited by EPA supports the conclusions of the assessment," NTP Laboratory Acting Chief Michael DeVito wrote, in response to charge questions regarding EPA's proposed cancer classification, oral risk estimate and decision not to calculate an inhalation risk estimate.
DOD's concerns are joined by NASA and reiterated by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which in 2014 comments questioned EPA about its decision to use a 1 percent response level rather than the more frequently used 10 percent response level to model noncancer risk estimates.
"The rationale for a [benchmark response (BMR)] of 1% needs to be better supported, especially since the preamble material . . . indicates that 5% would be the appropriate level for more severe effects," OMB's Oct. 31, 2014, comments state. "How is the 'severity' of the endpoint determined?"
EPA's Draft
EPA's public comment draft retains this unusual modeling response rate, arguing that the severity of convulsions, the endpoint measured, justifies the use of the 1 percent rate.
The decision angered Larry Williams, retired from the U.S. Army Public Health Command, who attended the May 10 meeting. "EPA's use of the 1 percent [BMR] is inappropriate . . . and almost disciplinary," Williams argued. "I agree at very high doses RDX kills rats," but he argued that RDX hasn't caused any human deaths, in part because seizures are quickly treated.
EPA posted its March 2016 response to comments document along with the interagency comments in its docket on May 9. Regarding the cancer classification, EPA writes, that its descriptor of not likely to be carcinogenic to humans is "appropriate only when the available data are considered robust for deciding that there is no basis for human hazard concern. In light of the dose-related increases in benign and malignant tumors in the liver and lung of mice and in the liver of rats in 2-year dietary studies, EPA disagrees with DOD's recommendation to consider a descriptor for RDX of 'unlikely to be carcinogenic.'"
EPA adds that staff sought to clarify in its description why it considered its descriptor more appropriate and adds that it will add a charge question to peer reviewers on the topic.
EPA also responds to concerns from DOD and OMB regarding its use of the 1 percent response rate in its noncancer risk estimates, citing its 2012 Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance. "[S]electing BMRs involves making judgments about the statistical and biological characteristics of the dataset. A BMR of 10% [extra risk (ER)] is not a default; a lower (or sometimes higher) BMR is often used based on statistical and biological considerations . . . In the case of RDX, EPA considered the use of a BMR of 1% ER to be justified for an endpoint as severe as convulsions, and consistent with EPA guidance . . ." EPA adds that it will pose a question regarding the BMR to its peer review panel.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-faces-scrutiny-over-draft-rdx-assessments-cancer-other-findings
-
Teflon Chemical's Legacy Grows as EPA Starts Crackdown
May 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
U.S. EPA's clampdown on chemicals used to make Teflon cookware, plastics and fabrics is likely to take a long time.
The agency issued a health advisory yesterday aimed at limiting concentrations of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in drinking water to 70 parts per trillion. That concentration is the equivalent of a drop of water in 3 ½ Olympic-sized swimming pools (E&ENews PM, May 19).
EPA's move comes as rural communities in New Hampshire, New York and Vermont are wrestling with the spread of one of those chemicals -- PFOA -- in groundwater.
There's no legal standard limiting PFOA in drinking water, but the chemical has been linked to health problems -- organ damage, cancer and birth defects -- in laboratory animals.
"The fundamental problem is that we haven't characterized how widespread it is," said Erik Olson, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's health program. "As we look for it more, we're finding it more."
Groundwater contamination in Hoosick Falls, N.Y.; North Bennington, Vt.; and Merrimack and Amherst, N.H., have been tied to one company, Paris-based Saint-Gobain SA, manufacturer of hard plastics and waterproofing chemicals. Saint-Gobain's products go into the hard white material used to make sports stadium roofs and the fabric treatment for hazardous material suits.
In Petersburgh, N.Y., Taconic Plastics has been identified as the contamination source.
In one instance, an Amherst well registered 600 parts per million of PFOA. Around Merrimack, the level has typically been between 100 and 200 parts per billion, according to news reports.
Because there's no legal requirement to test for PFOA, few water systems go out of their way to find it and few laboratories test for it.
New Hampshire sends water samples to Washington state, and Vermont ships to Wisconsin.
"There is desperate need for lab time right now," said Alyssa Schuren, commissioner with the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. As more of the contaminant is found, "I assume they will be even more backed up."
A small body of scientific literature also limits the understanding of how PFOA and PFOS affect human health. Most of the studies have been on animals, and cancer surveys in people have been complicated by external factors.
"We don't have a strong enough epidemiological database," said Bill McDowell, a professor of environmental science at the University of New Hampshire.
PFOA and PFOS are fluorinated organic chemicals, part of a larger group of compounds called perfluoroalkyl substances. In the Northeast, PFOA has been the main contaminant in groundwater, although PFOS -- used in firefighting foams and stain-repellant coatings -- was recently found in water samples around a Merrimack landfill.
PFOA is a legacy contaminant. In North Bennington, Saint-Gobain closed its plant in 2001 after it purchased Chemfab Corp. and expanded operations in Merrimack. In New Hampshire, it hasn't been used since 2014.
Saint-Gobain reported high PFOA levels in water samples at the Merrimack plant in late February. The Vermont investigation began a couple of weeks earlier. Since then, the company has spent more than $4 million for bottled water and filters in Hoosick Falls alone, where EPA warned residents of high levels of the chemical last December.
In New Hampshire, where the discovery is more recent, Saint-Gobain has spent more than $550,000, mostly for engineering studies to begin hooking up private well owners to municipal drinking water systems.
"The remedy will be in the millions," said James Martin, a spokesman for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
Last month, the Vermont Legislature voted to give its regulators additional tools to respond to contamination. The Vermont bill, H. 595, allows the state to assess resource damage from polluters and put that money in a public trust to help pay for future environmental crises.
Simultaneously, the state's Department of Environmental Conservation proposed an emergency rule to list PFOA and PFOS as hazardous waste and to limit concentrations to 20 parts per trillion -- less than a third the concentration in EPA's health advisories. Any level above that would trigger a violation under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or Superfund law. Saint-Gobain is challenging the rule.
The 3M Co. in Minnesota phased out the chemicals around 2000, and eight other companies are close to completely removing the chemicals from manufacturing.
But voluntary production phaseouts won't reverse decades of manufacturing.
"We think this is going to pop up all over the country," said Jon Groveman, policy and water program director for the Vermont Natural Resources Council. "Over time, people are going to start looking for it."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/20/stories/1060037625
-
US FDA Consults on Food Contact Phthalate Petition
May 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a consultation on a food additive petition filed by ten NGOs that asked the agency to revoke regulations that allow the use of 30 ortho-phthalates in food contact materials (FCMs).
In the petition, the NGOs stated there is no longer a reasonable certainty of no harm for the ortho-phthalates' food contact uses. Evidence of various reproductive, developmental and endocrine health effects, they say, warrants further agency safety review of these commonly used substances.
Tom Nelter, chemical policy director at petitioning NGO the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), pointed out that the announcement of the consultation follows in the wake of a study that shows that fast food intake may increase phthalate exposure.
The FCM uses of the ortho-phthalates being petitioned include:
adhesives;
resinous and polymeric coatings, including for polyolefin films;
components of paper and paperboard in contact with aqueous and fatty foods, and dry foods;
defoaming agents used in the manufacture of paper and paperboard;
slimicides;
acrylic and modified acrylic plastics, semi-rigid and rigid;
cellophane;
closures with sealing gaskets for food containers;
melamine-formaldehyde resins in molded articles;
polyester elastomers and resins (crosslinked);
rubber articles, intended for repeated use;
plasticisers in polymeric substances; and
surface lubricants used in the manufacture of metallic articles.
If the agency determines that new data is available that justifies amending these specified food additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of the ortho-phthalates, they will publish an amendment of the regulations in the Federal Register.
The consultation closes 19 July.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47514/us-fda-consults-on-food-contact-phthalate-petition
-
Massachusetts Senate Passes Flame Retardant Bill
May 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The Massachusetts Senate has unanimously passed a measure that would ban at least eleven flame retardants from children’s products and residential upholstered furniture.
S. 2293 would prohibit the sale from 1 January 2017 of covered products containing more than 1,000ppm of the following substances:
tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP);
tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP);
decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE);
antimony trioxide;
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD);
bis(2-ethylhexyl)-3,4,5,6- tetrabromophthalate (TBPH);
2-ethylhexyl-2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate (TBB);
chlorinated paraffins;
tris (1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCPP);
PBDEs, including but not limited to: pentaBDE and octaBDE.
It would also direct the Massachusetts department of environmental protection to review and identify other chemical flame retardants that should be prohibited, on a triennial basis. Factors to be considered in this evaluation include developmental toxicity, carcinogenicity, reprotoxicity, or if the substance is an EDC, PBT or vPvB.
First-time violators of the law could face penalties up to $1,000 for each product sold in violation of the law. Subsequent violations could result in civil penalties up to $5,000 per product, together with "any additional civil penalties as may be determined by the rules and regulations department".
According to the Massachusetts branch of NGO Clean Water Action, successful passage of the bill would make the state the 14th in the nation to restrict the use of one or more flame retardants.
Washington state and Washington DC both passed flame retardant bans earlier this year. But aConnecticut measure failed to get to the floor before the legislature adjourned for the year.
Massachusetts's bill sped through the Senate and passed on a 39-0 margin.
In order to become law, the state's House of Representatives will need to approve the measure before the close of the 2016 legislative session. This is scheduled to end 31 July.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47513/massachusetts-senate-passes-flame-retardant-bill
-
Regulation as a Platform for Innovation
May 20, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Aileen Nowlan
To get anything accomplished, you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. One unsung story buried in last week’s release of EPA’s new source methane rules may make good options even better – driving innovation and offering industry more options to meet the methane challenge.
The new rules target a pervasive problem: methane – the primary component of natural gas – leaking throughout the oil and gas value chain. Methane emissions represent a waste of saleable resources, a reputational risk, and a contributor to both poor local air quality and climate change.
Under the EPA’s framework, oil and gas operators must take steps to minimize emissions from new and modified sources – from finding and fixing equipment leaks to swapping out equipment to reduce methane vented from pneumatic controllers and pumps,. Companies in Colorado working to comply with the state’s similar rule have reported that putting similar measures in place are cost-effective, even generating positive returns from selling the captured gas.
But what should an agency do when the solutions available now are reasonable but not perfect? Existing strategies don’t monitor all the time—only a few days a year. So leaks and malfunctions can be missed, or leak for months before they are fixed.
New technologies–emerging from research labs, startups and mature companies in adjacent sectors – can help spot leaks at lower cost, including through continuous monitoring. EDF’s Methane Detectors Challenge will launch pilots of sensitive, rugged, low-cost continuous methane monitors with oil and gas operators. Due to collaborative partnerships, these innovative technologies are advancing rapidly.
In a regulated industry like oil and gas, adaptability as technology progresses is key to ensuring operators can use more effective and lower-cost solutions as they become available. That insight led many innovators, forward-thinking oil and gas operators and EDF to call on EPA to include a pathway to innovation in the final rule.
Path open – and process in place – for emerging technologies
We were delighted to learn that the finalized new source standards offer oil and gas companies “the opportunity to use emerging, innovative technologies to monitor leaks.” The rule acknowledges that “leak detection technology is undergoing continuous and rapid development and innovation.” As a result, it establishes a process for evaluating any alternative work practice that achieves equal or greater emissions reductions. The rule also lists criteria for evaluation—so innovators and operators can get to work pulling together submissions. This sets a floor for environmental stewardship, and gives an incentive to do better.
Any proposed alternative will need to be well tested and should be assessed carefully – a pathway for innovation is not an invitation to cut corners. But being open to alternative technologies shows faith in ingenuity. The methane experience may also offer lessons for how we approach other environmental challenges. Setting a level playing field and laying out the ground rules will help entrepreneurs and companies work out and deliver the better, faster plays.
Some old-fashioned industry monoliths may accuse the regulation of being one-size-fits-all. But with the door open to innovation, the appetite from operators is there for more methane solutions. Leading oil and gas companies are already partnering with innovators to take advantage of this opportunity.
The day will come soon when anyone who sees only one path forward will have chosen to work with blinders on. That choice will cost them, as companies embracing innovation speed past them with efficient, low-cost made-in-America solutions.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2016/05/20/regulation-as-a-platform-for-innovation/
-
LNG Safety Rules Could Get Band-Aid Fix
May 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Federal safety rules for liquefied natural gas facilities are woefully out of date, relying on a standard published before the shale gas revolution, but any change to the rules could take years.
At a public meeting held by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration this week, safety rules were continuously described as outmoded.
"The LNG industry has evolved ... from a smaller, relatively simple industry and facilities to larger and more complex business models and facilities," said Pat Outtrim, vice president of government affairs for Cheniere Energy Inc., in a presentation on the company's experience developing the first modern U.S.-based LNG export facility.
"Older versions of standards referenced in the [PHMSA] regulations negatively impact design, construction and operations," she said.
Outtrim described instances where federal regulations require the use of less effective quality assurance testing methods than industry best practices or require intermittent equipment testing in cases where the industry has moved on to continuous monitoring.
"U.S. regulations do not reflect industry best practices and actually increase risk in the design, construction and operation of LNG facilities," she concluded. "A good first step is to have LNG regulations updated with the newest standards."
Mainly at issue is a standard developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) known by its numerical code, 59A, which PHMSA incorporates by reference in its own rules. The NFPA updates the 59A standard every two years, but PHMSA has discretion over whether and when to update its reference to the standard.
Currently, PHMSA relies almost entirely on the 2001 version of the NFPA 59A standard, though it includes small portions of the 2006 version.
Accounts vary as to why PHMSA has not incorporated more recent versions of the safety standard, though numerous sources both within the agency and outside of it point to resource constraints as at least part of the issue. First the agency was too busy with a crush of work on LNG import facility applications through about 2006, and then the shale boom happened and staff were overwhelmed with export permit applications.
There are signs of deeper trust issues, too.
Kenneth Lee, director of the engineering and research division of PHMSA's Office of Pipeline Safety, said PHMSA issued an advisory bulletin about a decade ago outlining "some safety issues that [needed to be] addressed" in the then-latest standard.
PHMSA staff felt that some things were better in the newer version and some things worse, he added.
The 2009 edition of the 59A standard included a major reorganization of the material, staff explained, including changes to the standards and movement of some sections from the binding "shall" portions of the document to a nonbinding annex that relies on "should"-type language (EnergyWire, April 27).
Asked whether the latest 59A standard is a clear improvement, Lee hedged, "We have been in contact with NFPA, and we are doing a very diligent review," he said. "It is too early to say."
In a presentation on the standard from NFPA's perspective, Jay Jablonski, who chairs the working group on 59A, said federal agency representatives had participated in the last several revision rounds.
"Just recently, this last number of months, we've had some very good discussions about wanting to move this toward a closer relationship," Jablonski said. "I've seen improved relationships over the past few years, compared to where we were in 2001. ... I see positive things happening in the next few years, with this meeting being part of that."
LNG by rail?
In the meantime, industry is quick to point out problems. Technologies widely used in the LNG industry like concrete natural gas storage tanks, advanced tank membranes and vacuum-jacketed piping require special requests for use because they didn't exist in 2001, when the current standard was finalized.
International norms for how to test piping, how storage tanks should handle snow accumulation and numerous other points have changed, as well.
The problem doesn't just apply to the massive LNG export facilities under construction and proposed around the country.
The current rules were designed mainly for peak-shaving facilities, small liquefaction and storage operations that access pipeline gas during off-peak demand periods and store it in liquid form for regasification during high demand, typically in the winter months.
The first of those plants was built in 1965, and the average peak shaver is about 35 years old, according to Kevin Ritz, a senior engineering and technical specialist with Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.
Since then, much has changed. Starting around 2001, the LNG industry went through an upheaval with the construction of bulk import plants and then planning for exports. Now, new LNG applications are increasing the regulatory pressure.
Small-scale is the buzzword, with fueling for trucking and marine use as two potentially large markets. Stationary and mobile regasification facilities for remote power are being proposed, as well. All those applications would be best served by new rules that address issues like their smaller size and potential use in more densely populated areas as compared with traditional LNG facilities.
Lad Falat, the head of PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety's engineering and research division, pointed to rail as an area where the agency hopes to get ahead of the curve.
He pointed to its failure to foresee crude by rail with appropriate regulations and the numerous accidents that came with that gap.
"This time, we are committed to watching those economic indicators and to be much more proactive on such a [change] for LNG, if indeed it hasn't occurred already," Falat said.
Currently, there are no approved LNG rail tank cars, though there are portable tank and cargo tank options permitted with special approval by the Federal Railroad Administration, Falat said. The agency is working with FRA and industry to identify a bulk tank car and locomotive tender, he said.
Path forward
The two-day public meeting held by PHMSA this week will feed into a regulatory review process that could end up having two parts.
Officials are casting a wide net on potential changes to the rules, with everything from the finest points of safety incident modeling systems to whether changes should apply to existing facilities under review.
"I can say we'll come out with a good update to [the regulation] at some point," said Alan Mayberry, the deputy associate administrator for policy and programs with the Office of Pipeline Safety. "Unfortunately, it's just a multiyear process."
Fully reviewing and rewriting the agency's main rule will take time, but Mayberry said an interim step could be a "nonsignificant rulemaking" process that would incorporate all or portions of a more recent 59A standard into the agency's regulations, providing a Band-Aid fix.
Even a partial update would please many people.
"It's sort of shocking," said Ted Gleichman, political director for climate and energy with the Center for Sustainable Economy, "that NFPA 2001 is the most recent version [of the standard] that has been incorporated into the federal regulatory regime. There is no one in this room who is still using a 2001 cellphone."
Jamie Gray, a project manager at Cameron LNG, which is currently under construction to add export capacity to its bulk import terminal in Louisiana, expressed a similar sentiment. "Using standards that are 25 years old is probably not in anybody's best interest," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/20/stories/1060037596
-
Years of Neglect Led to Calif. Oil Spill -- PHMSA
May 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Transportation Department's pipeline safety agency says it will warn other pipeline operators and could pursue enforcement after its investigation found a series of errors that led to an oil spill on a Santa Barbara, Calif., beach last year.
Plains All American Pipeline LP, the company responsible for the 123,000-gallon spill on May 19, 2015, overlooked a rapidly growing corrosion problem that left its pipeline's wall thinner than a dime before it ruptured.
The company's staff also made a series of mistakes that allowed the leak to continue undetected for more than half an hour, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said in its final report on the incident.
PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez declined to say what sort of penalties the company could face. Line 901 and another, longer pipeline in the same area will remain shut down while PHMSA updates a corrective action order that it issued last year.
"The bottom line is, this pipeline will not be allowed to operate until we're satisfied all of its safety problems are fixed," Dominguez said on a conference call with reporters.
The spill killed dozens of birds and marine animals, cost more than $140 million and took months to clean up. A California grand jury indicted Plains this week on 46 criminal charges related to the spill, and one of its employees was charged with a misdemeanor for failing to report the incident quickly (E&ENews PM, May 17).
Plains said in an emailed statement that it won't comment on the report. The company has "worked tirelessly and relentlessly to do the right thing" since the spill, the statement said.
The incident sparked provisions in a pending pipeline safety bill clarifying that beaches require a higher standard of spill protection and requiring a study on the best way to prevent corrosion.
"We have a duty to learn from these past incidents so that we can minimize the risk and impact of the next spill and protect the surrounding communities," Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) said in a statement.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said the PHMSA report shows there's still work to be done, including providing more information to Congress.
Pipeline's integrity at issue
The 510-page report places most of the blame on Plains' maintenance of the pipeline.
"Although the operational events that occurred on the morning of the release were abnormal, this should not have caused the release if the pipeline's integrity had been maintained to federal standards," it says.
Line 901 is a 24-inch pipe built in the 1980s, stretching 10.7 miles from a storage tank battery to a larger pipeline. The larger line, Line 903, connects to a nearby refinery and other destinations.
Two weeks before the spill, Plains tested Line 901 with an inline instrument, known as a smart pig, that's used to detect rust and other external problems. But the pig test underreported the severity of the corrosion on the pipe.
The instrument tests showed that corrosion extended 47 percent of the way through the pipe's wall. In reality, it extended 89 percent of the way through the wall, PHMSA said in its report.
The walls of the pipe were 0.344 of an inch thick when it was built, the report said, so the corrosion left a wall thickness of 0.04 inch. A dime is 0.05 inch thick, according to the U.S. Mint's website.
Normally, companies dig up and examine sections of a pipe after an instrument test to corroborate the results, but Plains hadn't finished the excavation by the time the pipe ruptured.
The corrosion apparently started when water got under the pipe's protective wrapping and insulation, the report said. Investigators found several instances of water under the protective layers.
Plains also ignored a rapid increase in the number of corroded spots on the pipeline. There were 14 "anomalies" in 2007, and only two of them extended more than 60 percent through the pipe wall, the report said. By 2012, there were 58 anomalies, and by 2015, there were 94 -- including two that extended 80 percent of the way through the pipe wall.
The pipeline was operated from Plains' control room in Midland, Texas. When the spill happened, the control room operator was busy coping with another problem on the line -- an unexpected pump shutdown -- and ignored an alarm that could have alerted him to the leak. He later asked his supervisor to mute the alarm.
That allowed the leak to continue from 10:55 to about 11:30 a.m., the report said.
The oil flowed through a culvert under the U.S. 101 highway and reached the beach. A caller to the Santa Barbara fire department reported smelling oil in the vicinity of the beach at about 11:42 a.m. local time.
Plains representatives initially told local officials that the oil wasn't coming from their line, but they located the leak at 1:27 p.m.
Oil continued flowing through the culvert until about 3 p.m., when crews arrived with the equipment to block it.
Plains' spill response plan didn't account for the culvert so the company's staff underestimated the risk of oil reaching the ocean, PHMSA said in its report.
Markey said in a statement that he has asked for a copy of Plains' spill response plan but has received only a redacted version.
"Today's announcement by PHMSA highlights the importance of ensuring that Congress has access to all information, including un-redacted pipeline spill response plans, to ensure that it can provide oversight in the case of a spill or other emergency," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/20/stories/1060037599
-
Tank Overflows, Spills 105K Gallons of Briny Mix in N.D.
May 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A tank owned and operated by a Texas-based energy firm overflowed and resulted in a spill of 105,000 gallons of a saltwater-oil mixture and 16,800 gallons of oil.
The incident occurred at a site near the town of Marmarth, N.D., which is in the state's southwest corner.
The saltwater-oil mixture is more commonly known as produced water, and it can contain drilling chemicals.
It is still being determined how much of the release has affected pastureland. The state's Health Department and Oil and Gas Division are on-site investigating.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/20/stories/1060037615
-
Metra Seeks $3.7 Million Grant for PTC Disaster Recovery System
May 20, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
Metra announced Thursday that it has applied for a federal grant to help fund a $3.7 million disaster recovery system for the commuter railroad's positive train control (PTC) system.
Metra is seeking the funds through the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) railroad safety technology grant program. The FRA in April announced it would provide $25 million in competitive grants to railroads, suppliers, and state and local governments for PTC-related projects.
The disaster recovery system would activate automatically if the primary back-office server system fails due to a power failure, natural disaster, routine maintenance or another unforeseen event. Without such a system in place, any failure to the primary system controlling Metra's PTC operations would "severely disrupt" rail operations for both passenger and freight railroads, Metra officials said in a press release.
Metra will house the disaster recovery system at its Kensington Yard facility on Chicago's south side. In addition to providing a fail-safe operating capability for PTC technology, the project will lay the groundwork for Metra to establish a second fully redundant dispatching center, railroad officials said.
Implementing PTC will cost the commuter railroad more than $350 million, Metra officials believe. The technology also will add $15 million to $20 million to the railroad's annual operating costs, they said.
So far, Metra has allocated $187 million in capital funding toward PTC. The railroad is banking on additional state and federal funds to provide the remaining funds needed to complete PTC, agency officials said, noting that the recently enacted Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act authorizes $199 million in fiscal year 2017 to assist railroads in financing the installation of PTC.
Metra expects full implementation of PTC by 2019 or sooner.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/Metra-seeks-37-million-grant-for-PTC-disaster-recovery-system--48312
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested