Preview Newsletter

ACC PM 6/8/16

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Reform Heading to Obama’s Desk
Jun 8, 2016 | Chem Info
By Meagan Parrish

Passage of the major overhaul to the country’s toxic chemicals regulation is now eminent.
(ACC Mentioned) Rand Paul Drops Objection, TSCA Reform Bill Passes
Jun 8, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich

The U.S. Senate gave final approval to a decades-in-the-making bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) late June 7.
(ACC Mentioned) Bipartisan Bill to Harness Toxic Chemicals was Years in the Making
Jun 8, 2016 | Christian Science Monitor
By Lucy Schouten

The first-ever update to federal regulations on toxic chemicals requires a a national review of thousands of household and commercial substances, including asbestos and BPA.
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Sends Chemical Safety Legislation to Obama
Jun 8, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue

In a move that will mandate required federal safety assessments of chemicals found in everyday products from laundry detergent to toys, a June 7 U.S. Senate vote sends legislation to President Barack Obama for signature.
(ACC Mentioned) Why the Environmental Working Group Isn’t Backing the Toxic Chemicals Compromise
Jun 8, 2016 | Moyers and Company
By Scott Faber

Several weeks ago, a rare thing happened in Washington: Members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, announced a bipartisan compromise on a long-awaited bill to modernize the nation’s regulation of toxic chemicals.
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Advisors Urge Quick Action On Key Solvent, Call For Broader Review
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

EPA science advisors are generally praising the agency's draft human health risk assessment of the solvent 1-bromopropane (1-BP) and urging the agency to act quickly to reduce exposures, while also citing new biomarker reports on possible wide exposures in pressing EPA to reconsider its decision not to assess risks to bystanders.
Senate Approves Landmark Bipartisan TSCA Reform Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA

The Senate on June 7 approved by voice vote landmark bipartisan legislation to overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and give EPA a slew of new powers to evaluate risks from new and existing chemicals, sending the legislation to President Obama who is expected to sign it into law.
Breaking: Senate Passes Historic Chemical Reform Bill
Jun 7, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Rachael Daigle

The Senate tonight passed legislation by unanimous consent overhauling the nation's primary chemical law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, for the first time since 1976.
3 Things to Know About the Most Important New Environmental Law in Decades
Jun 7, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt

Something that cynics will find remarkable just happened: A big, bipartisan majority in Congress passed the most important new environmental law in decades. It finally fixes the biggest problems with America’s badly broken chemical safety system.
Lawmakers Celebrate Passage of Chemical Reform Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

House and Senate lawmakers took a victory lap Wednesday to celebrate the Senate passing its major chemical safety overhaul, sending it to President Obama’s desk.
TSCA Reform Bill Passed By Congress
Jun 8, 2016 | Occupational Health and Safety

A long-delayed bill that will overhaul the Toxic Substances Reform Act, updating the country's standards for chemical safety, passed the U.S. Senate on June 7 and is headed to the desk of President Obama for his signature.
Congress Passes Bill Updating Chemical Safety Law
Jun 8, 2016 | Insurance Journal
By Richard Cowan (Reuters)

The U.S. Senate passed legislation on Tuesday that would revamp federal chemical safety protections for the first time in decades, sending it to President Barack Obama for his expected signing into law.
Updated: United States Adopts Major Chemical Safety Overhaul
Jun 8, 2016 | Science
By Puneet Kollipara

The U.S. Senate yesterday unanimously approved a major overhaul of the nation’s primary chemical safety law—marking one of the last steps in a decades-long reform effort.
EPA to Get Greater Control Over Chemicals Used in Everyday Products
Jun 8, 2016 | UPI
By Andrew V. Pestano

The Environmental Protection Agency will have increased power over the regulation of thousands of chemicals after PresidentBarack Obama signs into law a bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday.
Senate Passes Landmark Legislation to Reauthorize the Toxic Substances Control Act
Jun 7, 2016 | Humane Society
By Stephanie Twining

The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund commend the U.S. Senate for giving final approval to H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which strengthens federal oversight over the use of tens of thousands of chemicals in commercial use and contains provisions to minimize and in some cases replace animal testing to evaluate chemical safety.
EU Lacks Resources to Support Chemical Substitution
Jun 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton

European member state authorities, Echa and the European Commission have “very few staff” who focus on the issue of alternatives for hazardous chemicals, the preliminary findings of a new study show.

Energy News

(ACC Blog) Natural Gas Helps Shape Future of U.S. Manufacturing
Jun 8, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry

Natural gas continues to play a starring role in our nation’s energy story, revitalizing the chemistry industry and spurring manufacturing growth.
(ACC Mentioned) Shell's Go-Ahead for Marcellus 'Cracker' Plant Anchors Strategy Shift
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold

Royal Dutch Shell PLC is backing the U.S. expansion into petrochemical manufacturing.
(ACC Mentioned) Pennsylvania Cracker Underpins Shell's 'Cash Engine' Focus, Says CEO
Jun 8, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis

Royal Dutch Shell plc's decision Tuesday to pull the trigger on a massive ethane cracker northwest of Pittsburgh is part of a revamp for the oil major, which for now will focus on "cash engines," fueled by petrochemicals and the deepwater, CEO Ben van Beurden said.
Similar Standard Could Save $33B in Annual Health Costs -- Study
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King

A policy like U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan could result in $1 million in annual health benefits for most U.S. counties, according to a new study led by Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Texas Oil Regulator Wants Legal Action Against Obama Rules
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan

Texas oil and gas regulators want the state attorney general to take U.S. EPA to court over the Obama administration's limits on methane emissions from oil and gas wells.

Chemical Security News

Key Government Reports Were Wrong About Methane Leaks' Severity, Environmental Group Alleges
Jun 8, 2016 | LA Times
By Ivan Penn

An environmental organization filed a federal complaint Wednesday, alleging that key reports by a top U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official wrongfully stated the severity of methane leaks across the nation’s natural gas industry.
Protect America from Chemical Plant Dangers
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Russel L Honoré, Randy Manner, and David Halperin

In 2006, Sen. Barack Obama offered the clearest statement of the dangers posed by America’s hazardous chemical facilities. “Basically,” he said, “these plants are stationary weapons of mass destruction spread all across the country.”
Sources: PHMSA Bill Likely to Pass Senate Soon
Jun 8, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor

The bipartisan Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration reauthorization bill poised for House passage by Thursday is expected to clear the Senate soon, according to congressional sources, though the exact timing is not yet set.

Transportation News

Oil Train Rules Move to White House Review
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

Regulators are one step closer to adopting new standards for oil trains that Congress mandated last year.
Mount Olive, Washington Township, Morris County Demand Removal of Gas Tanks
Jun 8, 2016 | New Jersey Hills Media Group
By Phil Garber

The chance of being killed by a railway propane explosion is less than the risk of being killed by lightning but township police still don’t like the odds.
Native Americans Face Risks After Oil Train Derailment
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

Native Americans living along the Columbia River face some of the greatest risks from the oil and coal trains that run along its banks, according to tribal leaders.
Perspective: PTC for Productivity Improvement
Jun 8, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
By Steve Zwart

Positive train control (PTC) often is discussed exclusively as a safety technology, but it'll also enable railroads to orchestrate tighter train schedules and improve productivity in a variety of ways, proponents have said.
ARMS: PTC-in-a-Box
Jun 8, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading

It's nearly impossible to explain to industry outsiders how immense and complex the tasks related to the railroads' positive train control (PTC) implementation have been and remain. Along the way, manufacturers have been eager to support the railroads' efforts with all types of essential PTC products and materials.

Environment News

Former CASAC Chairman Says Panel Should Consider Costs Of NAAQS
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

A former chairman of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) is asking the panel to evaluate possible adverse health, economic, social, energy or other aspects of implementing EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) -- part of the panel's mandate that industry and GOP critics say it has never discharged.
Challengers Urge Appeals Court to Allow Lower Courts to Proceed
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker

States challenging the Obama administration's contentious Clean Water Rule are asking a Southeastern federal appeals court to allow lower courts to hear complaints while another appellate court moves forward with a separate case.

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Reform Heading to Obama’s Desk

Jun 8, 2016 | Chem Info

By Meagan Parrish

Passage of the major overhaul to the country’s toxic chemicals regulation is now eminent.
On Tuesday, the Senate passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, a reform of the decades old Toxic Substances Control Act. The bill passed on a voice vote after clearing the House last month with a vote of 403 in favor and 12 opposed. The measure will now head to President Obama’s desk, where he is expected to sign it into law.
The reform is a major milestone for Congress, which is so often locked in partisan gridlock. In fact, it’s the first major environmental legislation to get passed by Congress since 1996 when the Food Quality Protection Act became law.
TSCA reform has garnered widespread support from environmentalists and chemical industry insiders alike. PETA, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and others have applauded the bill’s protections against animal testing. While the American Chemistry Council has voiced strong support for how the bill will replace a patchwork of state chemical regulations with clearer federal guidelines.
Yet, the bill hasn’t given everyone what they want. The issue of federal oversight superseding state laws continues to irk many who argue that states should not lose their ability to regulation chemicals how they see fit.
It will also put a monumental task at the feet of the EPA who will be charged with conducting tests on up to 64,000 chemicals — although the bill only requires that it analyze up to 20 chemicals at a time.
For more on what TSCA reform means for the chemicals industry, check out these exclusive articles: The Most Significant Changes in TSCA Reform, and What You Need to Know About TSCA Reform.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/06/tsca-reform-heading-obamas-desk

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Rand Paul Drops Objection, TSCA Reform Bill Passes

Jun 8, 2016 | Plastics News

By Gayle S. Putrich

The U.S. Senate gave final approval to a decades-in-the-making bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) late June 7.
Dubbed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the bill (HR 2576) regulates the manufacture, transportation, sale and use of thousands of chemicals, from resins to flame retardants, updating a law that has not been successfully reauthorized or reexamined since 1976.
The voice vote came after the hold placed on the bill was lifted by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who had refused to let the bill be approved under unanimous consent in late May.
To become law, the measure now needs only President Barack Obama’s signature, considered a sure thing after the White House’s endorsement of the measure in May; The House passed the final deal 403-12.
Businesses and trade groups, including the plastics industry, lauded the bill’s passage, calling it “historic” and praising the ways it will help keep U.S. chemical manufacturing and plastics processing globally competitive.
“This consensus-based bill is the product of thoughtful discussions by House and Senate negotiators. It gives consumers the confidence in the products they depend upon each day, while giving companies a more predictable regulatory system that’s based on science rather than rhetoric,” said Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. President and CEO Bill Carteaux, in a statement. “This is a great day for the U.S. plastics industry and its nearly 1 million workers and their families. We look forward to continuing to grow the American economy by manufacturing the safest, strongest and most technologically advanced products and materials.”
“This legislation is significant not only because it is the first major environmental law passed since 1990, but because TSCA reform will have lasting and meaningful benefits for all American manufacturers, all American families and for our nation’s standing as the world’s leading innovator,” said American Chemistry Council President and CEO Cal Dooley, in a statement. The path to more modern chemical regulation has been decades in the making and it’s been over three years since work to achieve TSCA reform began in earnest.”
The bipartisan legislation will provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with significantly more power and responsibilities, including the ability 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 and animal testing will be seriously curtailed under the new law.
It also includes provision for:
• 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.”
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160608/NEWS/160609818/rand-paul-drops-objection-tsca-reform-bill-passes

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Bipartisan Bill to Harness Toxic Chemicals was Years in the Making

Jun 8, 2016 | Christian Science Monitor

By Lucy Schouten

The first-ever update to federal regulations on toxic chemicals requires a a national review of thousands of household and commercial substances, including asbestos and BPA.
The bill passed Tuesday by the Senate requires the "first-ever systematic review of all chemicals in commerce," according to a Senate fact sheet on the legislation.
"For the first time in 40 years, the United States of America will have a chemical safety program that works ... and protects families from dangerous chemicals in their daily lives," Sen. Tom Udall (D) of New Mexico, one of the bill's chief sponsors, told the Associated Press.
President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law, at which point it will regulate an $8 billion industry.
The bill updates the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which received criticism for being unenforceable and in dire need of updating. The new bill strikes at both critiques, providing the first safety standards on otherwise unregulated chemicals, including Bisphenol A (BPA), formaldehyde, and styrene.
The old law was the only environmental law that had never been updated, and the EPA had been unable to employ it effectively since its efforts to restrict use of asbestos failed in court in 1991, according to the Senate. It is named after Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D) of New Jersey, who had worked to update TSCA for decades until his death in 2013.
"TSCA is outdated legislation," Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of environmental policy at Tufts University, in Medford, Mass., told The Christian Science Monitor in 2014. "The way it has worked is when a chemical causes harm, that’s when the EPA will start engaging in taking actions.”
"The way TSCA was developed, it’s mostly a reporting mechanism. Industry uses its own information even if it’s no information when they are reporting to the EPA that they have this chemical," Professor Krimsky added.
"Depending upon EPA staffing and how much time they have, they can review these things. But if they don’t, then they’ll take a very cursory look at it, and they will let it through. That’s why we see many, many chemicals in this system that don’t have adequate toxicological information."
The new bill increases the EPA's enforcement power, offering the agency deadline-based, written guidance about how and when to act. The bill reins in companies' use of proprietary claims to avoid disclosing chemical recipes, effectively blunting the EPA's power to evaluate and regulate compounds.
The National Association of Chemical Distributors, Exxon Mobile, and the industry group American Chemistry Council offered their support for a bill that would clean up the complex regulatory process that varied by state. The bill received bipartisan support in both houses of Congress – including a rare voice vote in the Senate – and the White House in a statement said it meets the goal of "meaningful reform," although it is "not perfect."
Opposition to the bill included Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky, who said the bill interfered with state regulations in a "sweeping federal takeover of chemical regulation." Some environmental groups said it does too little to regulate toxic chemicals.
The bill protects any state law in place before April 22 and allows the states to work with the EPA while safety assessments are conducted.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0608/Bipartisan-bill-to-harness-toxic-chemicals-was-years-in-the-making

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Sends Chemical Safety Legislation to Obama

Jun 8, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Cheryl Hogue

In a move that will mandate required federal safety assessments of chemicals found in everyday products from laundry detergent to toys, a June 7 U.S. Senate vote sends legislation to President Barack Obama for signature.
The President is expected within days to sign the measure, which marks Congress’s first major overhaul of a federal pollution control statute in a decade. The legislation will fundamentally change U.S. regulation of the products of the chemical industry, from commodity substances that have been in use for decades to novel commercial compounds discovered and developed by research chemists.
“Most Americans believe that when they buy a product at the hardware store or the grocery store, that product has been tested and determined to be safe. But that isn’t the case,” explains Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who championed the legislation.
Residents of the U.S. are exposed to hundreds of commercially produced chemicals, he points out. “We carry them around with us in our bodies, even before we’re born. Some are known carcinogens; others are highly toxic. But we don’t know the full extent of how they affect us because they have never been tested,” Udall says.
The measure mandates that the Environmental Protection Agency assess the safety of chemicals in commerce. It also gives EPA new authority to require chemical manufacturers to test their products for possible risks to human health and the environment. Currently, EPA is caught in a dilemma: It must document that a substance may pose a risk before it can demand that chemical makers conduct toxicity or exposure tests.
The pending new law will modernize a somewhat obscure statute, the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which has faced growing criticism for years. On paper, this law gives EPA authority to restrict or ban chemicals that pose risks to human health or the environment. But in practice, the agency hasn’t been able to regulate chemicals in commerce since a court ruling in 1991 overturned EPA’s ban of asbestos, a known human carcinogen. TSCA requires the agency to select the “least burdensome alternative” when regulating, the court found, giving regulated industries wide berth in attacking whatever option EPA chooses with ideas of their own.
Amid consumers’ increasing skepticism about the safety of chemicals in products they buy, the chemical industry in recent years joined with environmental and health activists in calling for Congress to revise TSCA.
“This is almost unprecedented where you have an environmental legislation where you have this breadth and depth of support,” Cal Dooley, CEO of the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry trade association, told reporters after the Senate’s voice vote in favor of the legislation. The House of Representatives passed the bill (H.R. 2576) in a 403-12 vote on May 24.
“After four decades of living under a stagnant chemical safety law, I am so very glad to have passed a law that strengthens our country’s international competitiveness, provides desperately needed regulatory certainty for industry, and mandates that the federal government use better science and provide more transparency,” says Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). Vitter, whose state is home to a sizable chunk of the U.S. chemical industry, was a linchpin in brokering the bipartisan deal now headed to the White House.
A number of environmental groups support the legislation for making long-needed revisions to the chemical law. Other activists criticize it for not being protective enough of people’s health.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/06/Senate-sends-chemical-safety-legislation.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Why the Environmental Working Group Isn’t Backing the Toxic Chemicals Compromise

Jun 8, 2016 | Moyers and Company

By Scott Faber

(Editor’s Note: Several weeks ago, a rare thing happened in Washington: Members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, announced a bipartisan compromise on a long-awaited bill to modernize the nation’s regulation of toxic chemicals. It won the support across the ideological gamut, from the American Chemistry Council to the White House. The legislation passed the House last month on a lopsided 408-12 vote and the Senate followed suit Tuesday evening, approving the measure on a voice vote. So what’s not to like? We asked the respected Environmental Working Group, one of the few dissenting voices on the bill.)
Most Americans assume that the chemicals used in everyday products have been reviewed for safety by a trustworthy government regulator. The truth is that the vast majority of the chemicals used in everything from cleaners and carpets to cosmetics and candy bars have never been reviewed by either the Environmental Protection Agency or the Food and Drug Administration. And, despite the bipartisan chemical safety law Congress just passed, that sad fact will remain largely the same.
The law that Congress now sends to President Barack Obama’s desk will give EPA the direction and resources to review and regulate, at most, a few hundred chemicals over the next decade — out of thousands used in the market. The new bill will do nothing to require the FDA to review and regulate the chemicals routinely used in food and cosmetics. Whilepesticide residues on produce have been reviewed, thousands of other pesticides have escaped meaningful government oversight. The net result is that consumers will continue to be exposed to a witches’ brew of unregulated chemicals that have been linked to serious health problems, including cancer.
The legislation is certainly better than the Toxic Substances Control of Act of 1976, which is viewed by both industry and public health advocates as badly broken. In particular, the bill headed for the president’s signature requires EPA to assess the safety of new chemicals before they enter the market and directs EPA to review old chemicals that have been used for decades without consideration of safety. The bill also gives EPA the power to collect data on chemical use and toxicity, and requires chemical companies to back up their trade secretclaims. But these reforms say more about the weakness of the “worst environmental law on the books” than about the merit of the bill itself.
Perhaps this is all that could be expected from a deeply divided Congress that is far more likely to restrict regulators like EPA than to grant an agency new power to assure the public’s safety. But, the bill now headed for Obama’s signature falls far short of what’s needed. As a result, it will be up to the next Congress — and the next administration — to ensure that the most dangerous chemicals in everyday products have been reviewed and, if needed, regulated or even banned.
The right question is not whether the new chemical safety legislation is better than current law. The right question is whether the bill will meet the reasonable expectations of ordinary Americans.
http://billmoyers.com/story/environmental-working-group-isnt-backing-toxic-chemicals-compromise/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Advisors Urge Quick Action On Key Solvent, Call For Broader Review

Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

EPA science advisors are generally praising the agency's draft human health risk assessment of the solvent 1-bromopropane (1-BP) and urging the agency to act quickly to reduce exposures, while also citing new biomarker reports on possible wide exposures in pressing EPA to reconsider its decision not to assess risks to bystanders.
The agency's new Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC), met for the first time May 24-25 in Arlington, VA, to peer review the draft assessment of the solvent, also known as n-propyl bromide.
EPA's draft assessment finds that the chemical poses risks to workers and pregnant women. It is part of EPA's work plan risk assessment program, per its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorities, one of several ongoing federal reviews regarding the solvent that has seen increased use in recent years.
At the meeting, CSAC members urged EPA officials to quickly address the chemical, which several noted has been marketed as a "green" alternative to other solvents that have been phased out for dry cleaning and other uses, such as trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene.
In response to a question from panelist Holly Davies, a senior toxicologist with Washington State Department of Ecology, regarding how the assessment will be used, EPA's Tala Henry replied that the chemical faces a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) petition, noting that the assessment team has "worked very closely with" staff in the air office.
But Henry, director of the toxics office's risk assessment division, said that the assessment is designed primarily to inform how the agency's toxics office could address the chemical through its existing TSCA authority. "We're already thinking about which risk-reduction" measures could be taken, she added.
Davies also questioned Henry about the amount of time the assessments take agency staff to complete, noting that the TSCA reform bill that cleared the House 403-12 on May 24 and at the time was awaiting action in the Senate, allows just two years for the agency to complete an assessment.
In response, Henry noted that the bill is not yet law -- though the measure cleared the Senate June 7 by voice vote, sending it to President Obama who has signaled he will sign it into law.
Panelists' Concerns
At the CSAC meeting, panelists also expressed concerns that there is evidence of widespread general population exposures that are not addressed in the occupational exposure and hobbyist scenarios included in the risk assessment. The concern is also raised in recent remarks from several environmental and labor groups, who argued in their May 9 comments that "the Draft Assessment does not mention, let alone attempt to explain, the fact that biomonitoring studies have found a urinary metabolite of [1-BP -- N-Acetyl-S-(n-propyl)-L-cysteine -- in a large proportion of the population." The groups cite EPA's recent rule adding 1-BP to the Toxics Release Inventory, in which they say EPA refers to the metabolite "as the 'major metabolite' of 1-BP, and noted that it has been detected in the urine of exposed workers at levels that increased with increasing levels of 1-BP in ambient air."
One panelist noted that use of a biomarker could strengthen the draft assessment, which like many assessments of industrial chemicals, has data gaps. "It's clear EPA is facing an issue with noted . . . data gaps. The risks calculated appear to be quite substantial," Panos Georgopoulos a professor with Rutgers University's public health and medical schools. "What's missing is linking this information to biomarker data to ensure this exposure is happening."
One of the assessment authors, Andrea Pfahles-Hutchens, replied that "some of the new biomarker data that just came out is not included [in the assessment], as you noted. We'll have to look at that in the next iteration."
She said that according to recently released National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) "it looks more ubiquitous."
One of the panelists, Lesliam Quiros-Alcala, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, College Park's public health school, clarified that data published from the National Children's Study (NCS) in March detected the biomarker in 99 percent of the 488 pregnant women tested in their third trimester. She also pointed to the latest NHANES data, released by the Centers for the Disease Control and Prevention, where the biomarker was detected in all age groups of the nationally-representative biennial survey.
Data Questions
Another panelist, Kathleen Gilbert, a microbiology and immunology professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said she was struck by the figure from the NCS, especially given the short half life of 1-BP, a volatile chemical. "How do you reconcile that data?" she asked the EPA assessment team.
"We'll have to consider it," Pfahles-Hutchens replied, noting again that the study was recently published. "It comes down to is it the appropriate biomarker and can we chase it back to" 1-BP?
Another panelist, Jaymie Meliker, an associate professor at Stony Brook University focusing on exposure science and environmental epidemiology, also suggested that the biomarker data raises questions about the assessment. "The question about biomarkers of exposure, it sounds like it is a metabolite of 1-BP, but how specific is it? If so, then it really does . . . present a lot of challenges to this risk assessment because it seems there really is a much wider exposure."
But another panelist, Daniel Schlenk, a professor of environmental toxicology at the University of California Riverside, questioned the biomarker's specificity. Noting that his background is in metabolism, and said that the metabolite is one that will respond to any halopropane, such as disinfection byproducts in water. "I think there are other possibilities that you need to weed out," he said.
EPA Action
Still, panelists added that they do not wish EPA to delay action on the chemical while determining risk to the general population, which is not presently in the assessment.
"It seems to me that they've already got a lot of work with the occupational exposures and the hobbyists . . . presumably if they deal with these issues they will also deal with [general population exposures.] I hate to see a delay when they already have" so much to work with, Gilbert said.
"I thought about that too, we don't want to delay [action] on this chemical in my view," said panelist Melanie Marty, recently retired as acting deputy director for the Science Division of California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. But she added that unfortunately, often "when you decrease worker exposure you increase venting out [increasing general exposures] . . . it's a catch-22."
Marty later suggested what she described as a quick approach to inform agency assessors on general population risks, by "targeting a site-specific risk at a site. It could help you describe the risk to the general public and it would be fast," she said.
The panelists heard comments from Christina Franz, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), who reiterated comments that the trade association sent the advisory committee earlier in May, arguing that the assessment is not sufficiently refined to be the basis for regulatory action.
"EPA acknowledged studies selected [for use in the assessment] were . . . driven by the lowest exposure and the highest hazard . . . this approach is not consistent with the best available science . . . and further refinement is necessary before EPA moves forward with" rulemaking on 1-BP, she said.
Franz also noted that Stan Barone, recently appointed acting director of the EPA toxics office's Office of Science Policy and Coordination, was formerly a management lead on the draft assessment. "His new role does create a conflict," Franz said. "We hope he will keep at arm's length."
Barone, who attended the peer review meeting, did not respond to Franz's comment.
Peer Review
Franz also reiterated concerns that ACC first sent to EPA toxics chief Jim Jones in April, arguing that the peer review panel did not have the correct expertise to review the 1-BP assessment.
Franz suggested that the endpoint of concern had changed since the agency sought peer reviewers for the document, and she urged the panel to "seek additional expertise."
The panelists did not respond to Franz's suggestion, but they did quiz her on arguments that she and ACC toxicologist Nancy Beck made that the assessment team had incorrectly based the cancer risk calculation on a toxicology study where mice exposed to 1-BP developed lung tumors.
Franz and Beck argued that these tumors are caused by an enzyme that is more active in mice than humans, meaning that they are not relevant to human health risk. Similar arguments have been made about these tumors in other chemicals, and Beck noted that EPA's IRIS program hosted a workshop on the topic in 2014, focusing on the chemicals ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and styrene. Beck said the concluding report said that the tumors should not be used for human health risk assessment.
"I didn't see any general conclusion in the workshop report," commented Kristina Thayer, a panelist and the director of the National Toxicology Program's Office of Health Assessment and Translation. Beck replied that Thayer should look at the report.
As the panel wrapped up its discussion of charge questions, Schlenk opined on the subject at the request of another panelist. Schlenk said that the lung tumor data is transferable to humans because they share the enzyme, but that "quantitatively, it's much trickier." Schlenk added that to follow the precautionary principle, he would use the lung tumor data as the basis for the cancer risk estimate calculations. His opinion was quickly backed by Marty and Thayer.
In her comments, Franz also argued that while the draft assessment concluded that 1-BP was mutagenic, resulting in a stringent linear cancer risk modeling, "there does not appear to be strong evidence of mutagenicity of 1-BP."
But panelists disagreed, with Gilbert noting that while the evidence wasn't conclusive in her view, it most likely indicated mutagenicity.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-advisors-urge-quick-action-key-solvent-call-broader-review

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Approves Landmark Bipartisan TSCA Reform Bill

Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA

The Senate on June 7 approved by voice vote landmark bipartisan legislation to overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and give EPA a slew of new powers to evaluate risks from new and existing chemicals, sending the legislation to President Obama who is expected to sign it into law.
The bill cleared the House in a 403-12 vote on May 24, sending it to the upper chamber for approval. Senators had initially sought a vote on approval of the bill, H.R. 2576, prior to the Memorial Day recess, but Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) placed a hold on the legislation, saying he wanted to thoroughly read the bill before allowing it to advance.Paul lifted his hold June 7, paving the way for a vote later that day.
The bill is the result of negotiations between Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) that introduced the original Senate version of TSCA reform, as well as Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and House Energy & Commerce Committee lawmakers including Reps. John Shimkus (R-IL) and Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), among others.
The White House said in a May 23 statement of policy that the President plans to sign the bill, saying that “While not perfect, the bill meets the high goals set by the Administration for meaningful reform and we commend the House and Senate for taking this historic step.”
The legislation, once Obama signs it into law, will give EPA major new powers to address both existing and new chemicals of concern, funded in large part through industry fees.
For example, the bill removes a number of obstacles in current law that many say prevent EPA from adequately regulating chemicals believed to be unsafe, such as removing language that would require the agency to identify the “least burdensome” option before regulating a chemical. That language is believed to have hindered EPA's efforts to ban asbestos following a 1991 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit decision in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA that the agency failed to adequately identify the least burdensome option.
Following the vote, Vitter said in a press release that, “After four decades of living under a stagnant chemical safety law, I am so very glad to have passed a law that strengthens our country’s international competitiveness, provides desperately needed regulatory certainty for industry, and mandates that the federal government use better science and provide more transparency.”
In an exclusive May 25 interview with Inside EPA, Vitter highlighted language on structuring how and when EPA chemical safety rules would preempt those established by states as a key tenet of the final TSCA reform bill. “Obviously one of the big issues is federal preemption,” Vitter said.
Meanwhile, Udall in a June 7 statement said, “Passage of this bill in the Senate means that for the first time in 40 years, the United States of America will have a chemical safety program that works -- that protects our families from dangerous chemicals in their daily lives.”
Although the legislation enjoys broad support from a range of advocacy, industry and other groups, a handful of organizations including Clean Water Action are raising concerns over the measure's preemption provisions.
In a June 8 statement, the group's New England Regional Director Cindy Luppi said, “The bill passed by the Senate addresses some core weaknesses of our outdated chemical safety laws - but it further restricts states, narrowing their ability to protect people from chemical health threats. We're disappointed -- this legislation creates regulatory holes that may leave state residents unprotected while the EPA conducts studies on a potentially hazardous chemical.”
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story

Return to headline | Return to top
Breaking: Senate Passes Historic Chemical Reform Bill

Jun 7, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA

By Rachael Daigle

The Senate tonight passed legislation by unanimous consent overhauling the nation's primary chemical law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, for the first time since 1976.
The bill, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 2576), is expected to be signed by President Barack Obama.
The bill sailed through the House May 24 with a 403-12 vote. Senate passage by unanimous consent was expected a few days later, but was blocked by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who said he wanted to read the legislation. Sen. Paul lifted his objection to the bill June 6.
Lawmakers took turns making remarks on the Senate floor. Among the comments:
“The journey to this moment is the most complicated journey of any legislation I’ve been involved with.” — Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
“This is a huge bill. It’s a historic moment.” — Sen. Edward Markey (D.-Mass.)
Marky also took the opportunity to compliment Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) for reaching across the aisle: “What you did–from my perspective–is historic … You, my friend, have distinguished yourself.”
“Implementation of this law will be extremely important.” — Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.)
Bloomberg BNA will have the full story in the next issue of Daily Environment Report.
http://www.bna.com/breaking-senate-passes-b57982073765/

Return to headline | Return to top
3 Things to Know About the Most Important New Environmental Law in Decades

Jun 7, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Jack Pratt

Something that cynics will find remarkable just happened: A big, bipartisan majority in Congress passed the most important new environmental law in decades. It finally fixes the biggest problems with America’s badly broken chemical safety system.
Here’s what you need to know:
1. Deadly chemicals can now be banned
The Environmental Protection Agency will finally have the power to ban dangerous uses of known carcinogens such as asbestos and formaldehyde.
Amazingly, until this reform, the government lacked authority to restrict these and other deadly chemicals, including many used in everyday household products.
2. New chemicals will be screened
Most people think chemicals have to be shown to be safe before they’re put in products we buy in the store, such ascouches, clothes and cleaning products. But that’s just not true.
With this reform, the 700 or so new chemicals that come on the market every year will finally have clear a safety bar first – and Americans will no longer be guinea pigs.
3. Industry can no longer hide health threats
Companies used to be able to claim any information they submitted to the EPA, including secret health studies of chemicals, to be “confidential business information.” No more.
The new law stops this practice and allows only legitimate trade secrets, never health information, to be protected from public disclosure.
But what happened in Congress goes beyond these much-needed health protections for Americans. Today, we saw Congress work across the aisle for the common good. That gave me new hope.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/06/07/3-things-know-about-most-important-new-environmental-law-decades

Return to headline | Return to top
Lawmakers Celebrate Passage of Chemical Reform Bill

Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

House and Senate lawmakers took a victory lap Wednesday to celebrate the Senate passing its major chemical safety overhaul, sending it to President Obama’s desk.
It was a long-fought battle to pass the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemicals for the 21st Century Act, and lawmakers framed it as nothing short of a miracle.
The Senate passed it by voice vote Tuesday night, following the overwhelming passage two weeks ago by the House. Obama is likely to sign it soon.
The bipartisan bill would dramatically overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, giving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sweeping new authority to regulate harmful chemicals, while limiting states’ powers over chemicals.
It’s the first major environmental bill to pass Congress since the Clean Air Act of 1990.
“This law has been in need of updating for decades,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), a lead sponsor of the legislation, told reporters Wednesday. “Every stakeholder in sight, everyone involved in this part of the economy and the law has said that. The trick has been bringing everyone together on a bipartisan basis.”
Vitter said the bill accomplishes the two goals he had set out when he joined the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) in working on the bill.
“First, make sure we fully protect all Americans’ health and safety. And second, make sure we create a workable regulatory environment, so that our leaders in science and innovation and technology ... can remain world leaders and continue to innovate,” Vitter said.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the lead Democratic sponsor, called the feat “a great triumph of bipartisanship” and compared the feat to climbing a mountain.
“Most Americans think, when you go to a grocery store, or you go to a hardware store, and you buy a product, they think that it’s been tested for safety. It hasn’t been tested,” he said. “Now we’re going to see that that testing takes place, and we’re going to move forward with a very tough cop on the beat, which will be the EPA, looking at the safety of products, doing that analysis.”
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who led House efforts as chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction, spoke about how long the process has taken.
“David Vitter came over 5 and a half years ago … and said he was going to do this with Sen. Lautenberg, and I said, ‘come see me when you get any success,’ ” Shimkus joked. “And then a couple years later, he popped back in, and that made us really get more serious in moving on the House said.”
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the legislation “a new chemical Magna Carta, a chemical bill of rights for every American that will serve as the foundation for protecting the American people from the dangers of toxic substances.”
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282725-lawmakers-celebrate-passage-of-chemical-reform-bill

Return to headline | Return to top
TSCA Reform Bill Passed By Congress

Jun 8, 2016 | Occupational Health and Safety

A long-delayed bill that will overhaul the Toxic Substances Reform Act, updating the country's standards for chemical safety, passed the U.S. Senate on June 7 and is headed to the desk of President Obama for his signature. Senate passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act came by a voice vote two weeks after the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill, but a decade has passed since some in Congress began working on the measure.
It gives EPA new regulatory power over thousands of chemicals, including new ability to order testing. "This is long overdue. All stakeholders across the political spectrum agreed for decades that this aspect of the law needed to be updated," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., a lead sponsor of the bill. "We needed to fully protect public health and safety, which we all want to do. We also needed to ensure that American companies, which are world leaders today in science, research, and innovation, remain so and do not get put behind by a regulatory system which is overly burdensome and unworkable."
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., is the lead Democratic sponsor of the bill. He said the old law was inadequate. "Most Americans believe that when they buy a product at the hardware store or the grocery store, that product has been tested and determined to be safe. But that isn't the case. Americans are exposed to hundreds of chemicals from household items," he said.
Udall became the main Democratic sponsor in 2013, after the death of then-Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat who made passing chemical reform his top priority for several years.
"Today's victory is a culmination of years of hard work and dedication from both sides, and I know that the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act will provide the real reforms necessary to fulfilling Frank's legacy," Vitter said. "After four decades of living under a stagnant chemical safety law, I am so very glad to have passed a law that strengthens our country's international competitiveness, provides desperately needed regulatory certainty for industry, and mandates that the federal government use better science and provide more transparency. This law will be a game changer for the safety of our families and communities and will help promote economic success in an industry that is of paramount importance to Louisiana. I know Frank would have been pleased with this huge historic accomplishment."
"Passage of this bill in the Senate means that for the first time in 40 years, the United States of America will have a chemical safety program that works -- that protects our families from dangerous chemicals in their daily lives," Udall added. "When this bill becomes law, there will finally be a cop on the beat. And I want to thank my partner in this effort, Senator Vitter, and all of the co-sponsors and advocates who have pushed to get this bill passed and sent to the president's desk. This is a historic day and a fitting way to honor Frank Lautenberg's years of work for a healthier and safer environment for our children and grandchildren."
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2016/06/08/tsca-reform-bill-passed-by-congress.aspx

Return to headline | Return to top
Congress Passes Bill Updating Chemical Safety Law

Jun 8, 2016 | Insurance Journal

By Richard Cowan (Reuters)

The U.S. Senate passed legislation on Tuesday that would revamp federal chemical safety protections for the first time in decades, sending it to President Barack Obama for his expected signing into law.
The Senate approved the measure that was overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives on May 25.
The bill would update the Toxic Substances Control Act amid complaints that its 40-year-old provisions hobble the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from effectively regulating chemicals, including those ranging from asbestos and flame retardants to everyday household products.
“No one disputes that this bill transfers power from the states to the federal government,” Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky complained during debate of the bill.
He said it would add hundreds of new regulations that will burden the U.S. chemical industry and hurt jobs.
The EPA, under the bill, would have to consider the impact of a chemical on human health and the environment, as well as the chemical’s benefits and the economic impact of regulation.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/06/08/411209.htm

Return to headline | Return to top
Updated: United States Adopts Major Chemical Safety Overhaul

Jun 8, 2016 | Science

By Puneet Kollipara

The U.S. Senate yesterday unanimously approved a major overhaul of the nation’s primary chemical safety law—marking one of the last steps in a decades-long reform effort. The House of Representatives on 24 May overwhelmingly approved the rewrite of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which governs how industrial chemicals are tested and regulated. The legislation now moves to President Barack Obama for signing.
The measure—H.R. 2576, named for the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D–NJ), a long-time TSCA reform champion—is perhaps the most far-reaching and influential environmental statute passed by Congress since the body updated the Clean Air Act in 1990. The measure aims to make chemical safety reviews more science-based, and includes provisions designed to reduce the use of animals in chemical testing and promote the study of so-called cancer clusters.
“The end result … is a vast improvement over current law,” said Representative John Shimkus (R–IL), who co-sponsored the House bill, on the House floor. The bill, he added, is “a careful compromise that’s good for consumers, good for jobs, and good for the environment.”
“While this is a compromise bill, it is a long overdue step forward in protecting families and communities from toxic chemicals,” said Representative Frank Pallone Jr. (D–NJ), top Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Numerous fixes
Both environmentalists and industry have long agreed that the TSCA, originally passed in 1976, has numerous flaws. It includes legal barriers, for example, that essentially prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from acquiring toxicity data on chemicals and imposing new restrictions on them—even on highly toxic substances such as asbestos. Critics say the current legislation also favors economic concerns over scientific findings, and has led to thousands of chemicals entering the market without adequate health and safety oversight.
The reform bill seeks to fix a number of these flaws. It aims to make chemical safety reviews purely science-based, by eliminating a long-time requirement that EPA weigh regulatory costs in the safety review process. It also repeals a long-time requirement that EPA select the “least burdensome” method of regulating a toxic substance. And the bill would require EPA to deem a new chemical safe before it could enter the marketplace; under current law, a chemical can enter the marketplace unless EPA deems it unsafe within a certain time period.
The bill would also make it easier for EPA to order chemical companies to generate any toxicity data that the agency needs to inform its reviews; under current law, EPA can only order these data by going through a lengthy rulemaking process that often ends up mired in litigation. And the bill would require EPA to take tougher action on persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals, and ensure that chemicals are safe for vulnerable groups such as infants, seniors, and chemical workers.
Animal protection and animal rights groups hailed another provision that aims to reduce EPA and chemical companies’ use of animal-based toxicity testing methods. It would task EPA with using non–animal-based methods “to the extent practicable,” and the agency would have to devise a plan to research, develop, and eventually use more nonanimal methods—including computational modeling, high-throughput screening, and cell-culture testing.
The bill also includes a measure known as Trevor’s law that encourages federal agencies to study “cancer clusters”—areas that appear to have unusually high numbers of cancer cases that may be linked to a shared environmental cause. The Society of Toxicology in Reston, Virginia, although praising the bill, expressed some concern about including the cancer-cluster measure and other topic- or chemical-specific language in the bill. Doing so “detracts from the wider range of priority chemical-specific or analytical issues that, as toxicologists, we address every day,” society President John Morris said in a 23 May letter.
Rocky history
The TSCA reform bill is the result of years of negotiations involving lawmakers in both parties and a wide range of stakeholders. Many previous efforts to overhaul the TSCA failed after lawmakers couldn’t strike a consensus among competing interest groups, such as chemical companies and environmental groups. The current effort succeeded, however, despite the toxic political climate in Washington, D.C., and a government divided between a Democratic-held White House and Republican-held Congress.
To arrive at the current bill, the House and Senate first approved their own bipartisan—but widely different—versions of TSCA reform. Then, lawmakers spent months negotiating a compromise between the chambers.
It wasn’t clear for instance, whether the animal testing provisions—which were in the Senate bill, but not the House’s—would ultimately survive. “But the fact that we are now going to severely restrict the unnecessary cruelty to animals is something that I’m very proud that the leadership helped preserve,” Senator Cory Booker (D–NJ), a proponent of the language, told reporters outside the U.S. Capitol on 19 May in announcing his support of the bill.
A much bigger sticking point was concern, voiced by many liberal Democrats and environmental groups, that the legislation would weaken states’ ability to issue their own chemical regulations. Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA), the top Democrat on the Senate environment panel, had argued especially forcefully against language in the Senate bill that would have kept existing state chemical regulations on the books, but reduced the states’ ability to issue new regulations in the future.
But Boxer ultimately supported the final compromise. The final bill is far from perfect on that issue, but it’s better than current law, she said in announcing she would support the reform measure. “What a battle that was,” she said. “Well, we no longer have that battle.”
Not all lawmakers were won over. As the House voted 403 to 12 to approve the reform measure, Representative Paul Tonko (D–NY) cited the state preemption provisions as one reason he was voting against the bill. He was one of just nine House Democrats to oppose the bill; three House Republicans also voted against it.
The reform measure led to splits among interest groups. Some environmental and health groups, such as the Breast Cancer Fund, have opposed it, whereas still others, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, were noncommittal. But many industry groups andsome environmental groups support the final product.
And Senator Bernie Sanders (D–VT), who is seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, sees both good and bad in the bill, but said that the preemption language would prevent his state from “going above and beyond” federal levels of action. “That makes no sense … federal chemical regulations should be a floor, not a ceiling,” Sanders said in a statement.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/united-states-adopts-major-chemical-safety-overhaul

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA to Get Greater Control Over Chemicals Used in Everyday Products

Jun 8, 2016 | UPI

By Andrew V. Pestano

The Environmental Protection Agency will have increased power over the regulation of thousands of chemicals after PresidentBarack Obama signs into law a bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday.
The bill, which is heading to Obama's desk for signature, is considered by its authors, many politicians and environmental groups to be one of the most significant environmental measures Congress has passed in decades. Obama has indicated he intends to sign the bill into law.
Under the new legislation, the EPA will be be given more information about chemicals manufacturers wish to sell before approving use.
In an update to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, tens of thousands of chemicals will now be under EPA jurisdiction -- from chemicals found in furniture to those found in detergents. The bill has largely been supported by the chemical industry, and public health and environmental groups.
Under the previous rules deemed outdated, the EPA could only demand data or require testing from chemical manufacturers for substances the EPA could prove were a potential risk. The high threshhold meant the agency only required testing for 200 out of thousands of chemicals that have entered the U.S. market. The EPA issued regulations on just five chemicals.
More than 8,000 chemicals are produced in the United States a year, measuring to hundreds of millions of pounds of chemical products.
"When people learn their little baby is crawling on the floor with their nose an inch from the rug, and they are inhaling toxic-laden dust right from birth, they're shocked," Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., told The Washington Post before the vote. "We finally found a way to bring people together to change that."
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., co-author of the bill, said the measure would generate economic innovation as functional oversight would encourage chemical manufacturers to create new products.
"I'm so very glad to have passed a law that strengthens our country's international competitiveness, provides desperately needed regulatory certainty for industry and mandates that the federal government use better science and provide more transparency," Vitter said in a statement.
Critics of the bill argue the regulations will take far too long to implement, citing improper EPA funding and expertise.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/06/08/EPA-to-get-greater-control-over-chemicals-used-in-everyday-products/9901465384704/

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Passes Landmark Legislation to Reauthorize the Toxic Substances Control Act

Jun 7, 2016 | Humane Society

By Stephanie Twining

The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund commend the U.S. Senate for giving final approval to H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which strengthens federal oversight over the use of tens of thousands of chemicals in commercial use and contains provisions to minimize and in some cases replace animal testing to evaluate chemical safety. Following months of negotiations, Congress came to final terms on reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to modernize the scientific approach to chemical testing. The TSCA reform bill calls for quickly identifying chemicals that are most likely to pose health problems, and focusing resources on testing them more thoroughly. It also prioritizes the research and development of new testing methods and requires the use of existing validated alternatives to animal testing where available.

Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS, said: “This bill will dramatically upgrade protections for people from dangerous chemicals, but it will also save hundreds of thousands of animals from having harsh chemicals rubbed into their skin, forced down their throats and dropped in their eyes. These reforms improve the science behind chemical testing, require better safety decisions to protect the environment and human health, and reduce the terrible suffering animals endure through dosing them with these poisoning substances. By minimizing animal testing and focusing on the use of faster, cost effective, and more reliable testing methods, private companies and the federal government can save lives, time, and money.”

The groups thank Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., David Vitter, R-La., Tom Udall, D-N.M., Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and Ranking Member Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., for their strong leadership and support of the anti-animal testing language in their version of the bill. President Obama has already signaled he will sign the legislation.

“The enactment of this TSCA reform legislation is one of the signature animal protection achievements of this Congress,” added Pacelle.
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2016/06/senate-passes-TSCA-060716.html?referrer=http://news.google.com/

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Lacks Resources to Support Chemical Substitution

Jun 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch

By Luke Buxton

European member state authorities, Echa and the European Commission have “very few staff” who focus on the issue of alternatives for hazardous chemicals, the preliminary findings of a new study show.
At a chemical workshop organised by the Commission, Joe Tickner from the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production presented the initial results of the study, which identifies priorities for Echa’s short-term substitution programmes.
According to the summary of the study: “With the exception of assessing risk, authorities’ experience in analysis of alternatives, particularly technical feasibility evaluations, needs support.”
The summary adds that training and standards could improve the quality of alternatives assessments. In particular, specific guidance could help for hazard endpoints that should be evaluated in an analysis of alternatives, as well as quality criteria.Sharing challenges
Speaking at the Strategy for a Non-Toxic Environment of the 7th Environment Action Programme workshop, Mr Tickner said: “Strategies for adoption of substitutes are not seen by governments as their responsibility, as they say it is not for them to tell industry what to do – but they do have a role in supporting industry.”
There have been successful engagement programmes, such as effective safer alternatives dialogues, with the building materials and textile industry sectors, but there is a clear need for an increase in activity in the collaborations between industry sector and the supply chain, the report says.
“Collaboration is key," Mr Tickner said. "Inter-agency, Commission and member state authority groups should work on substitution, mentoring smaller company authorities, and facilitating working groups for chemicals of concern. Sharing is important: shared tests and evaluations, and networks of experts. No one can do this alone.”
While some member states have engaged in alternatives research and provide support for innovation funding in green chemistry, “most have not, due to the traditional risk management focus of the authorities”.
When analysing alternatives, evaluating technical feasibility is a “shared primary challenge” among authorities and industry, “yet for different reasons”, the initial findings say. Most authorities lack engineering expertise for this and do not acknowledge it as their role.
Industry said its challenges were finding time to research and adopt alternatives, getting technical support, and accessing information.Success of REACH
In the study findings, the stakeholders surveyed agreed that REACH’s “abundance of data” could be of great value in building support for the initial identification of potential alternatives.
The findings also highlighted that the REACH Regulation has been the “dominant driver” for substitution in the EU, with the candidate list helping companies search for alternatives.
They give some preliminary recommendations to help enhance substitution practice. These include the need to build structural, engagement and technical capacities.
The full report is due later this summer.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47934/eu-lacks-resources-to-support-chemical-substitution

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Blog) Natural Gas Helps Shape Future of U.S. Manufacturing

Jun 8, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters

By American Chemistry

Natural gas continues to play a starring role in our nation’s energy story, revitalizing the chemistry industry and spurring manufacturing growth. Just yesterday, Royal Dutch Shell announced that Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC has taken the final investment decision to build a major petrochemical complex, comprising an ethylene cracker with polyethylene derivatives unit, near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
"Today’s exciting news is another sign that a renaissance in American chemistry is underway…Our competitive edge will mean new jobs and exports and a stronger manufacturing sector for years to come." –Cal Dooley, ACC President and CEO.
Earlier this spring, ACC’s Owen Kean shared the latest news and data at a Hudson Institute event, America’s Future Natural Gas Economy: Promoting the Next Energy Breakthrough. He participated in a panel focused on the use of natural gas as a key fuel and feedstock in manufacturing.
>>View video
Astounding growth in U.S. shale gas production
New supplies of natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from shale formations have been transformative. “In 2010, less than 20 percent of natural gas produced in the U.S. came from shale,” Mr. Kean said. “Today, it’s more than 50 percent. Production has far exceeded projections made only three years ago.” Meanwhile, ethane output in the Marcellus and Utica grew from 5,000 barrels per day in 2013 to 276,000 per day in 2015, according to Platts Bentek. It’s projected to grow to 443,000 b/d in 2018. Ethane is the main feedstock for chemical-making in the United States.
Such dramatic supply growth looks like a lasting trend. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that domestic natural gas production will increase through at least 2040, the limit of its forecast models, as shown in the graph to the right.
>>View EIA report (See p. 53)
Massive new investment in U.S.-based chemistry and plastics
With a robust supply outlook, expected to last for decades, and lower costs for fuel and feedstock, the U.S. has become the most attractive place in the world to make chemicals and plastics. As a result, a historic wave of expansion and investment is underway. As of this month, 262 U.S. chemical industry projects valued at $161 billion have been announced, including new facilities, expansions and factory re-starts. More than 43 percent of the investment is completed or under construction, while 53 percent is in the planning phase. More than 60 percent is foreign direct investment. The “renaissance” is just getting started!
Significant benefits for U.S. manufacturing, economy, trade
New chemical industry investment will yield broad economic benefits. ACC analysis shows that the new capital spending could create $105 billion in new annual chemical industry output and 738,000 permanent new jobs throughout the U.S. economy by 2023. Those include 69,000 new chemical industry jobs, 357,000 jobs in supplier industries and 312,000 jobs in communities where workers spend their wages. Additional, temporary jobs will be created during the construction phase, which peaks in 2017.
Much of the new investment is geared toward export markets for chemistry and plastics products, which can help improve America’s trade balance. Chemical exports are projected to double from $60 billion in 2014 to $123 billion by 2030, according to a report by Nexant Inc. for ACC. Net exports of plastics are expected to triple between 2014 and 2030, from $6.5 billion to $21.5 billion.
According to a Boston Consulting Group (BCG) survey, the U.S. is the most likely destination for new manufacturing capacity to serve the domestic market, outpacing China and Mexico. An earlier BCG studyfound that virtually every American manufacturer is poised to benefit from rising natural gas production, either directly or indirectly. “The energy advantage and improved competitiveness are unique to the United States and are accelerating an American manufacturing renaissance,” said report co-author Harold L. Sirkin.
Innovative new products for manufacturing industries
Chemical makers are experts in transforming natural gas into solutions that serve as the building blocks for industries such as building and construction, automotive, computers and electronics, household appliances, medical equipment and supplies, and many others. More than 96 percent of all U.S. manufactured goods are directly touched by the business of chemistry.
Growing demand for natural gas
Natural gas will continue to be a very popular source of energy and feedstock in the years to come. According to EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2016, U.S. consumption of natural gas is projected to rise from 28 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2015 to 34 Tcf in 2040, an average increase of about 1 percent annually. The industrial sector will make up 49 percent of this growth, while the electric power sector will constitute 34 percent.
A need for new pipelines, infrastructure
Dynamic growth in U.S. natural gas supply and demand begs the question: How will these resources be transported? A number of studies point to a pressing need for new energy infrastructure, including pipelines. A report by ICF International for the INGAA Foundation says additional midstream infrastructure is essential to deliver natural gas and NGLs to households, businesses, industrial consumers, refineries and power plants. A study by IHS Economics for the National Association of Manufacturers likewise calls for new pipelines to keep up with rising demand. And Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) has sponsored legislation to study the feasibility of establishing an ethane storage and distribution hub in the Utica-Marcellus-Rogersville Shale region.
"The benefits of the shale revolution that have transformed the North American energy landscape can only be realized by constructing new midstream infrastructure." —Fact sheet, North American Midstream Infrastructure Through 2035: Leaning Into the Headwinds, INGAA Foundation, April 2016
Potential roadblocks to fully realizing the shale gas opportunity
In order to fully optimize our nation’s natural gas resources as an engine of manufacturing growth, our nation needs the right policy and regulatory approaches. Policymakers must:
Avoid unreasonable restrictions on oil and gas production on public lands;
Keep oversight of production on private lands in the hands of the states; and
Expedite the construction and permitting of infrastructure, including pipelines
Sadly, in several key areas, we’re headed in the wrong direction. Opposition to pipeline construction is growing. Some states are trying to severely limit production. The Administration is backtracking on oil and gas leasing on public lands, both onshore and offshore. For three years running, the Department of the Interior has withdrawn or withheld from development major portions of the Outer Continental Shelf. Its decisions ignore the needs of American manufacturers who rely on secure and affordable energy supplies to compete in global markets.
Next steps
Sometimes it’s hard to believe that just a few years ago, U.S. natural gas prices were among the highest in the world and the chemical industry was losing market share – and jobs – to competitors abroad. Today, the U.S. is the world’s top producer of natural gas, and chemistry is on the leading edge of American manufacturing growth. Now that’s something to applaud!
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/06/natural-gas-helps-shape-future-of-u-s-manufacturing/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Shell's Go-Ahead for Marcellus 'Cracker' Plant Anchors Strategy Shift

Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire

By Nathanial Gronewold

Royal Dutch Shell PLC is backing the U.S. expansion into petrochemical manufacturing.
The global oil and gas giant yesterday announced a final investment decision to build a multibillion-dollar petrochemical complex at the former site of a zinc smelter in Beaver County, Pa., northwest of Pittsburgh.
The ethylene cracker will be built along the banks of the Ohio River, where old mill towns have struggled since the early 1980s to replace jobs lost to the collapse of the U.S. steel industry. Shell estimates its petrochemical project will generate 6,000 temporary construction jobs and about 600 permanent positions. The company plans to start building within 18 months.
Shell proposed the plant in 2012 at the height of the region's natural gas boom. Northwestern Pennsylvania is adjacent to the Marcellus and Utica gas basins, where liquid ethane can be shipped to the plant and converted to ethylene, a building block for plastics and chemicals production.
But the decision to build the plant also coincided with an oil price crash that forced Shell and other energy majors to make hard financial choices. For Shell, it came down to its expanding emphasis on petrochemicals.
"As a result of its close proximity to gas feedstock, the complex, and its customers, will benefit from shorter and more dependable supply chains, compared to supply from the Gulf Coast," the company explained. It estimates that about 70 percent of the customer base for the facility is located within a 700-mile radius.
The oil price drop has slowed construction. Still, companies are dramatically increasing U.S. petrochemical manufacturing near Houston and along the Gulf of Mexico, with some production coming online in 2017. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reports that about 260 projects are in the planning or construction stages, a $184 billion overall investment.
But the United States isn't the only place adding capacity. China and the Middle East are also building up their petrochemical business. Some industry analysts are worried that global production could far exceed demand, creating imbalances in the future market (EnergyWire, March 18).
About 60 percent of the new investment in U.S. petrochemicals is foreign investment like Shell's. The draw is the abundant supplies of cheap shale gas and gas liquids.
ACC celebrated Shell's announcement. Council President and CEO Cal Dooley called it in a release "another sign that a renaissance in American chemistry is under way."
Cash engines
The petrochemical expansion is just one small part of a larger announcement Shell made yesterday. The company provided investors and media a glimpse at how it plans to transform the business through 2020 and during a post-oil price crash period. The shifting business strategy comes on the heels of its acquisition of BG Group PLC's liquefied natural gas (LNG) production capacity.
"This is all about reshaping Shell following our BG acquisition," said CEO Ben van Beurden. He said a complete restructuring of Shell's business was critical during a time of a "long-term transition to lower carbon intensities," a nod to recently increasing efforts to address global warming.
Out to 2020, Shell's emphasis will be on making the most of its acquisition of BG Group, which was finalized in February, and capitalize on expanding production and sales of LNG. That includes LNG sales through ports such as Sabine Pass along the U.S. Gulf Coast and along the coast of Equatorial Guinea, Africa. On oil, assuming an average price of $60 per barrel out to 2020, Shell sees further growth in deepwater offshore drilling.
The company also sees itself withdrawing entirely from five to 10 countries over the coming years, part of a divestment program that aims to raise about $30 billion. Van Beurden said capital expenditures will be kept to $25 billion to $30 billion for the rest of the decade.
Christian Stadler, a professor at Warwick Business School who is researching Shell, said the announcements show Shell is adopting a more centralized model along the lines of Exxon Mobil Corp. in an effort to bring costs under control. Investor anger over excessive capital spending at Shell prompted executives there to pledge a reorganization well before yesterday's announcement, going back to before the price of crude oil started slipping in 2014.
Stadler said the move to pull out of some markets makes sense for the company.
"A less-active profile in some countries, therefore, can only be a good thing," he said. "Shell focusing on where it is more established and more confident ... makes sense from a cost-cutting perspective."
Canadian oil sands and offshore drilling include some of Shell's most expensive energy projects. Yet Shell says it will stay the course in both those areas. Deepwater offshore projects in the Western Hemisphere are already in motion, and van Beurden indicated that investors can expect more to come.
"Growth in deepwater, especially Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico, should result in these things becoming cash engines early in the next decade," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/08/stories/1060038442

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Pennsylvania Cracker Underpins Shell's 'Cash Engine' Focus, Says CEO

Jun 8, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Carolyn Davis

Royal Dutch Shell plc's decision Tuesday to pull the trigger on a massive ethane cracker northwest of Pittsburgh is part of a revamp for the oil major, which for now will focus on "cash engines," fueled by petrochemicals and the deepwater, CEO Ben van Beurden said.
Houston-based Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC issued the final investment decision (FID) to green light the ethylene cracker, designed to produce 1.6 million metric tons/year (mmty) of polyethylene. Construction could begin in about 18 months, with commercial startup in the early 2020s.
The cracker would be the first U.S. facility built outside the Gulf Coast in more than two decades, news that was hailed across the Northeast as a watershed moment in the evolution of the Marcellus and Utica shales (seeShale Daily, June 7). Shell began eyeing a cracker for the Northeast region five years ago, eventually settling on Pennsylvania (see Shale Daily, March 16, 2012; Dec. 5, 2011; Sept. 7, 2011). Give and take began with state officials, land was secured and then stakeholders waited for the FID, which was delayed several times (see Shale Daily, March 4).
"Shell Chemicals has recently announced final investment decisions to expand alpha olefins production at our Geismar site in Louisiana and, with our partner CNOOC in China, to add a world-scale ethylene cracker with derivative units to our existing complex there," said Shell Executive Vice President Graham van't Hoff, who oversees the global chemicals business. "This third announcement demonstrates the growth of Shell in chemicals and strengthens our competitive advantage."
Shell plans to begin construction this year on an expansion at its Geismar campus, which would make it the largest alpha olefins (AO) producer in the world (see Daily GPI, Nov. 30, 2015). Shell currently has three AO units on the 800-acre Geismar site, and the fourth unit being built would produce around 425,000 mmty of AO, lifting facility capacity to more than 1.3 mmty.
The Pennsylvania facility is being built on the banks of the Ohio River in Potter Township in Beaver County, about 30 miles from Pittsburgh.
"As a result of its close proximity to gas feedstock, the complex, and its customers, will benefit from shorter and more dependable supply chains, compared to supply from the Gulf Coast," Shell said. "The location is also ideal because more than 70% of North American polyethylene customers are within a 700-mile radius of Pittsburgh."
The project is expected to bring growth and jobs to the region, with up to 6,000 construction workers involved in building the facility and an expected 600 permanent employees when completed.
In the chemicals sector, Shell already has brownfield growth projects ongoing on the U.S. Gulf Coast and in China, he added. Once these projects are onstream early in the next decade, Shell's ethylene capacity should reach about 8 million metric tons/year (mmty), compared with 6.2 mmty today.
"Selective growth" is key until the economics of some of its longer-term projects makes sense, revolving around the "cash engines" of the petrochemicals sector and deepwater activity, van Beurden said during the Capital Markets Day conference. When he took over last year, van Beurden said Shell could cancel up to 40 projects within three years, and on Tuesday he affirmed that Shell may pull its entire business operations from up to 10 countries by 2018.
The revamped strategy is for "stable businesses, which underpin the financial delivery of the company today," said the CEO, formerly Shell's petrochemicals chief. "They should have strong and resilient returns and free cash flow, to fund dividends and the balance sheet well into the next decade and beyond...Through-cycle returns here should be attractive and competitive."
Beyond 2020, unconventionals in North America and Argentina, as well as "low-carbon" biofuels, solar and wind power, are to become growth priorities.
Gov. Tom Wolf, whose Democratic administration has sparred frequently with the oil and gas industry, acknowledged that initial work on the Shell facility began four years ago under the administration of former Republican Gov. Tom Corbett.
"Since first taking office, I have worked in close collaboration with my Secretary of Community and Economic Development Dennis Davin, the Pittsburgh Regional Alliance, local officials in Western Pennsylvania and Royal Dutch Shell to make the proposed plant a reality," Wolf said. "The commonwealth engaged the company with the goal of creating jobs, spurring economic development, and taking the next steps to connect the energy industry with long-term, sustainable economic growth."
Wolf said his administration "is committed to creating jobs in the energy industry through responsible, well-regulated extraction and long-term, creative industrial growth. We have worked to develop strategies for safe and responsible pipeline development that brings resources to markets and facilities, and we have prioritized the Shell plant to show the world that Pennsylvania is a leader in energy manufacturing and downstream production."
The project's success "is part of a much-needed, longer-term plan to translate our abundant resources to make Pennsylvania a leader in downstream production. The commitment of the Shell cracker plant in Western Pennsylvania is an important step toward this goal," the governor said.
"Shell's decision to move forward with this world-class facility, which will put thousands to work across our region through utilizing clean-burning domestic natural gas for decades to come, is welcomed news, especially given the challenging market conditions," said Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer. "This investment also reflects the fact that domestic manufacturing's potential is near limitless thanks to our abundant and stable energy supplies from natural gas."
Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald said the agreement by Shell was achieved through a collaborative effort by the "building trades and the United Steelworkers, the bipartisan support from the Pennsylvania house and senate, and the efforts of the Allegheny Conference and the Marcellus Shale Coalition... The project is monumental; the building of this plant will be equivalent to the construction of 25 stadiums. This announcement accelerates our growth to a next level and will provide even more opportunities for our young people."
Allegheny Conference on Community Development CEO Dennis Yablonsky said the announcement signaled "Shell's re-entry into the North American polyethylene market. The plant will be one of the largest of its kind in North America -- the largest single 'from the ground up' industrial investment in the Pittsburgh region in a generation -- and the first major U.S. project of its type to be built outside the Gulf Coast region in 20 years."
The decision to move forward also is "a victory for U.S. manufacturing," he said. "We believe that a capital investment of this magnitude indicates to other companies in the energy, petrochemical and plastics industries that southwestern Pennsylvania should be on their shortlist of locations for new facilities and expansions. That's especially the case considering that polyethylene demand is forecasted to grow worldwide, with some analysts projecting it will rise 4% a year to 99.6 million metric tons in 2018."
The cracker announcement is "another sign that a renaissance in American chemistry is under way," American Chemistry Council (ACC) CEO Cal Dooley said. "Thanks to our nation's abundant supplies of shale gas, the U.S. has become the world's destination for new chemical industry investment. Our competitive edge will mean new jobs and exports and a stronger manufacturing sector for years to come."
According to the ACC, as of this month 262 chemical industry projects valued at $161 billion are completed, under construction or planned for the United States, which could create $105 billion in annual output and 738,000 permanent U.S. jobs by 2023.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106685-pennsylvania-cracker-underpins-shells-cash-engine-focus-says-ceo

Return to headline | Return to top
Similar Standard Could Save $33B in Annual Health Costs -- Study

Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire

By Pamela King

A policy like U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan could result in $1 million in annual health benefits for most U.S. counties, according to a new study led by Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
The Clean Power Plan, which serves as a model for the analysis published yesterday in PLOS ONE, would by 2030 cut carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent below 2005 levels. The hypothetical standard would achieve a 35 percent decline in CO2 emissions by 2020. Reducing CO2 could have the "co-benefit" of decreasing sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and primary fine particulate matter in the atmosphere, as well, to the tune of a net national savings of $33 billion per year, the study finds.
"With the full range of climate, health and ecosystem benefits taken into account, we would expect that the net benefits would be even larger and that the benefits would outweigh costs in all regions within a year or two of implementation," said Dallas Burtraw, a fellow at Resources for the Future (RFF) and an author of the report.
Reducing pollutants from power generation could help prevent premature deaths, heart attacks, and hospitalizations from respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. Before accounting for implementation costs, most counties would reap more than $1 million in savings each year from avoiding those health issues.
Under a low-cost case, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia would gain $7.1 billion, the greatest co-benefit calculated by the study's authors. California stands to lose the most -- $2.3 billion in an upper-cost case.
"Our results suggest that net economic benefits from power plant carbon standards tend to be greatest in highly populated areas near or downwind from coal-fired power plants that experience a shift to cleaner sources with the standards," said co-author Charles Driscoll, a civil and environmental engineering professor at Syracuse University.
The study attributes too many of those benefits to the carbon reduction plan, said Scott Segal, head of the policy resolution group and founder of the strategic communications practice at Bracewell LLP.
"While terminating some power plants may create air quality benefits, some of these very benefits are already being realized pursuant to air regulations that have previously been implemented," he said. "Further, the economic consequences of carbon regulations can create public health consequences that greatly exceed the benefits discussed in the report."
Prior to the release of the Clean Power Plan, 11 health care professionals serving in Congresswrote the Obama administration to rebut characterization of the proposed rule as a "public health" measure.
"[I]t is worth noting that the Agency has already attempted to justify a vast array of other regulations on addressing precisely the same concerns -- from the air toxics rule to regional haze to ambient air quality standards and the like," the letter said. "The American public should not tolerate perpetual re-claiming of the same health benefits in order to justify more substantial expansions of EPA regulations."
The Harvard, RFF and Syracuse health analysis was funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment through Harvard. The study was also supported by climate mitigation organization Mistra Indigo and the Human Cooperation to Manage Natural Resources through RFF.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/08/stories/1060038444

Return to headline | Return to top
Texas Oil Regulator Wants Legal Action Against Obama Rules

Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire

By Mike Soraghan

Texas oil and gas regulators want the state attorney general to take U.S. EPA to court over the Obama administration's limits on methane emissions from oil and gas wells.
The three elected members of the Texas Railroad Commission voted unanimously yesterday to ask Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) to take legal action against the new methane rules. The Railroad Commission does not deal with trains; it regulates oil and gas production and pipelines in Texas. All three commissioners are Republicans elected statewide.
The new methane rules are unpopular with the oil and gas industry. Industry groups say they've already cut methane emissions sharply without new regulations.
Environmentalists have cheered them as a crucial part of meeting the administration's pledge to lower U.S. methane emissions from the oil and gas industry between 40 and 45 percent by 2025 compared with 2012 levels.
The resolution endorsed yesterday by the commission asks Paxton to file a petition for review in federal court.
Methane is the primary component of natural gas, and it's a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. It can leak from oil and gas wells and from pipelines, storage tanks and other oil field equipment.
The limits on methane emissions, finalized last month, would require operators to check for and repair leaks at gas wells and some oil wells. It also would require companies to phase in the use of "green completions" -- a technique that captures methane and other emissions when a newly finished well is cleaned out and connected to a pipeline (Greenwire, May 12).
The rules would apply only to newly drilled or installed equipment, but EPA is also gathering information to see whether it should extend the rules to cover the hundreds of thousands of existing oil and gas wells around the country.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/08/stories/1060038434

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Key Government Reports Were Wrong About Methane Leaks' Severity, Environmental Group Alleges

Jun 8, 2016 | LA Times

By Ivan Penn

An environmental organization filed a federal complaint Wednesday, alleging that key reports by a top U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official wrongfully stated the severity of methane leaks across the nation’s natural gas industry.
In its 68-page complaint to the EPA’s Office of Inspector General, NC Warn, a 28-year-old climate and energy justice organization based in North Carolina, alleges that David Allen, a university faculty member who was head of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board at the time of the reports, should have corrected studies about methane leaks after the equipment used for the reports was proved faulty. Allen is on the faculty of the University of Texas at Austin, according to the complaint.
NC Warn’s conclusion is largely based on whistle-blower Touché Howard, an engineer who invented the technology used to measure methane leaks. Howard identified a flaw in the technology that showed Allen’s studies could be underreporting emissions as much as 100-fold.
The studies were published in 2013 and 2014 by the Environmental Defense Fund at a time of concern about the impact of methane emissions on climate and as the fracking boom led to the drilling of thousands of gas wells across the country. The studies’ findings have been used by the natural gas industry to argue that methane leaks are low.
“In the extreme, that kind of failure could lead to catastrophic explosions,” Howard said in an interview.
California became particularly sensitive to concerns about natural gas leaks after the 2010 San Bruno natural gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people and destroyed a quiet Northern California neighborhood.
In addition, a leak at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, which began in October and lasted for four months, forced thousands of people from their homes in the nearby Porter Ranch community.
Though the studies focused on methane leaks at drilling locations, Howard, now retired, said he believes that the flawed reporting has implications for Aliso Canyon and other natural gas facilities throughout the country.
In its complaint, NC Warn has called for an investigation by the EPA’s Office of Inspector General.
“Methane emissions have become the leading method of climate change,” said Jim Warren, executive director of NC Warn. “This is enormous for the people of California.”
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-methane-leaks-20160607-snap-story.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Protect America from Chemical Plant Dangers

Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Russel L Honoré, Randy Manner, and David Halperin

In 2006, Sen. Barack Obama offered the clearest statement of the dangers posed by America’s hazardous chemical facilities. “Basically,” he said, “these plants are stationary weapons of mass destruction spread all across the country.” In that light, a new safety rule, proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama, evokes a notorious Cold War prescription for a nuclear attack: Duck and Cover.
Emergency preparedness in the event of a chemical disaster, the proposed rule’s focus, is critically important for our national security. But more essential is prevention of a chemical disaster in the first place. In this regard, the rule falls well short.
As former holders of U.S. national security positions, we believe the EPA can and should require the use of safer chemicals and processes where feasible.
For decades, our country has failed to squarely address the security problem that chemical facilities present. It is a glaring danger that puts millions of our citizens at risk.
In August 2013, President Obama took an important first step with an Executive Order requiring a government review of safety procedures at chemical plants.
The President acted, in part, because of the April 2013 ammonium nitrate explosion in West, Texas, which killed 15 people and injured 160 more. This tragedy, which investigators recently determined was deliberate sabotage, highlighted much of the chemical industry’s failure to minimize and safely store toxic materials, and our government’s failure to create effective rules to protect against such incidents.
Since the West, Texas, disaster, there have been more than 430 chemical incidents and 82 deaths. None of us should ignore the possibility of more accidents, or chemical incidents resulting from natural disasters, with even more violent consequences. Many of us recall the 1984 pesticide plant disaster at Bhopal, India, which caused 20,000 deaths.
As the Texas case suggests, terrorists could trigger a chemical plant attack, with consequences like Bhopal, Sept. 11, or even worse. In 2003, the government’sNational Infrastructure Protection Center warned that chemical plants could be terrorist targets. Security experts say determined attackers could thwart conventional plant security. The potential for cyber-attacks makes the challenge even more serious.
The EPA has identified 466 chemical facilities in the U.S. that each put 100,000 or more people at risk of a poison gas disaster. In 2005, the Homeland Security Council projectedthat a major attack would kill some 17,500 people and injure tens of thousands more.
This is a national security issue, and the Administration must treat it like one, with the kind of urgency we give to weapons of mass destruction overseas.
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman, the former governor of New Jersey, drafted rules requiring safer technology conversions, where feasible, at high-risk plants. But the plan was blocked by the Bush White House after lobbying by the chemical industry.
The EPA has the authority to issue rules to require chemical plants to move to inherently safer technologies. Whitman and former Obama EPA administrator Lisa Jackson have each now called for the Obama EPA to move ahead with such an approach. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board, which investigates hazardous materials incidents, also is urging stronger rules for safer materials.
Since 2001, hundreds of chemical facilities have switched to safer processes. Clorox Company, for example, has converted all of its U.S. facilities. The result is reliable protection for employees and communities against catastrophic disasters at reasonable cost.
We don’t see how President Obama, who once offered such a clear perspective on this danger, would want to read that his EPA’s final rule was exposed as far too weak by groups representing low-income communities living near these hazardous plants, by unions representing chemical plant workers, by experts like Governor Whitman, and others.
There surely would be scrutiny of a weak EPA rule if one day we did have a major chemical catastrophe. If the Bhopal plant, which was owned by a U.S. company, Union Carbide, had been located in the U.S. and 20,000 people had died here, we would have fixed this problem long ago.
We understand that the technical and organizational challenges of requiring companies to move to safer technologies are complex. But given the magnitude of chemical facility dangers, the Obama Administration should not wait any longer to protect the American people.
Lieutenant General Russel L Honoré, US Army (Ret) is the former commander of Joint Task Force Katrina. Major General Randy Manner, US Army (Ret), is a former acting Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. David Halperin, a lawyer, is a former staff member of the National Security Council & Senate Intelligence Committee.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/282584-protect-america-from-chemical-plant-dangers

Return to headline | Return to top
Sources: PHMSA Bill Likely to Pass Senate Soon

Jun 8, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard

By Elana Schor

The bipartisan Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration reauthorization bill poised for House passage by Thursday is expected to clear the Senate soon, according to congressional sources, though the exact timing is not yet set.
The bill is a product of bicameral talks aimed at avoiding a formal conference between the two chambers' versions of the legislation. A House GOP aide said "we are optimistic" about the prospects for Senate passage, while a Senate Republican aide said the upper chamber is "hopeful" for swift passage by unanimous consent, but added that the timing is "uncertain for now."
That Senate vote would send the pipeline safety bill to President Barack Obama's desk as PHMSA works to speed up roll out of a long-delayed slate of regulations for oil and gas transportation infrastructure. Major industry groups this week threw their support behind the bill, originally set for a vote today but it looks likely to clear the House Thursday.
The pipeline safety legislation "allows operators to continue their own, valuable pursuits to achieve the industry-wide goal of zero incidents, while addressing areas of improvement for PHMSA," the American Petroleum Institute and Association of Oil Pipe Lines wrote to House leaders today.
The bill requires PHMSA to set new federal standards for underground natural gas storage facilities, a response to last fall's methane leak from California's Aliso Canyon complex, and it gives the agency narrowly targeted authority to impose emergency safety orders on the pipeline industry.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

Oil Train Rules Move to White House Review

Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

Regulators are one step closer to adopting new standards for oil trains that Congress mandated last year.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) sent the standards to the White House Office of Management and Budget for its final review, it said Wednesday.
The Obama administration is hoping to make the standards final and unveil them publicly by October.
The PHMSA and Federal Railroad Administration jointly wrote comprehensive standards for oil trains last year, including new standards for the tank cars and operational rules such as speed restrictions in certain areas.
Transportation of oil by rail has increased dramatically, as have derailments and other disasters.
In last year’s highway bill, known as the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation, or FAST Act, Congress told the administration to make some tweaks to the oil train regulation.
The changes include a new, faster timeline for phasing out old rail cars from oil use, new construction standards for cars retrofitted to comply with new standards and a requirement that all cars in certain trains meet the mandates, not just the ones carrying oil.
Since Congress asked the PHMSA to put out the new rule immediately, the agency skipped the usual process of proposing a regulation and gathering public input before making it final.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282692-oil-train-rules-move-to-white-house-review

Return to headline | Return to top
Mount Olive, Washington Township, Morris County Demand Removal of Gas Tanks

Jun 8, 2016 | New Jersey Hills Media Group

By Phil Garber

The chance of being killed by a railway propane explosion is less than the risk of being killed by lightning but township police still don’t like the odds.
Mount Olive Mayor Rob Greenbaum is leading an effort by local and Morris County officials to force a Canadian-based company to remove 20 rail cars filled with butane and propane that are being stored along a railroad spur in Flanders. County officials on Monday filed a show cause order asking that the Superior Court order the tanks to be removed.
There was no return date noted. The lawyer for the Morristown and Erie Railway, which leases the rail tracks from Morris County, said the propane cars are safe and that the railway has a legal contract with the county that does not prohibit storing hazardous materials in Mount Olive.
“I don’t think it’s safe and we will do everything we can to stop it,” Greenbaum said. “There has been no planning in terms of emergency preparedness. It’s just not an appropriate place to store gas.”
The rail spur is behind the Toys ”R” Us warehouse and not far from homes and West Morris Central High School located on Bartley Road in Washington Township. The high bridge rail track is owned by Morris County and leased to the Morristown and Erie Railway, which, in turn, contracts with rail companies.
The rail cars also are near to the “Uncommon Carrier” company which stores Class 3 hazardous materials, according to Fred DeToro, the town’s emergency management coordinator.
DeToro said he learned of the tanks in a call on Tuesday, May 31, from the Morris County Office of Emergency Management. On Friday, DeToro received a call from the railroad police chief of the Morristown and Erie Railway saying that he tanks would be arriving around 12:30 p.m.
Greenbaum said the issue was discussed during a conference call on Thursday that included officials from Mount Olive, Roxbury, Washington Township and Morris County.
Morris County Administrator John Bonanni said in a release that county and local emergency management personnel and members of the Picatinny Arsenal Fire Department went to assess the potential dangers.
A statement from Washington Township police said that the Morris & Erie Railway has a one-year agreement with Gibson Gas to store up to 100 liquefied butane and propane cars on the High Bridge Branch.
“The Railway has communicated that all federally-required safety and security requirements are in place,” said the statement. “This knowledge does not lessen the concerns of the county and local governments, who are adamant about preventing this practice in any way they can.”
On Friday, 15 cars were parked on the spur. Each was marked as containing “non-oderized liquified petroleum gas” and each car had the notification that in case of an emergency to call Chemtrec “day or night” at 800-424-9300. Chemtrec is a company that responds to hazardous materials emergencies.
The cars are owned by Procor and leased to the Gibson Gas Liquids Partnership of Canada. Procor is Canada’s largest private rail car rental fleet, with more than 21,000 conventional and special-purpose tank and freight cars.
Liquefied petroleum gas or liquid petroleum gas has no odor and is also referred to as propane or butane, flammable mixtures of hydrocarbon gases used as fuel in heating appliances, cooking equipment, and vehicles.
A chemical is often added that emits a powerful odor if there is a leak in the propane tank. DeToro said he believes that the odor was not added to the tanks at the request of customers. He said he is concerned that a leak would not be detected. He also said the area of the rail spur is not secured and that youths on ATVs ride in the area and hikers walk along the tracks. Evidence of the lack of security is a bullet hole in a sign along the tracks, DeToro said.
Detoro said local and county emergency management officials have devised an evacuation plan in event of a leak or wore. He said a propane fire can’t be extinguished but rather must burn itself out, a situation that could take days or more. DeToro said a large concern is providing adequate water to cool tank cars near a leaking car.
DeToro said the town and county are asking for increased security from the rail line along with installation of a remote monitoring system.
Morris County purchased the rail line in 1976 from Conrail.
John Fiorilla, lawyer for Morristown and Erie Railway, said the propane cars are inspected regularly for safety by the railway, by the Federal Railroad Administration and by the Transportation Safety Administration.
Fiorilla said the contract with the county stipulates areas where hazardous materials cannot be stored and that the Flanders site is not on the prohibited list.
“This (Flanders) is probably the most remote place on the railroad,” Fiorilla said.
He said he had planned to meet with county officials this Friday to discuss safety concerns but that the county’s legal action may preclude the meeting.
“This is not an unusual thing,” Fiorilla said. “It’s part of being a railroad. It’s a normal, safe situation.”
The contract between the county and the railway expires in June when it will be rebid. The one-year contract between the railway and Gibson ends on May 15 and is the first time that Gibson has contracted with the railway.
The propane cars were brought to the area from a producer in Pennsylvania first along the Norfolk-Southern Rail Line and then to the Morristown and Erie line.
Fiorilla said the Morristown and Erie line employs just one police officer who has extensive training in hazardous materials transport.
Wendy Buckley, a former rail line inspector with the N.J. Department of Transportation, is president of “Specialty Transportation and Regulatory Services” (STARS) of Bensalem, Pa., a consulting firm specializing in all facets of hazardous materials transportation for rail, air, highway, vessel, and pipeline.
Buckley said rail lines are not required to notify municipalities of pending shipments although there should be an ongoing, mutual relationship between the parties. She said she expects the cars contain propane residue and are not filled but DeToro said the cars are filled.
“Most railroad companies are very cognizant of not putting filled cars in areas near residences,” Buckley said. “Chances are good they are not loaded cars.”
Buckley said rail cars carrying flammable gas like propane are carefully controlled by the federal government. They are made with double steel layers to sustain extreme pressure and safety systems.
“These cars are very, very safe,” Buckley said. “The cars are designed to keep the material in the cars. This is a very common practice all over the country, every day.”
Raymond Casey is a consultant on rail car safety with Railroad Regulatory Services of Falls Church, Va. Casey said rail cars carrying propane are regularly inspected with tanks tested every 10 years and safety valves replaced periodically.
“There is no real safety issue,” Casey said. “Liquified petroleum gas is transported safely every day.”
Major Industry
Butane and propane is an $8 billion a year industry and is a major source of energy in the U.S. More than 1 million commercial establishments, such as hotels, restaurants and laundromats use propane for heating and cooling air, heating water, cooking, refrigeration, drying clothes, barbecuing, and lighting. More than 350,000 industrial sites rely on it for space heating, brazing, soldering, cutting, heat treating, annealing, vulcanizing, and many other uses.
The U.S. Department of Energy released a report in 1981 that analyzed fatal accidents involving propane gas transportation and storage between 1971 and 1979. The report showed that the individual risk is about one death per 37 million persons or about the same as the risk of a person on the ground being killed by an airplane crash, and much less than the risk of death by lightning, tornadoes, or dam failures.
A Chemtrec statement said that the U.S. propane industry’s safety record has been praised in the Congressional Record, and by organizations including the National Fire Protection Association, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, and the International Association of Fire Chiefs.Gibson Gas Liquids Partnership of Canada was honored on May 10 with three rail awards from Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway and CSX Corporation for its commitment to safety in 2015.
“The annual awards recognize customers who load and transport dangerous goods and meet strict standards for the safe handling and shipment of regulated product,” said a Gibson statement.
Last year, the company sold more than 600 million gallons of liquefied natural gas to customers throughout North America.
“Working together, our partners haul thousands of loads every year throughout Canada and the U.S. providing only the highest quality of service in the industry,” the statement said.
But there have been accidents.
One of the most dramatic was in July 1973 in Kingman, Ariz. Fire broke out as propane was being transferred from a railroad car to a storage tank. The blast that killed 11 firefighters occurred after a leak in a fitting was discovered and a large wrench was used, igniting the gas. Flaming propane sprayed by the explosion along with falling debris ignited several buildings in the vicinity, according to published reports.
Another major accident occurred on Aug. 24, 2011 in Lincoln, Calif., when a rail tank car carrying 29,000 gallons of propane caught fire. Nearly 5,000 families were evacuated form the area and a high school and middle school were closed.
http://www.newjerseyhills.com/print_only/_headline_style/bold_54/mount-olive-washington-township-morris-county-demand-removal-of-gas/article_616c6668-5156-5f6d-843e-8cb38532fcfb.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Native Americans Face Risks After Oil Train Derailment

Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

Native Americans living along the Columbia River face some of the greatest risks from the oil and coal trains that run along its banks, according to tribal leaders.
Last week's 16-car derailment on the Oregon side of the river spilled around 45,000 gallons of crude oil into important tribal fishing waters, and leaders say a culturally important area for the Warm Springs, Yakama, Umatilla and Nez Perce tribes has become a corridor for fossil-fuel transport.
"Tribal members fishing on the Columbia face even larger risks and potential impacts," said Paul Lumley, executive director of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. "Not only are they exposed day in and day out to the air and water in and along the Columbia, these families eat a diet heavy in fish caught from the river at risk."
A Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway spokeswoman said safety is the company's top priority, but tribal members say they face other risks, as well.
Many sleep in tents and shacks only yards from the tracks, and none of the tribal sites has firefighting infrastructure to protect residents in the event of derailment (Greenwire, Jan. 5). Some are nearly 20 miles away from the nearest hookup for fire crews.
"We live on the river, and that's year around," said Randy Settler, a member of the Yakama Nation. "We're not coming and going. Our people have always lived along the river, for generations upon generations".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/08/stories/1060038476

Return to headline | Return to top
Perspective: PTC for Productivity Improvement

Jun 8, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading

By Steve Zwart

Positive train control (PTC) often is discussed exclusively as a safety technology, but it'll also enable railroads to orchestrate tighter train schedules and improve productivity in a variety of ways, proponents have said. How so? What are some of those productivity benefits? And what's available on the technology front to help railroads achieve those next-tier benefits?
PTC is a set of highly advanced technologies designed to monitor and control train movements to provide increased safety. In 2008, when Congress passed the RSIA mandate, the technology required had not yet been developed. In the years since, railroads and their technology suppliers have worked tirelessly to meet the deadline and overcome the complexity and challenges involved with the creation and deployment of a reliable safety system.
PTC’' predictive technology detects upcoming conditions and enforces braking of the train when needed. The various technologies involved include a central control center or "back office," on-board redundant computers, control points and signals installed along the wayside, and a wireless network for communication between all of these locations and each train.
A good portion of the PTC intelligence resides on-board the locomotive, giving it the ability to understand its location and what’s in front of it. Using the telemetry within the train such as GPS, speedometers and odometers, and the information stored in the "track database," such as elevations, curves, and speeds, each train not only keeps track of itself. The master system also monitors each train and provides data to a control center where dispatchers and supervisory personnel can monitor the entire network.
PTC's benefits beyond safety
The communications infrastructure is a vital element in the successful and reliable deployment of PTC as it relays critical information between several thousand components that comprise the overall solution. The constant communication required by PTC and its always-on technology has created other benefits in addition to rail safety. Despite what many people believe, the safety enhancements don’t increase productivity or tighten train schedules, as
PTC's focus is purely increased safety. However, with the PTC network in place, and the train data that is sent to the central office, system management technology can be added. This can greatly improve preventative measures to ensure trains run as they are intended, which provides improved system maintenance and more reliable train schedules.
As PTC solutions have been deployed, railroad operators have been able to leverage additional benefits provided by enhanced system management technologies. When used effectively, system management technologies provide rail operators with the ability to proactively address operational failures, decrease turnaround time by identifying and fixing broken equipment, and reduce the possibility of delayed passenger schedules and product shipments.

Central monitoring for systems management
PTC networks provide management with the ability to monitor remote equipment from a central location. That includes wayside equipment and the locomotives themselves. Interoperable train control (ITC) allows dispatchers and supervisory personnel to get sub-specs that create a real-time health status of any locomotive.
System management systems quickly create an easy to understand status notification from every wayside unit, which gives the central field office the tools to drill down into the operational information of that remote unit, and can answer questions such as, "What is the current status of that signal?" or, "What are the settings on that switch?" or, "What is the temperature of that device?" Using this operational and environmental information, personnel can instantaneously determine what has failed and where.
Systems management is key for operational excellence. No matter how good a system is at enforcing safety for a train, if components of it break down and the specific issue cannot be identified, the train cannot keep running, money will be lost and deadlines missed.
When an issue arises in a system, having visibility and access to all of the equipment from a central location, to quickly determine what specific conditions exist, and to direct a field team to the problem minimizes train delays for passengers, prevents delayed shipping times and improves overall operational efficiency for the operators.
Steve Zwart is senior director of solutions and software at LILEE Systems.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/article/Perspective-PTC-for-Productivity-Improvement--48498

Return to headline | Return to top
ARMS: PTC-in-a-Box

Jun 8, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading

It's nearly impossible to explain to industry outsiders how immense and complex the tasks related to the railroads' positive train control (PTC) implementation have been and remain. Along the way, manufacturers have been eager to support the railroads' efforts with all types of essential PTC products and materials.

Many of these products – for signal, communication and locomotive PTC installations – have been included in the more than 10,000 customized PTC kits that ARMS has provided to six of the seven Class I railroads. Their scale has been quite variable – ranging from single packages that hold small PTC electronic components and power systems, to 60-foot containerized shipping units that hold practically everything needed for a wayside site.

ARMS kitting projects have been tailored to each PTC installation and to the railroad's specific requirements. Individual kits are frequently modified to meet site specifics. Often they include some integrated parts or electronics, plus the tools and small incidental material pieces and instructions needed by field personnel. ARMS kits are packaged intentionally to facilitate on-site unloading and fast assembly.

ARMS PTC-in-a-Box Solution has helped railroads add PTC to their signal sites within hours, rather than what would otherwise require several days, company officials said. Each PTC-in-a-Box unit shipped by ARMS is fully integrated with all of the essential PTC components, simplifying installation.

As part of the PTC power solution, ARMS has been integrating and kitting power solutions for both backup and dark territories. These often have been hybrid solutions powered by Ameresco solar and wind systems, as well as Plug Power fuel cells.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_product_news/details/ARMS-PTC-in-a-Box--48488

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Former CASAC Chairman Says Panel Should Consider Costs Of NAAQS

Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

A former chairman of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) is asking the panel to evaluate possible adverse health, economic, social, energy or other aspects of implementing EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) -- part of the panel's mandate that industry and GOP critics say it has never discharged.
During a recent meeting of a CASAC panel, former full committee Chairman Chris Frey queried how CASAC could overcome what it has said are legal barriers to weighing costs and additional non-health factors in NAAQS reviews, to which the current CASAC chairman said the issue is worth further discussion.
Republicans, industry groups and others have long pushed for costs to be a key factor in NAAQS reviews, but one environmentalist says that CASAC should adhere to legal constraints on weighing health data in the reviews. However, the source suggests the committee could consider other factors for the implementation of NAAQS.
CASAC advises EPA on the science underlying NAAQS and guides the agency on how stringent the standards should be. This makes the committee highly influential in the NAAQS-setting process, although the EPA administrator does not have to follow the panel's advice precisely when setting the standards.
Recently, CASAC has faced mounting attacks from Republican and industry critics who say the committee's membership is biased toward those favored by EPA, who lean toward tougher standards.
Previously, some of these same critics have also questioned why the committee has not discharged its duty under the CASAC charter to "Advise the Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such national ambient air quality standards," saying that costs should be a major factor in any NAAQS review.
In setting NAAQS, EPA follows the Clean Air Act and Supreme Court precedent set in the 2001 case Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, in which the court held that EPA cannot consider implementation costs when setting a NAAQS. The agency therefore advises CASAC members not to consider costs when providing input on NAAQS, instead basing their input solely on a pollutant's adverse impacts on human health.
When pressed by industry attorneys, such as former EPA air office chief Jeffrey Holmstead, now an attorney with Bracewell, to consider the adverse effects as required by the CASAC charter, EPA and CASAC have previously insisted they cannot do so in the context of a NAAQS review, for fear of violating Whitman.
Frey has taken questions on the issue from Holmstead, and although Frey has indicated some willingness to consider such effects, Frey in January 2014 said this was a "separate activity" and is "not really part of the review cycle for any existing NAAQS," according to March 13, 2014, public comments.
Holmstead at the time contested this interpretation, which he called "simply incorrect," because the mandate for consideration of costs is listed with four other duties of CASAC and, "There is no way to read the statute that makes the fifth task any different from the other four in terms of either timing or importance."
NAAQS Effects
However, speaking at the May 23 meeting of CASAC's panel advising EPA on its review of particulate matter (PM) standards, Frey pressed the chair of the PM panel and chartered CASAC Ana Diez Roux on how CASAC can fulfill its obligation to consider the various possible adverse effects of NAAQS.
Diez Roux responded that to do so as part of the PM NAAQS review would not be appropriate. However, she said, "Certainly the chartered CASAC can discuss taking this up" outside of the PM review. The chartered CASAC consists of only seven members, unlike the panels undertaking specific NAAQS reviews for different pollutants, which are much broader.
Frey further asked that CASAC consider another mandate in its charter, that the committee "[a]dvise the Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural as well as anthropogenic activity." When Diez Roux suggested this was also a broader issue beyond the PM review, Frey opted to "push back," arguing that it is a policy-relevant consideration and should not be considered a broader issue that is excluded from consideration in the review.
One environmental attorney says that for CASAC to consider the implementation impacts of NAAQS rules is fine -- provided the committee has the correct expertise -- but that this should not be conflated with the separate NAAQS-setting process.
The Clean Air Act "says that CASAC does have a role to play here so it's appropriate that the body should. Recognize, however, that Jeff Holmstead was invoking that very different implementation-focused provision to try to influence, improperly, the standard setting-focused provisions that govern NAAQS reviews. That was wrong then and it's wrong now."
The source adds, "But having CASAC advise on [these] implementation questions is fine; the question is whether CASAC as constituted with its current members has the expertise and experience to advise on those matters.
"I also would not call these statutory considerations 'downsides,' and to see them as such runs counter to the law's health mandate. Rather, the implementation directive in the statute is concerned with the other parts of the [air law] that address implementation, including cost-effective and technologically and economically feasible implementation" in state air quality plans and federal rules.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/former-casac-chairman-says-panel-should-consider-costs-naaqs

Return to headline | Return to top
Challengers Urge Appeals Court to Allow Lower Courts to Proceed

Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

By Tiffany Stecker

States challenging the Obama administration's contentious Clean Water Rule are asking a Southeastern federal appeals court to allow lower courts to hear complaints while another appellate court moves forward with a separate case.
A supplemental brief filed yesterday to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest salvo in the fight over which federal court system -- appeals or district courts -- should hear the multiple challenges to the Clean Water Act jurisdictional rule, also known as the Waters of the U.S. rule.
In their brief, the attorneys general for Georgia and West Virginia disputed the administration's argument that the appeal in the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit is moot. The Justice Department made the argument in light of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in February that the challenges to the U.S. EPA-Army Corps of Engineers rule should be heard exclusively in the 6th Circuit (Greenwire, Feb. 22).
The 11th Circuit should move on despite decisions made in other courts, the attorneys general wrote.
"It makes no difference that the 6th Circuit has tentatively assured itself of jurisdiction," they wrote. "That non-final decision is not even binding in that case; the panel itself could reconsider it, the en banc court could reject it, or the Supreme Court could reverse it."
It's "doubtful" that the 6th Circuit's handling of the cases would provide an "adequate remedy" under the law, the attorneys general said.
The administration's lawyers argued in a brief last week that the challenges in the 11th Circuit were moot as a result of the 6th Circuit's decision.
"The states are attempting to litigate their challenges to the Clean Water Rule in two federal courts at the same time ... they cannot do this," said the Justice Department in its filing.
Declaring the issue moot in the 11th Circuit could be time-consuming in the long run, the states argued. Doing so would lead to the dismissal of lawsuits at the district court level, encouraging plaintiffs to appeal and forcing courts to rehear arguments a second time.
"The law does not require such inefficiencies, but the agencies' approach would mandate them," they wrote.
The rule finalized last year would change the definition for waterways and wetlands that automatically receive federal protections under the Clean Water Act. Many states and industry groups sued the agencies, claiming that the rule would infringe on state and private property rights. Environmental interests also challenged the regulation, saying it was not protective enough.
The parallel arguments in both the 6th Circuit and the 11th Circuit are unusual, said Richard Schwartz, an attorney with Crowell & Moring LLP in Washington, D.C.
Usually, if it is clear that all challenges to a rule must be filed to the appeals courts, "then all such challenges in any circuit to the same rule are consolidated in one circuit, even if challenges to that rule were initially made in several different circuits," he said in an email.
As the 11th Circuit mulls its role in the litigation, the 6th Circuit has begun laying the groundwork for arguments, ordering challengers and the Obama administration last month to consolidate challenges within that circuit into one case, Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA. The parties last week issued a schedule for filing briefs.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/08/stories/1060038493

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested