Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 7/15/16
-
We Appear to Have Gotten Lucky in the January 2014 West Virginia Chemical Spill
Jul 15, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison, Ph.D.
Readers may recall that I blogged extensively about the January 2014 spill of chemicals into the Elk River near Charleston from tanks used to store the chemical near the river’s edge, which disrupted the drinking water supply and the lives of 300,000 residents for many weeks thereafter. -
Today’s Secret Ingredient: Traces Of Toxic Plastic Chemicals
Jul 15, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Sonya Lunder
So you’ve thrown out your vinyl shower curtain and only buy fragrance-free cosmetics to avoid phthalates? Bad news – toxic plastic chemicals are still sneaking into the food you eat. -
First Do No Harm
Jul 15, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Doug Domenech
A key principle of the health care field is “Primum non nocere.” Latin for "First, do no harm." Sometimes, it may be better not to do something — or even to do nothing — than to risk causing more harm than good. Lawmakers should keep this principle in mind, too. -
EPA's Final Landfill Methane Rules Set Stricter Gas Capture Thresholds
Jul 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
EPA's just-issued final methane limits for new, modified and existing landfills retain the stricter emissions threshold for when facilities would have to begin capturing landfill gas that the agency proposed, though the final rules will result in fewer estimated methane reductions compared to proposed versions of the rules. -
(ACC Mentioned) House Passes Babin Effort to Promote Drone Safety
Jul 14, 2016 | Texas Insider
On Monday, July 11th, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2016 (H.R. 636), which included an important amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36) to set strict new guidelines for the operation of drones near chemical plants and oil refineries. -
PHMSA Fast-Tracks Gas-Storage Rules in Wake of Calif. Blowout
Jul 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Department of Transportation could have regulations for natural gas storage operations in place by the end of the year, in response to the massive gas leak at Aliso Canyon in Southern California. -
Lawmakers Target OSHA Retail Exemption
Jul 15, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers moved to keep the brakes on a controversial OSHA regulation for fertilizer storage facilities through the appropriations process and standalone legislation this week. -
Benzene Spill Briefly Closes Section of Houston Channel
Jul 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
The Coast Guard is investigating a chemical spill that closed a section of the Houston Ship Channel for more than two hours yesterday. -
Operating a Freight Train with a Single Crew Member is Unsafe
Jul 15, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Mike Rankin
On December 23, 2004, near Streator, Illinois, three teenagers ignored flashing lights and drove around the gates at a railway crossing. A train struck their car. Two teenagers lost their lives that night. One survived. -
NTSB: BNSF Trains Collided After One Train Missed a Red Light
Jul 15, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
Two BNSF Railway Co. trains collided head-on in Panhandle, Texas, last month after one of the trains missed a stop signal, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced yesterday in a preliminary report. -
EPA Floats Public User Guidelines For Personal Air Pollution Monitors
Jul 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is for the first time floating a draft user guide for members of the public who collect emissions data with personal air pollution monitors, in order to help people interpret a wealth of newly-available air pollution data using short averaging times, though some critics say the monitors can produce inaccurate information.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
We Appear to Have Gotten Lucky in the January 2014 West Virginia Chemical Spill
Jul 15, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison, Ph.D.
Readers may recall that I blogged extensively about the January 2014 spill of chemicals into the Elk River near Charleston from tanks used to store the chemical near the river’s edge, which disrupted the drinking water supply and the lives of 300,000 residents for many weeks thereafter.
A key concern was the dearth of health data – both publicly available and otherwise – on the key chemical components of the spilled mixture, which was used to wash coal. As I reported in a series of blog posts, despite scant data, federal and state officials rushed to establish – and then defend their establishment of – a concentration of one part per million (1 ppm) as the “safe” level of the main component, 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM), of the spilled mixture. I pointed to the lack of a scientific basis for that level, largely because of the lack of adequate health information.
That remained the case even after the chemical’s producer, Eastman Chemical, decided to make public its studies of the chemical that it had hidden, claiming them to constitute trade secrets. I tried to be careful not to claim MCHM or other spilled chemicals posed health risks, but rather that the lack of safety data was highly concerning, given the widespread extent of exposure.
Among the many outcomes of the spill was an agreement by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to undertake a thorough study of the potential health and environmental effects of MCHM and other component chemicals. That study is now complete, and the results were released last week.
The good news is that the public – and those federal and state officials – appear to have gotten lucky: NTP found no evidence of adverse effects of the chemicals at the doses to which people were exposed – although some effects were seen at significantly higher doses. NTP noted that effects were not seen at or below the 1 ppm level.
Lest anyone rush to conclude that the officials setting that level “got it right,” as opposed to getting lucky, NTP’s final report notes (emphasis added):
At the time of the spill, there were few toxicological studies available on which to base a drinking water screening level. The lack of any studies in developing animals and humans was a concern, because developing organisms are typically considered more susceptible than adults to the toxic effects of environmental chemicals. There was also concern about the absence of information on many chemicals that were minor components of the spill.
Upon completion of its study, NTP concluded:
The NTP studies increased our knowledge about the toxicity of MCHM and other spilled chemicals. The results from the NTP studies reduced uncertainty about the information used to develop the drinking water screening levels.
That’s good news, though it took a concerted federal effort and millions of dollars to get to this conclusion – all long after the spill occurred.
As I noted in my blogging, MCHM is no isolated incident: Many, if not most, chemicals in widespread use lack adequate safety data. A large part of the blame is attributable to the ineffective Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, which tied EPA’s hands when it came to requiring testing and provided no mandate for EPA to review the safety of chemicals in commerce.
Happily, change is underway: I suspect all of my readers know that TSCA has now been updated and among the changes are several that bear on chemicals like MCHM, including these features of the new law:It establishes a mandate to review chemicals in active commerce like MCHM, with the timing at EPA’s discretion and subject to availability of resources.It requires prioritization of active chemicals like MCHM, and includes storage near significant sources of drinking water as an explicit criterion.It provides EPA with expanded authority to require companies to safety-test their chemicals, by issuing an order rather than through a time-intensive rulemaking, and without having first to make risk or high-exposure findings.
While no panacea, the new TSCA heads us in a new direction that will reduce the likelihood of repeating debacles like that in Charleston, WV.
That also means that, over time, we won’t have to rely on getting lucky to prevent exposing the public to known or unknown chemical risks.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/07/15/we-appear-to-have-gotten-lucky-in-the-january-2014-west-virginia-chemical-spill/
-
Today’s Secret Ingredient: Traces Of Toxic Plastic Chemicals
Jul 15, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Sonya Lunder
So you’ve thrown out your vinyl shower curtain and only buy fragrance-free cosmetics to avoid phthalates?
Bad news – toxic plastic chemicals are still sneaking into the food you eat.
Phthalates are industrial compounds used to make vinyl plastic malleable, and are also used as fragrance solvents and fixatives in body care products. They’re potent hormone disruptors. They can alter the reproductive development of male infants and are associated with sperm damage in adult men. Children exposed to phthalates in early life can undergo behavioral changes and develop allergies.
Scientists have detected phthalates in many types of food. They have found particularly high concentrations in dairy and meat. These man-made compounds may contaminate food during processing or packaging, presumably from contact with polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, plastics.
A study by Ami Zota and colleagues at George Washington University, published last April in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found phthalates in nearly all of the 7,000 Americans tested. More specifically, they found higher than average levels of two phthalates – di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and diisononyl phthalate – in those who reported eating fast food within the past 24 hours. The study did not say exactly how fast food was tainted with these chemicals, but suggested it happened during preparation – for instance, from contact with PVC gloves or plastic packaging.
It’s almost impossible to avoid eating phthalates.
In 2013, Sheela Sathyanarayana of the University of Washington studied whether reducing processed food intake could decrease people’s exposure to phthalates and another endocrine disruptor, bisphenol A, or BPA. Her team provided five volunteer families fresh, local, organic and chef-prepared meals. Surprisingly phthalate levels in the participants skyrocketed to as much as 100 times the typical level for an American adult.
The researchers found elevated levels of phthalate in dairy products and even higher concentrations in organic cinnamon, cayenne pepper and coriander. Sathyanarayana concluded that only government action could reduce Americans’ exposures to phthalates in foods.
FDA rules allow phthalates in foods as “indirect additives,” such as accidental contaminants transmitted via food processing and packaging materials. Manufacturers could also add them directly to food, under rules that allow food companies to determine for themselves whether an additive is safe.
Environmental advocates have petitioned the FDA to end the use of phthalates in materials that commonly contact food. This includes plastic gloves worn by food handlers, plastic tubing used to process milk and other liquid dairy products, and plastic food packaging.
Tell the FDA to take decisive action and remove phthalates from food.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/07/today-s-secret-ingredient-traces-toxic-plastic-chemicals
-
Jul 15, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Doug Domenech
A key principle of the health care field is “Primum non nocere.” Latin for "First, do no harm." Sometimes, it may be better not to do something — or even to do nothing — than to risk causing more harm than good. Lawmakers should keep this principle in mind, too.
A new regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector would end up harming our society’s poor and middle class. The so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP) — effectively under suspension after the United States Supreme Court granted a “stay” last winter — caps CO2 emissions for existing and new power plants regardless of the increased cost to households and small businesses. A follow-up case will be heard September 27, 2016 in the DC Court of Appeals. And many legal observers feel that the Supreme Court’s decision signals that many on the court believes that the EPA rule has significant flaws.
Defenders of the rule, who believe that increased levels of CO2 are warming the planet or otherwise damaging the climate — often ignoring the natural climate cycle — insist on efforts to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s the aim of the CPP. The problem is that it will accomplish little — a reduction of 0.018 degrees C by 2100 — and impose enormous costs to taxpayers and consumers.
The impact of the EPA rule is the subject of a new report by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) titled “The EPA’s Clean Power Plan Will Hurt the Poor and Middle Class the Most.” The report details the results of various studies on the impact of the CPP. For example, according to NERA Economic Consulting, the plan will increase average nationwide average electricity prices by 11-14 percent per year. Electricity prices are projected to increase for every state subjected to the CPP. 41 one of these states face peak year retail electricity price increases of 10 percent or more.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas estimates the CPP could increase the retail price of power by up to 16 percent by 2030 — not including the impact of new transmission projects or other spending that could be needed in order to make compliance possible.
These costs are significant to families and businesses.
A 2011 survey of low-income households for the National Energy Assistance Directors Association revealed an array of adverse health and welfare impacts of high energy costs. Low-income households reported these responses to high energy bills:
• 24 percent went without food for at least one day.
• 37 percent went without medical or dental care.
• 34 percent did not fill a prescription or took less than the full dose.
• 19 percent had someone become sick because their home was too cold.
And poor minority households are disproportionally impacted by the CPP, as the EPA, itself, admits. During a presentation at Resources for the Future, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthyconceded, “We know that low-income minority communities would be hardest hit.”
Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, called the CPP “a slap in the face to poor and minority families.” According to a study commissioned by Alford’s organization, the CPP will more than double the cost of natural gas and electricity for consumers, adding more than $1 trillion to family and business energy bills by 2035. The study also predicts that the CPP will cause job losses for more than 7 million African Americans and 12 million Latino and Hispanic Americans, as businesses are unable to compete in the face of higher energy costs. Finally, the study estimates the resulting decline in jobs and wages will cause the poverty rate in the African American community to rise by 23 percent.
These and other studies reviewed in the paper show that the proposed “solution” to the perceived CO2 “problem” are just not worth the cost. The bottom-line? Under the Clean Power Plan more people will suffer — and for no benefit to our climate.
The Honorable Doug Domenech is Director of the Fueling Freedom Project at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Domenech most recently served as Secretary of Natural Resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia and served as White House Liaison and deputy chief of staff at the U.S. Department of the Interior.
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2016/07/15/first_do_no_harm_1665.html
-
EPA's Final Landfill Methane Rules Set Stricter Gas Capture Thresholds
Jul 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
EPA's just-issued final methane limits for new, modified and existing landfills retain the stricter emissions threshold for when facilities would have to begin capturing landfill gas that the agency proposed, though the final rules will result in fewer estimated methane reductions compared to proposed versions of the rules.
The agency on July 15 issued separate regulations for new and modified municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, issued under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, and existing landfills, issued under air act section 111(d). Both rules strengthen standards for new and existing facilities that were issued by the Clinton administration in 1996.
Despite the stricter threshold, the rules are not expected to draw significant opposition from the landfill sector. The industry officials had tentatively embraced the proposed version of the rules after EPA allowed site owners to use monitoring results, rather than modeling data, to determine if they have met the threshold. The agency also proposed to relax some operating standards for gas collection systems that would make it easier for facilities to install best management practices that the agency is encouraging.
But the rules could face other challenges. For example, some in the utility sector say the agency lacks legal authority to strengthen existing source standards under section 111(d). “The Agency lacks authority under the [Clean Air Act] to revise the emission guidelines to make them more stringent,” the Utility Air Regulatory Group saidin comments on the proposed rule.
Industry and congressional opponents are also likely to take issue with EPA's use of the administration's controversial social cost of carbon (SCC) and social cost of methane (SCM) metrics to calculate the rule's climate change benefits.
The rule could also face commercial challenges. One EPA official said recently that a slowdown in demand(/node/191559) for gas-for-energy capture projects that the rule encourages could “challenge project financial stability.”
Environmentalists, however, are welcoming the standards. “These long overdue standards will update requirements that have been in place since 1996 and address an important source of methane emissions,” Environmental Defense Fund said in a statement.
Overall, the agency says the combined rules would reduce annual emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), by 334,000 metric tons in 2025. Further, they would cut 303,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The vast majority of the reductions would come from the new limits on existing landfills.
EPA had initially estimated that the proposed versions of the rules would yield a combined 487,000 metric tons in annual methane cuts in 2025.
It was not immediately clear why the estimated emissions reductions are lower in the final rules, given that the rule's requirements are largely the same as proposed.
However, EPA in its regulatory impact analysis offers one possible factor. It says it applied an 85 percent “gas collection efficiency assumption” for control systems that was not used in the proposed rule. The agency says it included the assumption based on public comments on the proposal and other data sources.
EPA acknowledges “uncertainty” in the assumed collection performance of control systems, which in turn results in uncertainty in the rules' emissions cuts.
Climate Agenda
The regulations are part of the Obama administration's Climate Action Plan and will provide a modest boost toward attaining the country's GHG reduction target under the Paris Agreement of reducing economy-wide emissions by 26-28 percent by 2025.
The updated new source performance standards (NSPS) rule applies to landfills built, modified or reconstructed after July 17, 2014, the date the proposed rule was published. EPA estimates the rule will require 115 new landfills to install controls in 2025, while 13 would have to report their emissions.
The emission guidelines (EG) for existing landfills would apply to landfills built before that date. The agency says 1,014 landfills would be subject to that rule, with 731 expected to control emissions in 2025, 93 more than under the earlier rules.
Another 77 active landfills are expected to be required to report their emissions, while 206 landfills are either closed or are expected to close within 13 months after the new rules are published and will remain subject to the earlier threshold at which facilities must capture emissions.
The new rules each set an identical emission capture threshold of 34 metric tons of non-methane organic compounds per year, down significantly from the prior limit of 50 tons. After meeting that limit, landfills must install and operate a gas collection system within 30 months.
The final threshold is the same as what was included in the proposed regulations.
The final rules also include an “optional method, based on site-specific surface methane emissions, for determining when a landfill must install and operate a gas collection-and-control system,” according to an agency fact sheet. Industry sources had said that using monitoring data, instead of modeling emissions, was a key change that allowed them to embrace the standards.
Overall, EPA estimates the NSPS would have methane- and CO2-related benefits of $68.3 million in 2025, calculated using the administration's SCC metric and EPA's similar SCM estimates. That compares with an estimated $6 million in costs.
For the EG, the agency estimates $444 million in climate-related benefits in 2025, compared with $54 million in costs.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-final-landfill-methane-rules-set-stricter-gas-capture-thresholds
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Passes Babin Effort to Promote Drone Safety
Jul 14, 2016 | Texas Insider
On Monday, July 11th, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2016 (H.R. 636), which included an important amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36) to set strict new guidelines for the operation of drones near chemical plants and oil refineries. The bipartisan legislation is now expected to be passed by the U.S. Senate and signed by the President.
“As the representative of the 36th Congressional District of Texas, which is home to more petrochemical and refining facilities than any other district in the country, I was pleased to have helped secure this much-needed provision and put it on the path to becoming law,” said Rep. Brian Babin. “This carefully crafted language will ensure both the protection of our oil and gas facilities and their employees from unauthorized drone activity while also respecting the growing business of public and commercial drone use throughout the United States.”
“We thank Congressman Babin for his tireless leadership on safety and for including a provision in the Senate’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill that will address the troubling gap in current policies regarding the safe operation of drones around chemical facilities,” said Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council.“This vital amendment will help protect communities and safeguard chemical facilities, which play a vital role in manufacturing products that are important to the everyday health and well-being of our nation.”
http://www.texasinsider.org/house-passes-babin-amendment-promote-drone-safety/
-
PHMSA Fast-Tracks Gas-Storage Rules in Wake of Calif. Blowout
Jul 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Department of Transportation could have regulations for natural gas storage operations in place by the end of the year, in response to the massive gas leak at Aliso Canyon in Southern California.
The department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration will issue interim final rules governing the country's roughly 400 gas storage facilities, Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez said yesterday at a workshop in Broomfield, Colo.
"One thing that's been highlighted is the need for federal safety standards," she said at the workshop, which was streamed online.
It's a rarely used process that allows the agency to impose regulations without the normal notification and comment periods. Dominguez said PHMSA will gather public comments after the interim rules are in place and respond to them in the final version of the rules.
The agency "is doing an atypical, interim final rule because it sees this as an extraordinary circumstance. It could not move this fast under the standard rulemaking procedures," said Cathy Landry, a spokeswoman for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), in an email.
The regulations come as U.S. gas production, and the amount of gas in storage, hits all-time highs, said Chris McGill, a vice president at the American Gas Association.
But as the Aliso Canyon accident shows, many of the storage sites are beginning to age. Aliso Canyon, owned by Southern California Gas, is an old oil field on the edge of the Los Angeles metro area; its wells were drilled in the 1950s and converted to inject and withdraw natural gas from the field in the 1970s.
Starting in late October 2015, one of the wells began to leak, and by November, the leak had developed into a blowout. Infrared images showed a plume of gas escaping into the atmosphere; many nearby residents were forced from their homes by the chemicals used to odorize the gas. Parts of the surrounding area were coated by a fine mist of oil and other materials that blew out of the well.
The well wasn't plugged until February, and it stands as the biggest methane leak in U.S. history. Yet it could have been worse.
"If you were standing on that well site, you can see downtown Los Angeles," said Al Walker, an engineer with the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. "If that well had ignited, probably something like 20 or 25 million people would've had a spectacular event that they would've seen for a number of months."
Congress ordered PHMSA to write regulations for gas storage when it reauthorized the agency in June (E&E Daily, June 14).
Currently, there aren't any federal regulations on gas storage. Individual states have standards for purely intrastate facilities, but they can't always enforce those rules on interstate sites.
Any rules that PHMSA imposes would become the minimum national standards throughout the industry, although states would be able to impose tougher regulations in their own jurisdictions.
PHMSA issued an advisory notice in February telling operators to inspect for a list of potential problems such as corrosion and faulty casing on the wells used to inject and withdraw gas, conduct periodic inspections to ensure they're safe, and plan for potential risks and emergencies (EnergyWire, Feb. 3).
The agency hasn't said what it will recommend when it issues the rules. The American Petroleum Institute has argued in favor of allowing the industry to rely on voluntary standards -- although INGAA has said it favors federal regulations.
The Environmental Defense Fund is recommending a series of tougher requirements, including requiring operators to use an extra layer of tubing to protect the exterior casing of the injection wells, more robust inspections and better public notification. PHMSA, which has little experience with storage fields, also should work closely with the state agencies that have been overseeing the operations for decades, said Scott Anderson, a senior policy adviser with EDF, during a panel discussion at the workshop.
"Gas storage wells are not just pipelines that are vertical rather than horizontal," Anderson said.
"Regulating the integrity of these wells requires significant and specialized expertise. ... [I]t's going to require more than simply telling industry to follow industry standards," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/15/stories/1060040342
-
Lawmakers Target OSHA Retail Exemption
Jul 15, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers moved to keep the brakes on a controversial OSHA regulation for fertilizer storage facilities through the appropriations process and standalone legislation this week.
A bill introduced July 14 by Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), the Fertilizer Access and Responsible Management (FARM) Act, would block the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from requiring sites storing or transporting 10,000 or more pounds of anhydrous ammonia to participate in the Process Safety Management program.
OSHA made the change in July 2015 by issuing a guidance document stating the agency was reinterpreting statutory language. Lawmakers from agricultural areas have warned the switch could burden small retailers and make it harder for farmers to obtain needed fertilizer.
Blockage
Congress blocked the reinterpretation last year through a policy rider in the omnibus spending bill in December 2015, but that is due to expire September 30th at the close of the fiscal year.
In a statement July 14, Fischer said OSHA “has circumvented Congress and public input by introducing new rules that will make it harder for farmers to do their job.”
Critics said the agency should have conducted a traditional rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, which would have let industry groups file public comments. However, the process would have significantly delayed implementation of the change.
The FARM Act would require OSHA to withdraw the guidance document and require a notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Draft Funding Bill for Labor Approved
Meanwhile, the House Appropriations Committee approved July 14 a draft funding bill for the Department of Labor and related agencies. The fiscal 2017 Labor and Health and Human Services funding bill included language blocking the changes unless conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved similar restrictions June 9.
Safety advocates have called the change a needed step to tighten security at fertilizer storage sites. In a report issued earlier this year on the 2013 ammonium nitrate fertilizer explosion in West, Texas, the Chemical Safety Board offered support for limiting the retail exemption, saying it may have prompted the Texas plant to take a closer look at its inventory.
http://www.bna.com/lawmakers-target-osha-n73014444792/
-
Benzene Spill Briefly Closes Section of Houston Channel
Jul 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
The Coast Guard is investigating a chemical spill that closed a section of the Houston Ship Channel for more than two hours yesterday.
About 500 gallons of benzene was released on the deck of a tanker while it was moored in the channel early yesterday afternoon, officials said.
Officials from the Coast Guard and Harris County Hazardous Material Response Team responded to the spill.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/07/15/stories/1060040352
-
Operating a Freight Train with a Single Crew Member is Unsafe
Jul 15, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Mike Rankin
On December 23, 2004, near Streator, Illinois, three teenagers ignored flashing lights and drove around the gates at a railway crossing. A train struck their car. Two teenagers lost their lives that night. One survived.
I know because I was the conductor on that train. I also know that if it wasn't for the timely response by me and my colleague — the train’s engineer — I’m not sure anyone would have survived.
This matters because railroads want to cut costs by operating freight trains with a single crew member. Luckily, our government understands that people and safety must never be compromised when operating massive freight trains. Earlier this year, the Federal Railroad Administration released a proposed regulation requiring that most freight trains be operated with two crew members. This is a good first step, but the proposal doesn’t apply to all freight trains, and doesn’t require that the second crewmember be a conductor. If safety is the top priority, two qualified crew members — a conductor and an engineer — are needed on all freight trains.
Conductors and engineers work together to safely get trains to their destinations, and during an emergency, our teamwork is critical. As a conductor, if and when emergencies occur, it is my job to get off the train, assess the situation and address any life-threatening issues. It is the engineer’s job to stay on board, communicate with dispatchers and other trains in the area, and make sure that the locomotive is secure. That’s exactly what happened on that horrific night in 2004.
Once I got to the wreckage, what I found can only be described as grisly. All three teenagers had been ejected from car. It was clear that two had perished. I knew there was nothing I could do to help them.
I found the third passenger face down in a ditch. He was alive, but barely. Not long after I found him, firefighters pulled up to the scene. They told me an ambulance was just a few minutes away, but we soon realized the ambulance was on the wrong side of the tracks, cut off by the train from the teenager who desperately needed help.
I radioed to the engineer about the situation. We agreed there was only one solution: we needed to create space between the cars of the train so the ambulance could drive through – a maneuver that requires two people to complete. I uncoupled the train cars and the engineer pulled the front of locomotive forward, creating room for the ambulance to reach the crash victim. There’s no way a single crew member could have secured the train, briefed emergency personnel, uncoupled train cars and moved the front of the train forward all on his or her own.
Our train that night was 7,000 feet – nearly a mile and a half – long. If we hadn’t been able to separate cars at that exact moment, the ambulance would have had to go miles out of its way to get to the crash victim. That would have taken minutes in a situation where time was not on our side.
I tell this story not because I want praise for what the engineer and I did that night, but to explain why two qualified crew members are needed on a freight train. Conductors and engineers don’t just operate trains. In emergency situations, we’re first on the scene. Our presence and teamwork can mean the difference between life and death.
For me, this was true not only that night in Illinois, but every night of my career. I love my job, and I am proud to work for BNSF. But I’ve also seen enough to know that those who want one-crew train operations are not fully grasping the risks, emergencies and close calls that my fellow conductors and engineers see on the rails regularly.
Take it from us: operating a freight train with a single crew member is unsafe. A strong federal policy requiring a conductor and an engineer on freight trains will prevent accidents and save lives.
Mike Rankin has been a conductor with BNSF Railroad for 13 years and is based in Illinois.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/labor/287824-operating-a-freight-train-with-a-single-crew-member-is-unsafe
-
NTSB: BNSF Trains Collided After One Train Missed a Red Light
Jul 15, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
Two BNSF Railway Co. trains collided head-on in Panhandle, Texas, last month after one of the trains missed a stop signal, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced yesterday in a preliminary report.
Three crew members died when the eastbound and westbound trains collided at 8:21 a.m. June 28 in BNSF's Panhandle Subdivision. The collision caused the derailment of the locomotives and several cars from both trains, and resulted in a significant fire.
Train movements in the area are governed by signal indications of a traffic control system. Positive train control (PTC) was not operating in the area at the time of the accident, but is scheduled to be implemented by BNSF by the end of this year, the report stated.
Each train was crewed by a locomotive engineer and a conductor. The eastbound train consisted of three head-end locomotives, two distributive power units and 56 loaded cars. The westbound train consisted of five head-end locomotives and 54 loaded cars.
The signal system was lined to route the westbound train into the Panhandle control point siding at milepost 536.1, while holding the eastbound train on the main track before the east end of the siding. The collision occurred about one-half mile east of the east switch of the Panhandle siding, according to the report.
A preliminary review of signal event recorder data and tests of the signal system indicated that the last signal the eastbound train passed before the collision was a red stop signal. The previous signal the eastbound train passed was a yellow signal.
The locomotive event recorder data revealed that the eastbound train was traveling 62 mph when it passed the yellow light at the west end of the Panhandle siding and about 65 mph when it passed the red light at the siding's east end.
The engineer and conductor on the eastbound train and the conductor on the westbound train were killed. The engineer of the westbound train jumped from the train before the impact and survived with injuries.
BNSF estimated damages of $16 million.
Investigators completed sight distance tests of the signal systems for both trains into the collision point and the results are being analyzed, the NTSB said. Event and video recorders have been sent to the NTSB labs in Washington, D.C., for further investigation.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/bnsf_railway/news/NTSB-BNSF-trains-collided-after-one-train-missed-a-red-light--48799
-
EPA Floats Public User Guidelines For Personal Air Pollution Monitors
Jul 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is for the first time floating a draft user guide for members of the public who collect emissions data with personal air pollution monitors, in order to help people interpret a wealth of newly-available air pollution data using short averaging times, though some critics say the monitors can produce inaccurate information.
In a recent presentation to EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee meeting in Arlington, VA, Kristen Benedict of the agency's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards updated the committee on a pilot project that aims to help the public interpret short-term air quality data.
Unlike air monitors used for regulatory purposes, non-traditional air monitors -- including the rapidly-expanding array of personal monitoring devices -- generally measure air quality over short time scales, of minutes rather than hours. While these devices are not yet accurate enough to use in measuring compliance with federal air quality standards, Benedict said, EPA wants to give the public some guidance on their use.
Health studies do not support linking very short-term readings, such as those averaged over one minute, with health effects, Benedict said, yet many device developers are incorrectly linking their devices' readings to EPA's Air Quality Index (AQI) system, which relies on regulatory-quality data.
EPA's pilot program introduces a sensor scale to help the public interpret data from its "Village Green" bench-style monitoring sensors, that display air quality data in real time online.
For ozone, the system categorizes one-minute ozone readings of 0 to 59 parts per billion (ppb) as "low," and when ozone is in this range, advises the public to "enjoy your outdoor activities." EPA's latest ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), set Oct. 1, is 70 ppb over eight hours.
Ozone Readings
When ozone is in the 60 ppb to 89 ppb range, labeled "medium," the public is advised to consult the AQI in order to plan outdoor activities. When ozone readings are in the 90 ppb to 149 ppb range, they are considered "high," and EPA advises, "If high readings continue, consider adjusting outdoor activities, especially if you are sensitive to ozone. Check the Air Quality Index to find out."
At levels of 150 ppb or more, ozone is considered "very high." At these levels, EPA gives the same advice as for "high" readings, but also advises that the one-minute monitor might not be reading correctly.
For one-minute fine particulate matter (PM2.5) readings, EPA classifies readings below 29 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) as "low," with no health warning. The agency currently has a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS set at 35 ug/m3, and an annual standard set at 12ug/m3.
Readings in the range 30 ug/m3 to 69 ug/m3 are considered "medium," and EPA advises that, "If medium readings continue (for an hour or more), use the Air Quality Index to plan outdoor activities."
"High" readings are those in the 70 ug/m3 to 499 ug/m3 range. In this situation, EPA suggests, "You may be near a source of particle pollution like dust, smoke or exhaust. Check the Air Quality Index to plan outdoor activities." For "very high" levels over 500 ug/m3, EPA offers the same advice, but adds that "very high readings may mean the sensor is not working properly."
The scale for PM2.5 reflects the fact that levels can vary widely with distance from pollution sources, unlike ozone, which is more evenly distributed, Benedict said.
Based on feedback received from users of the "Village Green" website, EPA "will update the scale and messages as appropriate," with the goal of making them available to sensor developers by the end of the year, Benedict said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-floats-public-user-guidelines-personal-air-pollution-monitors
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested