Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Feb 19
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Report for Children's Toy Rule Is Flawed, Scientists Say
Feb 18, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
A group of scientists says the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is using a flawed report to determine whether to prohibit manufacturers from using certain plasticizers, known as phthalates, in children’s toys. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, phthalates are a group of chemicals used to make... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical in Plastics May Alter Boys' Genitals Before Birth
Feb 19, 2015 | Live Science
By Lindsey Konkel
Baby boys who are exposed in the womb to a chemical used in soft plastics may show small signs of altered genital development, according to new research published today. The study, which included more than 700 infants in four U.S. cities, is the largest of its kind to date. It confirms earlier findings in humans and animals ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Bills To Ban Toxics In Toys And Junk Food For The Poor
Feb 19, 2015 | Eugene Weekly
By Lucy Ohlsen
For the first two weeks of the legislative session in Salem, Sen. Chris Edwards (D-Eugene) has focused all his attention on passing the clean fuels bill. But he also has several bills to foster a healthier environment for Oregonians in the works. The next “big” bill Edwards says he’ll be working on is the Children’s Toxics bill (SB 478). -
EPA Seeks People for Advisory Board to Help Develop Hazardous Waste E-Manifest System
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency is accepting nominations for the nine-member advisory board that will help the agency as it develops and implements a national electronic system for tracking hazardous waste shipments. According to a notice in the Feb. 18 Federal Register, the eight unfilled slots on the board will... -
Safely Managing Anhydrous Ammonia Challenges Some Companies, EPA Says
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
In a sign of heightened federal attention to chemical hazards, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a February enforcement alert that some refrigeration facilities have failed to properly manage anhydrous ammonia and other hazardous chemicals. -
DIY Don't
Feb 18, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Paul Pestano
In between blizzards, you may be thinking of installing insulation to save money and energy. But do-it-yourselfers beware: common spray polyurethane foam insulation systems contain a chemical called methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, or MDI, which has been documented to cause asthma, lung damage, and in severe cases, death. -
Why I Chose to Avoid Non-Stick Cookware
Feb 18, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Hannah Helsabeck
Just like the foods that I eat, when it comes to cookware, I like to know exactly what's going into my body. After years of my cookware's non-stick coating flaking off into my food, I decided to take a deeper look at what was going on. What I learned had me replacing my non-stick cookware with what I found to be safer alternatives. -
BPA REACH Registrants Drop Thermal Paper Use From Dossier
Feb 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Carmen Paun
The consortium that registered bisphenol A (BPA) in 2010 has removed the substance’s use in the manufacturing of thermal paper from its joint REACH dossier. Several other uses, including the substance's use in PVC, have also been removed. The consortium revised the dossier in December in response to a 2013 Echa substance evaluation decision. -
EU Commission Launches Major REACH Impacts Study
Feb 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A study that aims to evaluate the impact of REACH on the operational conditions and structure of chemical and downstream industries has been launched by the European Commission's industry directorate, DG Growth. An extensive survey has been launched to provide information for the study, which is being jointly prepared by... -
CSB Points To California Process Safety Proposal As Model For EPA
Feb 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) is pointing to a California plan for strict process safety measures for oil refineries, saying the state’s proposed requirements for analysis and use of safer technologies could serve as model for EPA to improve facility safety, though CSB has yet to meet with EPA on the topic. -
Explosion at Exxon Refinery in California
Feb 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
A "large explosion" occurred at an ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, Calif., officials said on Wednesday. The Los Angeles Times reports Torrance police announced a "second-alarm fire explosion" and that surrounding streets were closed. Residents in the area were also told to shelter in place, turn off heating and air systems and close windows. -
Residents Shelter in Place Following L.A.-Area Refinery Blast
Feb 18, 2015 | E&E News PM
A large explosion at an Exxon Mobil Corp. refinery in Torrance, Calif., this morning had police ordering people in nearby residences and schools to shelter in place. Following the explosion, residents reported that ash was falling from the sky, and police told residents to remain indoors and turn off heating and air conditioning systems... -
Murkowski, 19 Senators Ask Commerce To Authorize Export of Oil to Mexico
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Commerce Department should authorize the export of oil to Mexico, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and 19 other senators wrote in a letter to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker. Such a move would “harmonize” trade policy with Canada, with which the export of oil is allowed, Murkowski, the chairman of the Senate Energy... -
Senators Push for Oil Exports to Mexico
Feb 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Twenty-one senators signed on to a letter Wednesday asking the Commerce Department to allow crude oil to be exported to Mexico. The bipartisan group led by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker should allow exports to Mexico in the same way Canadian exports... -
Obama’s War on Arctic Energy | Commentary
Feb 19, 2015 | Roll Call
By David Hunt
After long delays, the Obama administration has finally made a decision on its Arctic policy and focus on the development of the vast amounts of natural resources that encircle Alaska. Several decisions actually. Unfortunately, they took a step in the wrong direction for the nation’s goals for self-sufficiency, economic growth and national... -
UIC Wells May Be Vehicle For Fracking Suits Due To Hurdles For Tort Claims
Feb 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Legal observers are suggesting that landowners and others opposed to hydraulic fracturing might shift their litigation strategy from tort claims over water pollution and other harms to a new vehicle of suing over permitted underground injection control wells (UIC) for fracking wastewater, due to significant legal hurdles in pursuing tort claims... -
Fracking Flowback From California Oil Wells Found To Contain Dangerous Levels Of Carcinogenic and Toxic Chemicals
Feb 18, 2015 | De Smog Blog
By Mike Gaworecki
Adding to the already lengthy list of reasons to be concerned about the disposal of oil industry wastewater in California, the Center for Biological Diversity says it has found dangerous levels of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals such as benzene and toluene in fracking flowback. -
Sabine Pass LNG Requests Immediate OK From FERC to Energize Substations
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Cheniere Energy Inc. has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for immediate approval to “energize” all Sabine Pass LNG project Stage 1 substations related to the construction and operation of the Sabine Pass liquefaction project, the company said in a compliance filing Feb. 18. -
Clean Air Act Jobs Review Meant to Bolster Case for Regulations, EPA Tells Court
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A Clean Air Act requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency periodically review the jobs impact of its rules is meant to bolster the case for environmental regulation rather than dissuade rulemaking, the agency told a federal court (Murray Energy Corp. v. McCarthy, N.D. W.Va., No. 5:14-cv-00039-JPB, response filed 2/17/15). -
EPA Finalizes Long-Awaited Implementation Rule For 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Feb 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has finalized its rule telling states how to implement the agency's 2008 ozone standard, after a hiatus that has further delayed states' efforts to put the ozone limit into effect after years of litigation had already significantly slowed the process. The rule signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy Feb. 13, but not yet published... -
Sierra Club Urges Stricter Permit Limits For Coal-Fired Power Plant Near St. Louis
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Brown
A proposed discharge permit for a coal-fired power plant near St. Louis lacks adequate safeguards for the Missouri River and local groundwater, the Sierra Club said at a public hearing. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the Labadie Power Plant, which is operated by Ameren Corp., was the subject of... -
California Sets Stage to Re-Adopt, Revise Low-Carbon Fuel Standard
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The California Air Resources Board will consider Feb. 19 a proposal to re-adopt the low-carbon fuel standard to satisfy a 2013 court order that found the initial rulemaking violated the California Environmental Quality Act and state's Administrative Procedure Act. -
Federal Roadmap For Energy Infrastructure Must Not Burden State Trade Systems
Feb 18, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kris Johnson
Between the news reports of back-logged commodities waiting to be shipped via over-congested rail lines and tales of our oil and gas renaissance in places like North Dakota far outpacing the pipeline capacity necessary to ship it to market, it’s no secret that our nation’s energy infrastructure needs updating. -
State Department, EPA Launch Effort to Monitor Pollution Globally
Feb 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
The Obama administration announced on Wednesday the expansion of pollution monitoring at diplomatic posts across the world. The State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled the joint endeavor on Wednesday in a signing ceremony, which highlighted the administration's climate change agenda. -
National and Environmental Security, Two Sides of Same Coin
Feb 18, 2015 | The Hill
By Amanda D. Rodewald
To protect the environment is to protect ourselves. This simple fact is reflected in the president's recently released 2015 "National Security Strategy" and backed up by spending priorities in the proposed federal budget. Climate change. Global infectious disease outbreaks. Major energy market disruptions. Global economic crisis. -
Americans Support Action on Global Warming
Feb 18, 2015 | The Energy Collective
By Henry Auer
Reports showing that global warming and its worldwide effects on human lives have become more common in recent months and years. Here, we summarize the results of some polls of American public opinion on this subject. Polls concerning the attitudes of the American public on global warming have appeared recently. -
Type of Oil Car in West Virginia Fire, Derailment May Be Rolling for Years
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Snyder
Oil tank cars like those that ruptured in a train derailment in rural West Virginia on Feb. 16, sending a massive fireball into the sky and forcing evacuation of nearby homes, could be rolling through U.S. cities for years to come. In drafting tougher standards after a series of disasters last year, U.S. regulators initially called... -
Retailers, Manufacturers Win Extension On Non-Air Transport of Lithium Batteries
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Retailers and battery manufacturers will have six additional months to address information, technology, business process and training challenges in implementing portions of a final rule on lithium cells and batteries as it applies to surface transportation and certain other modes of transport, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous... -
Derailment Complicates Regulators’ Rule-Making Task
Feb 18, 2015 | Roll Call
By Tom Curry
Monday’s derailment in West Virginia of a CSX train carrying crude oil occurred at a politically sensitive point as the Obama administration is working on a long-awaited proposed regulation on tank cars that carry oil and ethanol. Just two weeks ago, at a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing on the pending tank car rule...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Report for Children's Toy Rule Is Flawed, Scientists Say
Feb 18, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
A group of scientists says the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is using a flawed report to determine whether to prohibit manufacturers from using certain plasticizers, known as phthalates, in children’s toys.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, phthalates are a group of chemicals used to make plastics more flexible and harder to break. They’ve been used in teethers, plastic toys, home furnishings, air fresheners, automobile interiors, cosmetics, medications and medical devices, to name a few.
The report found that phthalates can cause abnormalities in the developing male reproductive tract and reduce fertility in males.
During a conference call Wednesday, the scientists said they have issues with the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) report on phthalates, including highly uncertain exposure estimates, a small sampling of chemicals evaluated, lack of information on tissue exposure to contaminants and a misrepresentation of how sensitive test rats are compared to humans.
“For myself personally, I would say while I’m not weighing in on regulation or policy, I find a weak scientific basis for doing anything from this report,” Christopher Borgert, president and principal scientist at Applied Pharmacology & Toxicology Inc., said during a conference call coordinated by the American Chemistry Council on Wednesday.
The CPSC is accepting public comment on the proposed rule, which would prohibit manufacturers from using diisononyl phthalate (DINP) regardless of whether the toy can be placed in a child’s mouth. The rule would also add di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP), di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP), dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP) and diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP) to the list of prohibited phthalates.
The first three substances are not currently used in children’s products. Though the fourth, DIBP, has been found in some toys, the CPSC has said it’s not widely used.
In an independent review of the CHAP report, Kathryn Clark, a principal with BEC Technologies Inc., said the CHAP report tests exposure to these plastics on pregnant rats to determine their health effects. But the rule will apply to toys that will be used by children, not pregnant women or fetuses.“It is unclear how recommendations can be made with respect to children’s toys and child care articles when the toxicity endpoint is for non-users of those products,” she said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical in Plastics May Alter Boys' Genitals Before Birth
Feb 19, 2015 | Live Science
By Lindsey Konkel
Baby boys who are exposed in the womb to a chemical used in soft plastics may show small signs of altered genital development, according to new research published today.
The study, which included more than 700 infants in four U.S. cities, is the largest of its kind to date. It confirms earlier findings in humans and animals that exposure to certain types of chemicals called phthalates may lead to changes in the way the male reproductive tract develops, said Dr. Russ Hauser, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, who was not involved in the new study.
Phthalates are a large group of industrial chemicals used in a variety of consumer products, such as food packaging, flooring, perfumes and lotions.
The changes seen in the babies in the study were small, said lead author Shanna Swan, a reproductive health scientist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.
"There was nothing clinically abnormal or noticeably different about these boys," Swan told Live Science. [12 Worst Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals & Their Health Effects ]
In the study, the researchers measured pregnant women's levels of 11 compounds that are formed in the body when phthalates are broken down. The researchers looked at the levels of these compounds in the women's urine during the first trimester of pregnancy, which is the period when the fetal reproductive tract begins to develop.
They found that newborn boys who were exposed in the womb to the highest levels of one phthalate, called diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), had an "anogenital distance" that was 4 percent shorter than that of the boys born to women with the lowest levels. Anogenital distance — a measure of the length between the anus and the genitals — is a marker of reproductive health, wrote the study authors.
The distance between the anus and the genitals is typically 50 to 100 percent longer in males than in females, and a shortened anogenital distance may signal incomplete masculinization, the researchers said.
It's unclear whether the slight alterations seen in the babies in the study could be permanent, or could result in any reproductive health issues. Animal studies suggest that a shortened anogenital distance at birth may signal reproductive abnormalities later in life, and previous studies in humans have linked shorter anogenital distance with testicular abnormalities and semen problems in men. But the researchers would have to follow up with the boys in the study in adulthood to see whether their reproductive health is affected, Swan said.
The researchers found no association between genital development and levels of several other phthalates in boys. None of phthalates tested were associated with altered genitalia in baby girls.
In rodents, previous research has shown that some phthalates, including DEHP, block the production of male sex hormones by the testes.
The United States banned the use of DEHP and two other phthalates in children's toys and products in 2008 due to reproductive health concerns. But the chemical may still be used in food-processing and packaging materials, and in medical tubing and supplies, according to the study.
A spokesperson from the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, said that people could be exposed to phthalates from food processing that involves storage in flexible plastic or rubber bags or containers, but most plastic food packaging and storage items are now made with plastics that don’t contain DEHP.
"Information collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the last 10 years indicates that, despite the fact that phthalates are used in many products, exposure from all sources combined is extremely low — much lower than the levels established as safe by scientists at regulatory agencies," a spokesperson for the council wrote in an email to Live Science.
Although DEHP is still found in the bodies of most Americans, people's levels of the chemical have decreased over the past decade, as DEHP has been replaced with other plasticizers, Swan said. The levels of DEHP seen in the pregnant women in this newest study, which were measured from urine samples collected between 2010 and 2012, were about 50 percent lower than the levels in urine from mothers obtained in a previous study, between 2000 and 2002, Swan said.
Smaller studies that Swan conducted in 2005 and 2008 also found that prenatal exposure to DEHP at higher levels was associated with altered male genital development.
"We are finding a significant association between male anogenital distance and phthalates at lower and lower levels, which suggests that there may be no safe level of exposure," she said.
While it's extremely difficult to avoid all exposure to plasticizer chemicals, Swan suggested that opting for unprocessed foods could help people reduce their exposure to DEHP and other phthalates used in the packaging and processing of food[L1] .
The findings were published online today (Feb. 19) in the journal Human Reproduction.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bills To Ban Toxics In Toys And Junk Food For The Poor
Feb 19, 2015 | Eugene Weekly
By Lucy Ohlsen
For the first two weeks of the legislative session in Salem, Sen. Chris Edwards (D-Eugene) has focused all his attention on passing the clean fuels bill. But he also has several bills to foster a healthier environment for Oregonians in the works.
The next “big” bill Edwards says he’ll be working on is the Children’s Toxics bill (SB 478). He started work on the bill back in 2013, but he says supporters were unable to get it passed because not all Democrats voted for it. He says after several iterations, it is “a better bill now.”
Edwards’ concern about chemicals in toys made for children arose when he was shopping for one of his children’s birthday parties.
“The rubberized toys, the fake teeth … all of it reeked,” he recalls. He says there’s a mass of research about known toxins in toys that can affect children’s neurological development. The bill he’s putting forth again would first require all retailers and importers of toys to report if their toys contain any toxins on a list — determined by Congress and regulatory agencies. Second, it would mandate that those toys stop being sold in the next few years.
Edwards says he thinks the bill will finally pass this session, as Democrats have the majority and he’s received past support from some Republicans, particularly former Rep. Jason Conger.
The Toy Industry Association and the American Chemistry Council both opposed the bill previously, according to the Oregonian.
Edwards also says he has a bill in its “infancy” that would start a conversation about how to discourage people receiving SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps) benefits from purchasing junk food. Edwards says he personally doesn’t think it’s good policy to let people use SNAP to buy things like Cheetos. He says since many people on the program are also enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan, it would be beneficial to direct consumers towards whole foods with higher nutritional content.
“We’re incurring high medical costs to treat things like diabetes,” Edwards says. He says his idea with his bill banning junk food purchases would mean the state could save money on health care costs down the road.
Banning junk food purchases would disqualify Oregon from federal funding for its nutritional assistance program. Edwards says his bills are meant to be “conversation starters,” and he hopes eventually to pass legislation that would give additional money to people on SNAP — but money that would only be good for purchasing nutritious food.
At FOOD For Lane County, spokeswoman Dawn Marie Woodward says FFLC already have several programs in place to encourage people to use SNAP benefits for healthier foods. They have cooking classes where they teach people that buying pre-packaged food is not the best way to get the best bang for their buck.
“We work really hard to educate people at the pantry, but we’ve never been the food police,” Woodward says. With the bill still in its very first stages, FFLC doesn’t have a definitive position on it.
Edwards says his junk food tirade legislation cuts interestingly across party lines. He figures that Republicans will not be as interested in doing something like supplementing the national food assistance funds. He also anticipates that what farmers and farm lobbyists have to say will impact what happens with the bill.
The Oregon Senate passed the clean fuels bill Tuesday, Feb. 17. It now heads to the House.
-
EPA Seeks People for Advisory Board to Help Develop Hazardous Waste E-Manifest System
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency is accepting nominations for the nine-member advisory board that will help the agency as it develops and implements a national electronic system for tracking hazardous waste shipments.
According to a notice in the Feb. 18 Federal Register, the eight unfilled slots on the board will “provide practical and independent advice, consultation, and recommendations” as the EPA works to construct the e-manifest system's infrastructure and decide how to charge fees for its use (80 Fed. Reg. 8643).
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy or a designee will chair the group, which is expected to begin its work no later than Oct. 5.
Three of the panel's members will come from state agencies overseeing the system, three spots will go to representatives from the hazardous waste management and transportation sectors and the remaining two positions will go to members of the information technology industry, according to the notice.
The board must meet at least once annually, but it could meet more frequently if needed. The e-manifest system will be completed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
“State and industry nominees should have a comprehensive knowledge of hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal under RCRA Subtitle C at the federal, state, and local levels,” the notice said.
Operational by Spring 2018
Agency officials said during a November 2014 webinar that they expect the national e-manifest system to be fully operational no later than spring 2018. After significant outreach and public input, the EPA expects to award a contract for the system's development sometime in 2015 (225 DEN A-10, 11/21/14).
Congress passed the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act (Pub. L. No. 112-195), which called for the e-manifest system to be fully operational by Oct. 5, 2015. Insufficient congressional funding for the system's development has pushed back the date when the system can feasibly become operational.
Until the system's completion, hazardous waste shipments must continue to be tracked through physical paperwork. The system ultimately could reduce burdens to facilities by 300,000 to 700,000 hours annually and is expected to result in savings of approximately $75 million dollars, according to the EPA.
Work continues on a proposed regulation (RIN 2050-AG80), which the EPA expects to release in October, that would establish a fee structure for the national e-manifest system. The EPA has already published a final rule authorizing the use of electronic manifests for hazardous waste shipments (79 Fed. Reg. 7518).
-
Safely Managing Anhydrous Ammonia Challenges Some Companies, EPA Says
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
In a sign of heightened federal attention to chemical hazards, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a February enforcement alert that some refrigeration facilities have failed to properly manage anhydrous ammonia and other hazardous chemicals.
The EPA has levied $8.4 million in fines since 2012 related to chemical releases at nine refrigeration facilities that caused several deaths, numerous injuries and property damage. The companies involved also agreed to spend about $10 million in improvement projects, such as converting refrigeration equipment to safer technologies.
Anhydrous ammonia is flammable and toxic, and leaks can prompt evacuations of nearby communities and pose an immediate, deadly risk to workers who might be exposed at high concentration levels.
About 7 percent of the nearly 10,000 facilities storing large amounts of anhydrous ammonia have had accidents over the past 15 years, according to an analysis by the Center for Effective Government. The accidents led to 19 deaths, 1,651 injuries, $360 million in property damage and evacuations of nearly 64,000 people.
The catastrophic explosion at a fertilizer facility in 2013 in West, Texas, was caused by ammonium nitrate, but the facility also stored 110,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. The Obama administration responded to the explosion by forming a multi-agency chemical safety working group to look at improving regulations and other practices involving hazardous chemicals .
Officials from the EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Department of Homeland Security head the working group. The agencies each have regulations for managing anhydrous ammonia.
EPA Requires Risk Management Program
The EPA requires facilities that house more than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia to develop a risk management program that includes a worst-case scenario for a release and coordination with local emergency responders. Facilities must submit a summary of their programs in a written risk management plan.
The agency noted in its enforcement alert that it can use the Clean Air Act's general duty clause to go after facilities that don't properly manage anhydrous ammonia.
Recent inspections of ammonia refrigeration systems have yielded several lessons, the EPA said. They include the importance of identifying hazards, conducting preventive maintenance, halting pipe and equipment corrosion, defrosting ice buildups and having adequate ventilation.
-
Feb 18, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Paul Pestano
In between blizzards, you may be thinking of installing insulation to save money and energy.
But do-it-yourselfers beware: common spray polyurethane foam insulation systems contain a chemical called methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, or MDI, which has been documented to cause asthma, lung damage, and in severe cases, death.
Because of the chemical’s risks, the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration has set the maximum legal limit for MDI exposure among workers who handle it and related chemicals at 0.02 parts per million in workplace air.
However, independent contractors and the general public, including homeowners who take on DIY insulation projects, may not be aware of these federal regulations or the risks associated with MDI exposure.
In 2011, the federal Environmental Protection Agency published an “action plan” that said the agency would consider regulating MDI in consumer products and might propose to restrict or ban it. Four years later, the agency has yet to take real action to protect ordinary people who go to their local hardware store and pick up a product that contains MDI.
In an attempt to fill the regulatory gap, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control has made spray polyurethane foam systems containing MDI a priority in its Safer Consumer Products program, launched in 2013. The agency will be requiring manufacturers to look for safer alternatives to MDI in these products. The Safer Products program is still essentially untested, however, so it is difficult to predict the outcome of this process – or how long it will take.
In addition to insulation foam, MDI can be found in a variety of adhesives and coatings, including Gorilla Glue, sold in hardware and home improvement stores.
Consumers should not have to wait years for the federal government to take action on potentially harmful chemicals in everyday products. We need real reform of the Toxics Substances Control Act now.
-
Why I Chose to Avoid Non-Stick Cookware
Feb 18, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Hannah Helsabeck
Just like the foods that I eat, when it comes to cookware, I like to know exactly what's going into my body. After years of my cookware's non-stick coating flaking off into my food, I decided to take a deeper look at what was going on. What I learned had me replacing my non-stick cookware with what I found to be safer alternatives.
Although those flakes that sometimes scratch off cookware aren't known to be toxic, I learned that the PTFE (polytetrafluoroetheylene) coating on non-stick surfaces can release toxic fumes at high temperatures. According to the Environmental Working Group, these fumes may lead to certain types of health dangers in humans and environmental hazards, which I considered a red flag in my book!
While we understand studies are still ongoing, my husband and I have made a personal choice to switch to safer alternatives for cookware as a means of reducing our exposure to potentially toxic chemicals. So if you've been inspired like I was to stay away from non-stick coated cookware (and bakeware), here are some great PTFE-free alternatives to help you choose the best cookware for your home:
Cast Iron
Good for more than just a campfire, cast iron cookware is best known for its heat retention and built-to-last construction. While cast iron cookware is free from PTFE, it is important to make sure the cookware you choose meets all FDA and California Proposal 65 regulations for lead and cadmium levels. We have a couple pieces of cast iron cookware in our home that we love to use for homemade cornbread and roasted veggies.
Ceramic
100 percent ceramic cookware is a great alternative to PTFE-coated pans. It provides easy release of foods and can be used on the stovetop and in the oven, broiler, microwave, and toaster oven. And when it comes to cooking eggs on the stove, often a source of intimidation if you're used to non-stick pans, ceramic pans work like a charm! Here is the method we like to use at home to cook eggs without the mess.
Stainless Steel
Last but definitely not least is probably my favorite type of cookware: stainless steel. I love our stainless steel cookware because it doesn't have a PTFE-coating but still prevents sticking, and is easy to clean. Like ceramic cookware, cooking eggs in stainless steel is also easy, which I've demonstrated in this short video.
Although it may take some research and shopping around to find the best non-stick alternatives to your personal taste, I definitely recommend it. I make almost all of my meals at home, so the gear that I use is an important part of the process and I feel better knowing that I'm not exposing myself to any unnecessary chemicals.
-
BPA REACH Registrants Drop Thermal Paper Use From Dossier
Feb 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Carmen Paun
The consortium that registered bisphenol A (BPA) in 2010 has removed the substance’s use in the manufacturing of thermal paper from its joint REACH dossier.
Several other uses, including the substance's use in PVC, have also been removed.
The consortium revised the dossier in December in response to a 2013 Echa substance evaluation decision. This followed Germany’s evaluation of the substance under the Community Rolling Action Programme (Corap) (CW 14 November 2013). Echa's decision required BPA registrants to provide information on its emission pathways into the environment, and to conduct a skin absorption test by 20 December 2015.
“We will focus the dossier on the use of BPA as an intermediate or as a monomer, which thus covers the essential BPA-based applications such as polycarbonates and epoxy resins”, says ReachCentrum, which manages the consortium. “After extensive consultation and exchange with co-registrants and downstream associations, we have informed the appropriate authorities about this position and will provide the necessary information for the evaluation process.”
In a statement, the consortium said it had taken this decision because it can focus only on uses where it can provide adequate expertise regarding the substance’s lifecycle.
Companies producing thermal papers using BPA have 12 months from the date the use was removed from the dossier to either stop using the substance, or prepare a downstream user chemical safety report (CSR) for the use and notify it to Echa. "If the registrant concludes that they cannot support the use on safety grounds and the downstream user cannot provide a downstream user CSR to the enforcement authority, use of the substance would most likely be considered illegal," Echa says.
The European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) will produce its CSR by the deadline, Dirk Keller of Koehler Paper, an ETPA member company, told Chemical Watch.
Meanwhile, Echa’s Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) is assessing France’s proposal for an EU-wide restriction on the use of BPA in thermal paper because of concerns related to workers’ health (CW 3 December 2014). With this in mind, the German competent authority evaluating the substance in 2013 requested more information to clarify environment exposure to BPA.
“Our main concerns are emissions to the environment due to the use of thermal paper, which is used in an open context and it also gets into the environment through the process of recycling paper,” says Dr Christoph Schulte, head of the chemicals unit at the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA).
To clarify the paths through which BPA ends up in the environment, the BPA consortium will hire a technical consultancy to conduct an environmental modelling exercise. The consortium and the UBA cooperated in setting up the terms of reference for the project, which is expected to start in March and run for six months.
This cooperation between the German authority and the consortium is "potentially a new and huge way forward", says ReachCentrum. The modelling results will have to be submitted by the consortium to Echa and the German competent authorities, as part of the former’s duties in the follow-up to the substance evaluation decision.
Discovering how BPA ends up in the environment is just the first step of a longer process, says Dr Schulte, and the UBA thinks a monitoring programme is also needed to verify the project’s conclusions. Several locations, such as thermal paper manufacturing facilities and municipal wastewater treatment plants, may be identified for this. Several other EU countries are interested in joining such a programme, he says, and the UBA is considering setting up a steering committee. The agency wants the BPA consortium to be involved in the modelling programme as well. “It’s a good example of how it could work to verify that risk management is successful," says Dr Schulte. "We see it as an important risk management step outside of the regulatory context.”
The environment modelling programme that is about to start is based on the premise that the recycling of thermal paper is the main route for BPA ending up in the environment. However, if it identifies other important exposure routes, the German authorities may propose a restriction on them too.
-
EU Commission Launches Major REACH Impacts Study
Feb 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A study that aims to evaluate the impact of REACH on the operational conditions and structure of chemical and downstream industries has been launched by the European Commission's industry directorate, DG Growth.
An extensive survey has been launched to provide information for the study, which is being jointly prepared by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES), Risk & Policy Analysts and Ökopol. The project's aim, says the survey, is to “remedy any weaknesses identified during the study with a view to minimising possible adverse effects of the REACH implementation and to maximise the impacts of specific REACH mechanisms which improve conditions for businesses.”
The survey consists of nearly 90 questions in 12 sections including:
the single market and harmonisation;
registration from the perspective of chemical companies, and downstream users, distributors and suppliers;
business opportunities and innovation;
Siefs and consortia;impacts on formulators and article suppliers;human resources and consultants;
candidate list substances, substances of very high concern, authorisations and restrictions;the 2018 REACH registration deadline; and
support structures.
The survey, which is available in eight European languages, is open until 10 March. The three consultants will provide a set of recommendations to DG Growth in June, based on the survey results and additional information that will be gathered through more in-depth interviews. The aim is to provide insights on the impacts of REACH on market structure, consumer choice and prosperity, as well as examine compliance costs and administrative procedures.
CSES's Jan Smit says the questionnaire is mainly qualitative. The consultants aim to pick up more quantitative data via the in-depth interviews that it hopes companies responding to the survey will agree to give.
According to REACH Article 117(4), the Commission must produce a review of how the Regulation is working every five years. The first was due on 1 June 2012, but was actually published eight months late in February 2013, so the second review should be expected by early 2018.
-
CSB Points To California Process Safety Proposal As Model For EPA
Feb 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) is pointing to a California plan for strict process safety measures for oil refineries, saying the state’s proposed requirements for analysis and use of safer technologies could serve as model for EPA to improve facility safety, though CSB has yet to meet with EPA on the topic.
Since last year, CSB, in accident investigation reports and comments to EPA, has repeatedly urged the agency to strengthen requirements for facility safety, including by requiring use of controversial safety measures, though CSB officials say their recommendations, so far, have received greater reception at the state level than with EPA.
In a Feb. 12 interview with Inside EPA, CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso said EPA should follow California’s lead and propose similar process safety requirements for all facilities covered under EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) accident prevention program.
“Where we’re having the most impact on this issue is at the state level, in California,” Moure-Eraso said, noting the California Department of Industrial Relations last fall proposed new requirements to prevent accidents and has also increased resources for inspections.
“If the state law gets more sophisticated and more preventative, I think that is something that we look forward to that could be done nationwide,” Moure-Eraso said. While acknowledging additional inspectors would be needed to check for violations of new rules, he said, “I believe if California can do it, and California sees this as a priority, I don’t know why EPA couldn’t do the same at the national level.”
Moure-Eraso and other CSB officials during the interview said board staff are seeking meetings with EPA on the CSB’s call in recent comments for EPA to use authority under the Clean Air Act to require facilities to use inherently safer technologies (IST), usually less-toxic chemicals or process changes that may reduce the likelihood or consequences of an accident or attack, though CSB has not yet been granted that meeting.
Meanwhile, environmental, labor and other advocates who are also urging EPA to require facilities to use IST, met Feb. 12 with officials with EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and raised the possibility of EPA following the California proposal, according to a source familiar with the meeting. EPA officials did not say whether the agency would follow California’s approach, the source says.
“It’s a major step forward in the direction that we’re looking for the EPA to take,” the source says of California’s proposal, adding that while the state’s proposal is limited to refineries, EPA should consider similar measures for all facilities that store large quantities of hazardous chemicals.
Stronger Requirements
The advocates’ and CSB’s call for EPA to follow California in tightening standards for industrial facility safety comes as EPA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are weighing how to strengthen regulations in response to President Obama’s Executive Order 13650 on improving the safety and security of industrial plants.
Obama issued the order in August 2013, in the wake of an ammonium nitrate explosion, in April of that year, at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, that killed 15 people and wounded 200 others. The president’s order seeks to improve the safety and security of industrial plants through improved communication and information sharing, as well as modernized policies, rules and standards.
But environmental and labor groups, who in 2012 petitioned EPA to require IST, as well as some Democratic lawmakers, have said EPA is not moving fast enough to strengthen facility safety. Last year, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), then chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, noted EPA has not addressed her call for the agency to act on the CSB’s 2002 recommendation to add ammonium nitrate to the RMP program, nor answered advocates’ calls to require IST.
In a report issued in June, EPA outlined a multi-year process for encouraging use of IST, by issuing an alert and guidance on safer processes, and then considering whether to require analysis or use of IST, though the agency has said it would not select the specific processes companies would use.
EPA took comment through October on a request for information (RFI) on strengthening the RMP, which currently requires facilities to report holdings of threshold levels of certain chemicals and to reduce the risk of their accidental release.
In the RFI, EPA suggests potentially sweeping changes to the RMP rule, ranging from covering new chemicals and requiring new process safety analysis and review of past near-accidents, to scrapping the RMP program in favor of a different approach.
CSB officials tell Inside EPA they are backing California’s proposed revisions to its Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Process Safety Management Standard, announced in September, that would require oil refineries to assess the hazards of their processes and implement safer processes where feasible.
As part of the process hazard analysis, California refineries would have to consider past accidents within the industry as well as inherently safer processes, and inspect for damaged equipment, according to an Oct. 31 red-lined version of the state proposal.
Refineries would have to promptly change to safer technologies or processes where feasible and document any deferred implementation of those changes, giving a time frame for when the change will be implemented.
The proposal also would require companies to include employees in process hazard evaluations, notify employees of hazards, and develop worker safety mechanisms that allow for anonymous reporting of hazards and authority to stop work or shut down processes based on safety or health concerns.
Model Approach
While the proposal is to improve a process safety management standard for refineries, CSB officials said EPA could implement similar rules for facilities covered under the agency’s RMP program. A significant difference between the California proposal and current federal regulation, CSB officials said during the interview, is a requirement that refineries meet a risk-based standard “to reduce the risks associated with a process to the greatest extent feasible.”
CSB Managing Director Daniel Horowitz said numerous CSB investigations have found that process safety improvements, which companies were familiar with but did not employ, would have prevented serious accidents that caused injuries, deaths and millions of dollars in damages.
“There needs to be some sort of driver for industry to take a look at those things and make the safest choices where they’re available and that driver doesn’t exist right now” in federal regulations, Horowitz said.
Industry and some Republican legislators have opposed calls for a federal IST requirement, saying that companies already consider safer processes where feasible, and that EPA should formally consult with the U.S. Small Business Administration to ensure potential changes to the RMP program do not unnecessarily burden small companies.
In requesting comments on the July RFI for strengthening RMP, EPA asked that comments consider the costs of any recommended changes, as well as the benefits in risk reduction.
Moure-Eraso and Horowitz said many changes that reduce risk of accidents are not expensive, and that increased inspections, which would be needed if safety requirements are strengthened are worth the cost.
“There are so many cost-effective design changes that the companies could have used to prevent these accidents,” Horowitz said, adding that different piping material could have prevented a fire a 2012 fire at Chevron oil refinery in Richmond, CA, and sprinkler systems might have prevented or mitigated the fire and explosion at the West fertilizer facility. “These accidents cost a fortune, not just money but in lives and preventing them often costs a pittance,” Horowitz said.
CSB first called for EPA to require IST in May 2014 report on the fatal April 2010 explosion and fire at the Tesoro oil refinery in Anacortes, WA, that killed seven workers. CSB reiterated the call in Oct. 29 comments on EPA’s RFI for strengthening the RMP, and also sought a dialogue with EPA on that issue as well as on a recommendation to improve transparency of facility safety information to improve local emergency planning and response. CSB officials told Inside EPA they have yet to meet with EPA on their October comments on the RMP RFI, and emphasized that states are moving forward with changes such as stricter safety requirements at some facilities or stronger inspections, based on CSB recommendations that have also been made at the federal level.
-
Explosion at Exxon Refinery in California
Feb 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
A "large explosion" occurred at an ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, Calif., officials said on Wednesday.
The Los Angeles Times reports Torrance police announced a "second-alarm fire explosion" and that surrounding streets were closed.
Residents in the area were also told to shelter in place, turn off heating and air systems and close windows.
Todd Spitler, an ExxonMobile spokesman, said the incident happened Wednesday morning.
"Our main concern is for the safety of our employees and our neighbors," Spitler said, according to the LA Times. "We are accounting for all personnel and still evaluating the cause of the incident, or the occurrence or amount of any damages." Energy & Environment Best Sellers:Climate Change: What th…Charles Fletcher (Paperbac…$55.38Energy, Environment, an…Richard Wolfson (Paperback…$94.62Sustainable Energy - Wit…David JC MacKay (Paperba…$29.2912>Privacy
Schools were also told to shelter in place after the explosion, after reports of poor air quality spread and what appeared to be ash in the air.
Torrance Fire Capt. Steve Deuel said the explosion could have been caused by a petroleum product leak.
-
Residents Shelter in Place Following L.A.-Area Refinery Blast
Feb 18, 2015 | E&E News PM
A large explosion at an Exxon Mobil Corp. refinery in Torrance, Calif., this morning had police ordering people in nearby residences and schools to shelter in place.
Following the explosion, residents reported that ash was falling from the sky, and police told residents to remain indoors and turn off heating and air conditioning systems and to close their windows.
The explosion occurred at 8:50 a.m. local time, according to Exxon Mobil spokesman Todd Spitler. He said the cause of the accident and the scope of the damage are not yet clear and that employees were still being accounted for as of 10:30 a.m.
The refinery, which processes an average of 155,000 barrels of crude oil per day, spans 750 acres and has 650 employees and 550 contractors. The South Coast Air Quality District said inspectors are assessing air quality following the explosion. The city of Torrance tweeted that there was "no chemical release," and so the shelter in place order was not issued citywide (Veronica Rocha, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 18).
-
Murkowski, 19 Senators Ask Commerce To Authorize Export of Oil to Mexico
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Commerce Department should authorize the export of oil to Mexico, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and 19 other senators wrote in a letter to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker.
Such a move would “harmonize” trade policy with Canada, with which the export of oil is allowed, Murkowski, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement.
“President [Ronald] Reagan authorized oil exports to Canada 30 years ago—a decision that contributed to lower consumer fuel prices and greater domestic energy production,” Murkowski said. “Mexico deserves the same treatment. This is an opportunity for Congress and the administration to work together for the common good.”
The letter comes as an application from Pemex, Mexico's state-owned oil company, to swap heavy Mexican crude oil for lighter grade U.S. petroleum is pending before the Commerce Department, according to Murkowski's office.
“We encourage the Department of Commerce to approve any such applications it has received or may receive from adjacent foreign states, such as Mexico,” the letter said. “The Energy Policy and Conservation Act and other relevant statutes clearly authorize swaps and exchanges and, in our view, deserve bipartisan support.”
The letter, which was signed by Democratic Sens. Cory Gardner (N.J.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), comes as Murkowski and others in Congress, are seeking in the wake of record domestic oil production to lift the broader ban on the export of crude oil put in place in the wake of the Arab oil embargo.
-
Senators Push for Oil Exports to Mexico
Feb 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Twenty-one senators signed on to a letter Wednesday asking the Commerce Department to allow crude oil to be exported to Mexico.
The bipartisan group led by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker should allow exports to Mexico in the same way Canadian exports have been allowed since the 1980s.
They asked Pritzker to allow an oil swap that Mexican state-owned oil company Pemex recently requested, and to go further. The swap would exchange heavy crude from Mexico for light crude from the United States.
“In fact, we believe it would be appropriate to further liberalize energy trading with Mexico,” they wrote.
“President Reagan issued a national interest finding in 1985 stating that oil exports to Canada (for consumption in that country) were in accord with existing statutes and would not threaten U.S. supply,” they said.
“As a result of the expressed interest from Mexico in obtaining U.S. crude oil, we encourage the current administration to follow President Reagan’s example by issuing a similar finding that United States oil exports to Mexico, for consumption in Mexico, are in the national interest.”
Crude oil exports have been all but banned for 40 years, thanks to a law passed after the 1973 oil crisis. Some lawmakers have advocated recently for Congress to loosen the ban, and for the Obama administration to use whatever authority it has to allow some exports.
Last year, Commerce started to allow condensate, a lightly processed form of oil, to be exported.
-
Obama’s War on Arctic Energy | Commentary
Feb 19, 2015 | Roll Call
By David Hunt
After long delays, the Obama administration has finally made a decision on its Arctic policy and focus on the development of the vast amounts of natural resources that encircle Alaska. Several decisions actually.
Unfortunately, they took a step in the wrong direction for the nation’s goals for self-sufficiency, economic growth and national security.
Rather than solidify our national security by expanding our country’s diverse energy portfolio and opening up several areas of the energy-rich Arctic region to exploration and production, the administration, with leadership of the Arctic Council just a few months away, chose to set a bad example by closing off much of this territory via a recent series of puzzling announcements that will be at the center of debate at next month’s Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, according to Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.
First, the president issued an executive order creating a steering committee on U.S. Arctic policy that excluded Alaskan natives and officials — you got that right, there were not any Alaskans on the Arctic policy steering committee. Then, the administration asked Congress to designate several parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a wilderness area, putting the land off-limits for drilling and violating multiple agreements and promises that Washington had previously made to Alaska. Days later, the Interior Department unveiled a draft of its proposed leasing program for offshore waters between 2017 and 2022 — and did not include several portions of the Arctic’s resources-rich Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, restricting access to some of the world’s most prolific reserves of oil and natural gas. Not to be lost is the multiple-year delay in permitting and approving energy development in existing leases held in both seas.
This chain of proclamations shows just how out-of-touch the president continues to be on the significance of this influential part of the world. Newer, more efficient shipping routes, combined with potential world class untapped oil and natural gas resources, has made the Arctic an emerging hotbed for control of international affairs. But while many countries have moved quickly to leave their mark in the region, America, to date, has not.
Even though Alaskan oil was instrumental in helping the U.S. undo the Soviet Union back in the 1980s, the administration remains oddly in the dark about the geopolitical importance of the Arctic. This region’s significance, however, is not lost on the Russians, who have launched a large-scale militarization that includes a 6,000-solider permanent military force in the northwest Murmansk region, new radar and guidance system capabilities, and nuclear-powered submarines and icebreakers. Russia is also engaged in Arctic territorial disputes with Canada, sidestepping the United Nation in the process while drawing up somber memories of the Cold War.
With Russia shaken by tumbling crude oil prices — a global market trend led by America’s new role as an oil and gas leader with an abundance of energy and a decreasing need for imports — now is the time for the president to open more exploration and production in yet to-be-tapped regions. Such a maneuver would have would have helped to hamper Russia’s military advancement in the Arctic, while creating jobs here at home and further improving our national security. After all, it grows increasingly harder — and costly — to maintain a colossal military presence when oil prices, the Russian economy’s bread and butter, stays low.
Instead, the president has acted to restrict access to some of the most resources-rich sectors of the world. The damaging impact of his decisions are far reaching. They impede our ability to learn significant maritime information. They reduce our navigation and border security capabilities. And they obstruct our ability to grow our energy infrastructure, which would keep us moderately reliant on foreign rivals such as OPEC for oil. The results will be to lead us deeper into debt and help fund our greatest adversaries.
As both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives will highlight in upcoming hearings, there is still time for the administration to right this wrong and jettison overly prescriptive regulations that stifle innovation and are counter to our geopolitical interest in regions such as the Arctic. This would help us utilize all available resources to counter rivals such as Russia and boost our ongoing energy boom in the lower 48 states, which has made the U.S. more self-sufficient and secure than ever before.
It can be done. All it takes is advancing policy aimed at improving our infrastructure and safeguarding our borders rather than progressing misguided agendas that benefit our rivals.
-
UIC Wells May Be Vehicle For Fracking Suits Due To Hurdles For Tort Claims
Feb 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Legal observers are suggesting that landowners and others opposed to hydraulic fracturing might shift their litigation strategy from tort claims over water pollution and other harms to a new vehicle of suing over permitted underground injection control wells (UIC) for fracking wastewater, due to significant legal hurdles in pursuing tort claims over fracking.
“If folks concentrated on [UIC] wells I think we could create a great deal of responsibility” among operators and regulators, says one attorney who frequently represents landowner plaintiffs in oil and gas cases.
A gas sector lawyer adds that seismic risks associated with oil and gas wastewater disposal may draw increasing attention in litigation, potentially through lawsuits claiming inadequate protection for underground sources of drinking water due to increased seismicity.
EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act UIC “Class II” permitting program has come under increased scrutiny alongside the shale gas boom, given that in much of the United States, the use of the wells is industry's and the agency's preferred method for disposing of the wastewater associated with oil and gas production such as fracking. The UIC program is used to govern underground injections, such as wastewater disposed of in deep reservoirs.
But the landowner attorney notes that overuse of such wells has led to concerns about potentially inadequate EPA and state oversight, and a high profile set of instances where earthquakes have been linked to Class II UIC wells used for oil and gas wastewater. “They're overused and there are way too many of them,” the source says.
Environmentalists have pushed for the agency to regulate the sector's wastes as hazardous under federal law, a designation that would automatically require more stringent Class I rules for disposal wells.
The UIC program may be an “Achilles heel” for the oil and gas industry, the landowner attorney says, creating a new avenue to fight fracking and other operations after setbacks to tort claims against industry.
Environmentalists and others have long viewed damages litigation as a vital tool to pressure industry to agree to new or more stringent regulations on oil and gas operations -- especially in cases such as fracking where they view industry practices as unregulated or insufficiently regulated by states or the federal government.
Recent technological advances in fracking have opened up large shale reserves across the country to rapid development of oil and gas plays, bringing the industry much closer than in previous decades to residential areas and creating concerns that government oversight was inadequate to prevent contamination.
Complicating the issue is that a number of environmental laws giving EPA permit, emergency and other authorities contain exemptions for aspects of oil and gas drilling. For example, the 2005 energy law barred EPA from directly regulating fracking injections -- except where diesel fuel is used -- under the UIC program.
Fracking Claims
Tort claims have faced steep legal hurdles in the courts in recent years. At the outset of the shale gas boom, some saw the industry as being subject to a wave of litigation similar to that over methyl teriary butyl ether (MTBE) water contamination, but several industry sources say those predictions have not played out.
Unlike fracking injections, which occur well below the drinking water supply, MTBE contamination is more likely to occur because it was a component of gasoline stored in underground tanks above groundwater strata, the industry source says. And plaintiffs have faced losses in their efforts to pursue fracking tort claims.
In a recent decision, Judge John Jones III of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Nolen Scott Ely, et al v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation and Gassearch Drilling Services Corporation opted to dismiss a number of claims against the drillers, narrowing the massive suit to only a single claim each of negligence and private nuisance.
In a Jan. 12 order, Jones granted the companies' motion for summary judgment on claims for fraudulent inducement, medical monitoring, personal injury, negligence per se, but denied the motion with respect to the remaining two claims -- which have a lower threshold for the amount of evidence the plaintiffs must submit to prove the claim.
“I look at the Cabot case as representative of the run of the mill fracking claims” which account for the “vast majority” of cases up to this point, a second industry source says, noting the majority of claims with high evidentiery bars tend to be quickly dismissed, leaving easier to prove claims such as negligence.
“A lot of claims boil down to nuisance and negligence at the end of the day,” the source says, giving that those legal claims are usually based on property value and simpler to establish.
For example, the first industry attorney says personal injury cases are difficult as they are subject to Daubert v. Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the Supreme Court case that set the standard for admissibility of scientific evidence. The ruling requires a trial judge to scrutinize medical expert testimony to determine reliability before allowing it to proceed to a jury.
In contrast, nuisance claims often only require a showing that water quality has changed in color, indicating a loss in water quality, after drilling began near a property and that “arguably can be enough to get to a jury,” the source says.
“I think courts are still struggling with causation in these kinds of claims,” the first industry source says, noting that the Colorado Supreme Court in 2014 agreed to review a state appellate court finding in William G. Strudley v. Antero Resources Corporation, disallowing use of a causation order to require landowner plaintiffs to establish some evidence linking the plaintiffs' injuries to Antero's operations.
Proving Causation
Causation, which refers to an evidence-based link between a defendant's conduct and a resulting adverse effect suffered by the plaintiff, is a key element underlying most tort claims, but can be one of the most difficult to show in environmental suits.
The Antero ruling represented one of the first in a toxic tort claim involving fracking, given that a majority of these types of cases have resulted in settlements. The appellate ruling reversed a district court dismissing a lawsuit by the plaintiffs, who live near the company's Silt, CO, drilling operations.
The tort suit sought damages for negligence, trespass, nuisance, strict liability and other claims for alleged contamination, but the District Court for the City and County of Denver held that plaintiffs were unable to meet the order's requirement for a prima facie showing that exposure to air and water contaminated with chemical releases linked to fracking caused adverse health effects.
However, the issues in Strudley are also significant because the court based its dismissal on the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a modified case management order, also called a Lone Pine order, which industry asked the court to enter.
The orders are named after a 1986 New Jersey ruling, Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., and require plaintiffs to produce credible expert evidence at the start of the case to establish that they can support at least some elements of causation before the case moves into the more costly pre-trial discovery phase.
In suits that involve fracking operations, the orders were seen as especially useful to industry defendants because of difficulties in showing a causal link between human health effects and environmental releases from fracking -- a necessary bar for winning a tort claim but one that is difficult to meet given that the exposure pathways are notoriously unclear.
A Colorado high court ruling upholding use of the order would be “encouraging” to plaintiffs even and industry defendants in other states have increasingly been relying on such orders in similar cases involving drilling, the first industry source says.
In another high profile torts claim involving drilling, Parr v. Aruba Petroleum, a Dallas County jury in Texas last year awarded a $2.9 million verdict to plaintiffs -- an amount far greater than the $275,000 property value award. The jury attributed the majority of the award to compensation for pain and suffering and mental anguish in spite of the fact that the court dismissed personal injury, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and other costly damage claims, leaving the jury to deliberate only nuisance and trespass claims. The decision marks “one of the first cases where a nuisance claim resulted in a large verdict,” the first industry source says.
-
Feb 18, 2015 | De Smog Blog
By Mike Gaworecki
Adding to the already lengthy list of reasons to be concerned about the disposal of oil industry wastewater in California, the Center for Biological Diversity says it has found dangerous levels of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals such as benzene and toluene in fracking flowback.
Flowback is a fluid that floats up to the surface of fracked wells that contains clays, dissolved metal ions and total dissolved solids (such as salt) in addition to chemical additives used in the fracking process.
As such, flowback is a component of oil industry wastewater, and one of the chief reasons why the wastewater must be disposed of in a very cautious manner.
In California, where the toxic and cancer-causing chemicals were found to be present in flowback by the CBD, oil industry wastewater is not, unfortunately, disposed of in a cautious manner.
The most common wastewater disposal method is to inject it underground. It was recently revealed that California regulators have allowed hundreds of injection wells to pump wastewater into aquifers protected under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Regulators also permitted thousands more wells to inject fluids from “enhanced oil recovery” techniques like acidization and cyclic steam injection into protected aquifers.
Wastewater is also sometimes stored in pits, but again, California regulators have failed to enforce proper safeguards. Clean Water Action released a report last year detailing the threat to California's air and water from the open, unlined pits used to store much of the oil industry's toxic wastewater. According to the report, at least 432 of these pits are currently in use in California, most of them operating with an expired permit or no permit at all.
“Cancer-causing chemicals are surfacing in fracking flowback fluid just as we learn that the California oil industry is disposing of wastewater in hundreds of illegal disposal wells and open pits,” said Hollin Kretzmann, the CBD lawyer who conducted the analysis. “Gov. Brown needs to shut down all the illegal wells immediately and ban fracking to fight this devastating threat to California’s water supply.”
It wasn’t just the chemicals Kretzmann found in fracking flowback that are a cause for concern, either. Laxe enforcement of reporting rules make it hard to determine the true extent of the problem, though the CBD still found enough to raise serious questions about the threats flowback fluid poses to public health: • High chromium-6 levels: Chromium-6 was found in fracking flowback at levels up to 2,700 times the recommended level set by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
• Missing reports: At least 100 fracking flowback tests are missing from the reporting website managed by California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, in violation of state law.
• Missing benzene data: Only 329 of the 479 fracking fluid chemical tests on the state oil agency’s website measured for benzene.
*bull; Benzene common: Of those 329 chemical tests that measured for benzene, 323 detected benzene while only six did not.
• Dangerous toluene levels: Toluene, a toxin that can affect the central nervous system and harm developing fetuses, was found to exceed federal-mandated limits for drinking water 118 times. In some cases, benzene levels in fracking flowback were over 1,500 times the level the federal government says is safe for drinking water. Both chromium-6 and benzene are known carcinogens.
California is the country’s third-largest oil producing state, with some 20% of its oil production coming from fracked wells, according to a recent study that also found that half of all new wells drilled in the past decade use fracking. -
Sabine Pass LNG Requests Immediate OK From FERC to Energize Substations
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Cheniere Energy Inc. has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for immediate approval to “energize” all Sabine Pass LNG project Stage 1 substations related to the construction and operation of the Sabine Pass liquefaction project, the company said in a compliance filing Feb. 18.
The company requested immediate authorization in order to remain on schedule with construction of the Louisiana export terminal, the filing said. In addition to the request, the company also submitted documentation of compliance with two of the conditions in FERC's original order approving the project .
Under condition 47 of the FERC order, Sabine Pass must complete all pertinent tests associated with the distributed control system that demonstrates full functionality and operability of the system prior to commissioning. The company said it will complete all the necessary tests prior to energizing the substations.
To comply with condition 50 listed in the FERC order, Sabine Pass also will file a plan for functional and operational tests of the final design prior to commissioning, the filing said.
The company said it submitted a pre-energizing plan for the stage 1 substations, which includes safety review documentation.
Semiannual Reports Filed
A number of LNG projects submitted their semiannual reports to FERC. Dominion Cove Point LNG submitted its report Feb. 18 for the period between July 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2014, while Freeport LNG Development submitted its report to FERC Feb. 17 for the same time period.
Reports for Gulf LNG, Southern LNG Co., UGI LNG Inc. and Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.'s Chesapeake LNG facility were also filed but not publicly released.
Dominion Cove Point LNG, located in Maryland, received three ships from July to December 2014, containing a total of about 9.2 million dekatherms (Dth) of LNG, the company said in its report. LNG production at the terminal for that time period totaled about 2.2 million Dth, the report said.
Dominion Cove Point also outlined 10 significant modifications it plans to undertake in 2015, including replacing the fireproofing in the CPX process area and repairing the insulation on a section of piping next to the 114F Desuperheater.
Actions Identified During 2014 FERC Inspection
Both of these actions were identified during a 2014 FERC inspection. Cove Point also will continue security enhancements to prepare for the proposed liquefaction expansion projects, the report said.
In November 2014, Dominion's 101FB LNG storage tank experienced a suspected rollover, resulting in a pressure excursion and release of about 8 million cubic feet of gas, the report said. The event was controlled, and no injuries or damage occurred, according to the report.
In a separate Feb. 18 filing to FERC, Cove Point LNG submitted supplemental information to its implementation plan for construction at the LNG terminal.
The company asked for written authorization from the director of FERC's Office of Energy Projects, no later than March 20 for a notice to proceed with constructing foundations and associated pilings.
Freeport LNG Begins Plant Modifications
The Freeport LNG terminal plans to begin significant plant modifications in 2015, according to the company's semiannual report.
Significant modifications include the relocation of portions of the perimeter fencing around the Regas Terminal to facilitate access during construction to the laydown area and other work areas, as well as ongoing project construction, the company said.
FERC granted authorization in July to allow Freeport LNG to site, construct and operate natural gas liquefaction facilities at the existing Freeport LNG terminal and adjacent areas. No substantive changes were made to facility or operating conditions from July to December.
One cargo was imported into the Freeport LNG terminal, and none was exported, the company said.
About 728.78 million British thermal units were liquefied using the BOGR unit during the period, but no other liquefaction or vaporization occurred during the reporting period.
Equipment, Instrumentation Malfunctions Occurred
There were a couple of significant equipment/instrumentation malfunctions outlined in the report, including a rupture in an underground firewater supply line along the Velasco levee system leading to the dock area, which was repaired.
Freeport also discovered that each of the loading arms had suffered corrosion and would have to be replaced. One of the affected loading arms, LA-1C, was removed and taken to the manufacturer for repairs.
Freeport LNG expects to re-install LA-1C during the first quarter of 2015. The company plans to remove and repair each of the other loading arms as well. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
Clean Air Act Jobs Review Meant to Bolster Case for Regulations, EPA Tells Court
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A Clean Air Act requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency periodically review the jobs impact of its rules is meant to bolster the case for environmental regulation rather than dissuade rulemaking, the agency told a federal court (Murray Energy Corp. v. McCarthy, N.D. W.Va., No. 5:14-cv-00039-JPB, response filed 2/17/15).
Coal companies seeking to compel the EPA to conduct the jobs review required under Section 321 of the Clean Air Act lack standing to bring their lawsuit because the law's provision wasn't intended to protect their interests, the EPA told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia in a Feb. 17 filing.
The EPA is asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Murray Energy Corp. and affiliated companies that seeks to compel the agency to conduct the required job impact review of its regulations such as proposed carbon dioxide performance standards for power plants and air toxics emissions limits for industrial boilers.
The EPA in December asked the court to dismiss Murray Energy's lawsuit due to a lack of standing. Its latest filing reiterates its case for dismissing the lawsuit after Murray Energy argued it has standing to pursue the litigation.
The EPA said the legislative history of Section 321 clearly demonstrates the provision was meant to provide data about the job impacts of Clean Air Act rules to prevent companies from using purported job losses to pressure the agency to weaken its regulations.
Provision Wasn't Meant to Undermine EPA
“Thus, the legislative history demonstrates that Section 321 was designed to protect against the same type of claims concerning the employment effects of CAA regulation contained in plaintiffs’ complaint, not to undermine EPA's ability to administer and enforce the CAA,” the EPA said.
Murray Energy argued in a Jan. 23 court filing that it has standing to pursue its lawsuit because the agency's failure to consider the potential job losses caused by its rules cause direct economic harm to the company (17 DEN A-1, 1/27/15).
The EPA argued, however, that Murray Energy lacks standing to bring the lawsuit because it is not affected by the agency's failure to conduct the jobs review.
Additionally, many of the rules cited by Murray Energy as needing a jobs review regulated power plants and not coal mines, the EPA said.
Hasn't Eliminated Discretion
“Plaintiffs’ allegations of indirect economic harm require this court to assume, among other things, that EPA's regulation of third-party coal-fired power plants has eliminated the discretion of those third parties as to how to comply with EPA's actions or how to operate their businesses,” the agency said. “Absent that assumption, plaintiffs have not alleged an injury traceable to EPA's actions.”
The EPA previously asked that the lawsuit be dismissed because the law doesn't stipulate any date by which the review must be completed. Judge John Preston Bailey denied that request (208 DEN A-3, 10/28/14).
-
EPA Finalizes Long-Awaited Implementation Rule For 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Feb 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has finalized its rule telling states how to implement the agency's 2008 ozone standard, after a hiatus that has further delayed states' efforts to put the ozone limit into effect after years of litigation had already significantly slowed the process.
The rule signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy Feb. 13, but not yet published in the Federal Register, finalizes EPA's June 6, 2013, proposal that sets requirements for state implementation plans (SIPs) that outline states' strategies to meet the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
EPA set the NAAQS at 75 parts per billion (ppb), tougher than the prior 1997 standard of 80 ppb, which is expressed as 84ppb. However, lengthy legal challenges put implementation of the new standard years behind schedule.
State regulators have been eagerly awaiting the SIP rule, which sets deadlines for submission of various SIP components required under the Clean Air Act, and lays out detailed, substantive requirements for SIPs, such as reasonably available control technology, criteria for states to show “reasonable further progress,” and others.
Also, EPA in the rule says that if it chooses to tighten the ozone NAAQS again, it “expects that this rule will help facilitate implementation of any new standards.” EPA is due to issue a final rule that will likely tighten the standard again to a level within a proposed range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb by Oct. 1.
EPA in the implementation rule has abandoned its proposed approach to consolidate various deadlines for SIP elements, which was intended to ease state's compliance by allowing them to submit various documents together instead of separately. The approach would have delayed submission of some SIP components and accelerated submission of others, but EPA in the final rule acknowledges doubts over the legality of this approach raised by some observers in public comments.
The rule further clarifies that states will not profit from several additional months to come into compliance with the NAAQS, which EPA in a 2012 “classifications” rule intended to provide by allowing states until the end of a calendar year to come into compliance. Previously, states were given a prescribed number of years to meet the NAAQS after designation of areas as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” for a NAAQS.
The change of course follows a Dec. 23 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found EPA's initial approach to attainment deadlines illegal. The ruling cast further doubt on whether EPA could alter SIP submission deadlines from those prescribed under the air law.
“The EPA believes that the recent ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court on the Classifications Rule impacts the level of flexibility EPA is able to provide regarding SIP due dates,” EPA says in the rule. Also, the court in rejecting EPA's classifications rule also found illegal EPA's partial revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the purposes of “transportation conformity,” a requirement that state transportation projects do not result in ozone violations. Now, EPA in its new rule revokes the 1997 NAAQS in its entirety, and leaves in place a series of “anti-backsliding” measures to ensure that abolishing the old standard does not result in relaxation of certain controls to limit ozone.
-
Sierra Club Urges Stricter Permit Limits For Coal-Fired Power Plant Near St. Louis
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Brown
A proposed discharge permit for a coal-fired power plant near St. Louis lacks adequate safeguards for the Missouri River and local groundwater, the Sierra Club said at a public hearing.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the Labadie Power Plant, which is operated by Ameren Corp., was the subject of a hearing conducted Feb. 17 by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
According to a Feb. 17 Sierra Club statement, the permit fails to impose strict enough limits on releases of toxic metals from coal-ash ponds near the plant.
In addition, the permit fails to properly limit hot-water discharges from the plant into the Missouri River, which threaten the endangered pallid sturgeon and other aquatic life, the statement said.
The permit also doesn't require adequate groundwater monitoring at the coal-ash ponds, which have been leaking for more than two decades, the statement said.
“The last time that Ameren had an up-to-date permit, it was 1999,” Andy Knott, a Sierra Club spokesman, said in the statement. “Clean water is a basic right, and it's about time we better protected it. It is vital that DNR holds Ameren accountable for the pollution it emits into our rivers every day.”
In a statement, Ameren said: “We take our role as stewards of the environment seriously and will continue to work closely with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Labadie Energy Center complies with current permit requirements designed to preserve and protect the environment and will continue to do so in the future while producing the vital energy needed for our state.”
Emily Rosenwasser, a Sierra Club spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 18 that the group will submit technical and legal comments before the March 3 deadline to supplement its comments at the public hearing.
Rosenwasser said it was too early to discuss a possible appeal of the permit or an eventual lawsuit.
“Missouri law does allow for appeals of water permits, but it is premature to discuss whether to file an appeal until the permit process runs its course and we see the final permit,” she said.
-
California Sets Stage to Re-Adopt, Revise Low-Carbon Fuel Standard
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The California Air Resources Board will consider Feb. 19 a proposal to re-adopt the low-carbon fuel standard to satisfy a 2013 court order that found the initial rulemaking violated the California Environmental Quality Act and state's Administrative Procedure Act.
At the meeting in Sacramento, the agency also will discuss proposed revisions to the low-carbon fuel program, drafted in part to offer regulated entities more flexibility, and a proposal to advance the commercialization of alternative diesel fuels.
CARB's governing board, however, will not vote on either proposal until later this year.
In July 2013, a state appellate court held that CARB, in adopting the regulations for the standard, violated the California Environmental Quality Act and Administrative Procedure Act. The court ordered the agency to re-adopt the regulations, but left the existing regulations in place (POET LLC v. CARB, Cal. Ct. App., No. F064045, 7/15/13; 137 DEN A-14, 7/17/13).
Based on the written comments on the proposals submitted by CARB's Feb. 17 deadline, the agency can still expect the petroleum and ethanol industries to remain staunchly opposed to the low-carbon fuel standard. And as expected, the clean energy and environmental advocates will support the program.
Preserves Basic Framework
None of the proposed revisions alter the basic framework of the low-carbon fuel standard, which requires all transportation fuels sold in the state to be 10 percent less carbon-intensive by 2020. In fact, the proposal calls for the low-carbon fuel standard, as originally adopted in 2009, and implemented Jan. 1, 2011, to be re-adopted in its entirety.
The implementing regulations established methodologies for calculating the life-cycle of carbon emissions of fuels and established a market-based system for compliance. Producers of low-carbon fuels earn credits they can either use or sell to others for compliance purposes.
In its comments, the Renewable Fuels Association continued to question CARB's analysis of the latest science on the impact of biofuels on global land-use patterns. The indirect land-use change analysis the agency is using to establish the carbon-intensity of ethanol fuels is flawed and “threatens the long-term durability of the LCSF program, the group said.
Growth Energy, another ethanol group, said that if adopted, the proposal would force its members away from the California alternative fuels market.
“Such an outcome will likely trigger the cost-containment caps in the proposed regulations, and any claimed benefits of the LCFS program will be compromised or lost,” David Bearden, Growth Energy's general counsel, said.
Growth Energy, BP America and other entities argued that California will be able to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions reduction target without the low-carbon fuel standard.
“The fundamental problems of the LCFS remains that it is not good public policy and is incorrectly structured in its reliance on the emergence of a significant low carbon fuels market,” Western States Petroleum Association President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said in a letter attached to the group's extensive comments on the proposals. “We do not see anything in the regulatory package to change our assessment that the LCFS program and compliance schedule will remain infeasible when reauthorized.’’
California Delivers, a coalition of 100 businesses, public health officials, utilities and others, submitted comments offering “unwavering support” for the low-carbon fuel standard.
Program Needed to Diversify Fuels
The program is encouraging the development of clean alternative fuels and vehicles, making consumers less vulnerable to price swings at the pump, diversifying the state's fuel supply and cutting air pollution and improving public health, the groups said in a letter.
Comments from another coalition of environmental and public health advocates, urged CARB not to cave into calls to weaken the program, and “to stay on course.”
“Years of accumulated experience under the LCFS show that the regulated parties continue to make significant progress in achieving the 10 percent in 2020 reduction requirement, with the current requirement being exceeded by nearly 70 percent,” the coalition, which includes the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund, said.
Regulatory certainty is needed to support the transition to low-carbon fuels that is occurring in California and throughout the Pacific region where Oregon, Washington and British Columbia are also working to implement or adopt clean fuel standards, the group said.
Proposed Revisions
The proposal includes revisions that would modify the interim requirements for years 2016 through 2019, offering not as steep a ramp-up to the 10 percent mandate required in 2020; provide cost containment provisions as an alternative compliance tool if the credit market gets too tight; and consider low-energy refining processes, the use of solar steam and carbon capture and sequestration.
Also, the proposed revisions would give small energy producers some added flexibility.
California's low-carbon fuel standard is a key element of the state's strategy to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as required under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
-
Federal Roadmap For Energy Infrastructure Must Not Burden State Trade Systems
Feb 18, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kris Johnson
Between the news reports of back-logged commodities waiting to be shipped via over-congested rail lines and tales of our oil and gas renaissance in places like North Dakota far outpacing the pipeline capacity necessary to ship it to market, it’s no secret that our nation’s energy infrastructure needs updating.
It’s also no secret that the needs of the nation are not identical from coast-to-coast. As Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz rolls out the first phase of the administration’s comprehensive strategy for modernizing the nation’s energy infrastructure in a couple of weeks, it’s imperative the administration consider the concerns of different regions of the country when making critical, long-term recommendations.
In Washington state, 40 percent of all jobs are linked to trade-related industries that are dependent on a well-integrated network of transportation infrastructure that supports not only interregional connections, but international ones as well. As president of the Association of Washington Business, Washington state’s largest business organization representing thousands of small, medium and large employers, it’s vital that the DOE’s Quadrennial Energy Review (QER) process recognizes the value of trade infrastructure to Washington and its critical importance to our daily lives, the economy, and national security.
The trade industry supports more than 1 million jobs in freight-dependent sectors such as manufacturing, agriculture, construction and forestry, producing nearly $434 billion in gross business income. However, in addition to the multitude of businesses listed, it also supports the freight movement of energy commodities as well.
Washington already benefits from over $115 million in private railroad investment annually. This investment is a critical piece of Washington’s trade infrastructure and has propelled our economy onto the fast lane of economic growth. According to a study done by the Washington Council for International Trade, freight rail alone contributes at least $28.5 billion to the Washington state economy and one in 10 jobs in Washington is related to rail activity.
In addition to rail, export growth is Washington’s best opportunity to spur economic development in the coming decades. Proposed export terminal expansions that service the international market with commodities from Washington state have the potential to provide an additional $800 million in wages and bring in more than $140 million in tax revenue. We need to ensure that proper, consistent market signals remain in place to keep investments flowing into ventures such as the expanded terminals, so our economy can reap the full benefits that will come with building out state trade infrastructure.
Unfortunately, in Washington there are current government procedures under review that will delay infrastructure decisions and in turn deter investment opportunities in both energy and trade infrastructure ventures. Expanding capacity and improving our freight infrastructure is vital for all product shippers, energy related or not. The DOE must set a clear standard in the QER that will allow for timely and efficient review of infrastructure projects. It is important for us to act now and support infrastructure investment so that these opportunities can ultimately improve the job and trade capacities of the region.
We understand the complexity of finding responsible solutions to our infrastructure woes and harmonizing solutions to benefit the larger system. However, growth opportunities for businesses and employment in Washington will continue to increase if our administration sets up a system that encourages companies to invest in our state’s trade infrastructure. Therefore, it is paramount that the DOE take into consideration regions like Washington that have a fundamental connection between energy and trade infrastructure and promote policies that encourage infrastructure investment, mitigate risk, and provide regulatory certainty.
-
State Department, EPA Launch Effort to Monitor Pollution Globally
Feb 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
The Obama administration announced on Wednesday the expansion of pollution monitoring at diplomatic posts across the world.
The State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled the joint endeavor on Wednesday in a signing ceremony, which highlighted the administration's climate change agenda.
Secretary of State John Kerry identified air pollution as a "serious and growing health threat worldwide" and said he hopes the new program will encourage international cooperation to curb pollution.
The program will build on EPA's AirNow system by setting up monitoring posts in various countries to improve data and information on pollution.
"Accurate, timely information on air pollution is absolutely critical," EPA chief Gina McCarthy said on Wednesday.
The effort will provide the public and government officials with better information on air quality at embassies and consulates worldwide and how to reduce pollution and improve air quality.
Kerry said monitoring systems will be set up in India, Vietnam and Mongolia in the coming months.
"The possibility of an ambitious, critical global climate agreement in Paris later this year is now on the horizon," Kerry said.
Roughly 200 countries are working toward signing a global climate change accord to slash greenhouse gas emissions. The White House is attempting to lead the way with multiple diplomatic efforts and encouraging action after signing a deal with China — the world's No. 1 emitter — in December.
However, Republicans on Capitol Hill may try to fight the administration's efforts to work towards a treaty and undermine the deal with China.
Republicans argue the U.S. is doing too much compared with other countries and will hurt the economy, and kill energy jobs by proposing ambitious climate change policies.
-
National and Environmental Security, Two Sides of Same Coin
Feb 18, 2015 | The Hill
By Amanda D. Rodewald
To protect the environment is to protect ourselves. This simple fact is reflected in the president's recently released 2015 "National Security Strategy" and backed up by spending priorities in the proposed federal budget.
Climate change. Global infectious disease outbreaks. Major energy market disruptions. Global economic crisis. Most of us are familiar with the direct and indirect consequences of these risks, such as rising sea levels, increased frequency of severe weather events and global pandemics that take human lives. In fact, the 2015 "National Security Strategy" calls out climate change specifically as an urgent and growing threat contributing to natural disasters, conflicts over basic resources, and refugee movements. A recent Pentagon report backed up this growing threat to national security. Climate change is no longer an "environmental" issue, but one that will affect all aspects of life to one degree or another.
Climate change is particularly insidious because it often acts as a threat multiplier, interacting with other factors like disease, food security, water security and poverty. Consider these relationships: By increasing the likelihood of extreme events like heavy rainfall and drought, climate change can increase the intensity of disease outbreaks. For example, when drought or flooding reduces access to food or clean water, people will be more physically stressed and therefore more vulnerable to disease. In these cases, outbreaks can swiftly turn into pandemics that rapidly spread across populations and countries, threatening global health and global economies. By impairing water supply needed for hydropower generation or causing cooling problems in power plants, climate change can create problems in energy and power sectors.
Climate change can even promote conflict, violence and terrorism. According to a 2010 Department of Homeland Security report, the likelihood of social and political destabilization, conflict and mass migration all increase with climate-related hazards.
The Obama administration is not the first to recognize the link between national security and climate change. A national intelligence assessment produced under the George W. Bush administration also found that climate change "will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the next 20 years."
As explained by the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, in his speech "Empowering Defense through Energy Security":
The scarcity of and potential competition for resources like water, food and space, complicated by an influx of refugees if coastal lands are lost, does not only create a humanitarian crisis but creates conditions of hopelessness that could lead to failed states and make populations vulnerable to radicalization. These challenges highlight the systemic implications and multiple-order effects inherent in energy security and climate change.
If we aspire to reduce those top risks articulated in our National Security Strategy, we need to invest in environmental protection, generally, and to address climate change, specifically. The president takes a step towards this in his recently proposed budget, which includes over $10 billion for programs across agencies to both help reduce climate change and to adapt to the effects.
Funding will reduce carbon emissions, grow investment in clean energy and climate science, build partnerships with local communities to increase climate resilience, and support our role as a global leader on climate change. The president's proposal also calls to reform the tax structure for energy companies, removing billions in incentives and redirecting resources toward renewable energy companies.
While potentially costly in the short term, these proactive approaches are likely to pay off over the long haul. What's more, recent polling shows that government action to address climate change is supported by an overwhelming majority of the American public — including half of Republicans.
Climate change is no longer an "environmental" issue. One of the most important things we can do to meet our national security objectives and advance political stability, human health, economic development and peace around the world is to recognize — and act in ways reflecting this — that a healthy planet is a critical part of the policy equation.
-
Americans Support Action on Global Warming
Feb 18, 2015 | The Energy Collective
By Henry Auer
Reports showing that global warming and its worldwide effects on human lives have become more common in recent months and years. Here, we summarize the results of some polls of American public opinion on this subject.
Polls concerning the attitudes of the American public on global warming have appeared recently. The results show that a majority of Americans, as represented by the poll samples, are in favor of taking action to combat global warming. The data summarized in this section group the polls together. They are presented more fully, considering each poll separately, in the Details section at the end of this post.A significant majority of Americans thinks that global average temperatures are rising. Of these, most think that human activity is giving rise to the warming of the planet, while only a relatively small portion of this group thinks that the warming originates from natural causes or processes. A majority of Americans favors action to combat global warming, such as promoting development of renewable sources of energy. The various polls pay differing degrees of attention to the attitudes of their respondents based on political or cultural typing (see Details).
Discussion
The poll results cited here show that the American public supports action on global warming. More than half of Americans think that warming is a reality, which necessarily reflects the results of objective scientific data as well as perceptions of its effects on individuals’ lives. A majority of Americans support regulation of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas (see Details below). As an example of this approach, a majority of Americans favor limiting emissions of carbon dioxide from existing coal-fired power plants (see Details below). A majority also supports policies that would promote development of renewable energy sources (see Details below).
These polls show that there is majority support among the American public for action by the government to combat global warming. The results should be taken seriously by their elected representatives in Congress. It maybe inferred from these polls that the American public would look favorably on their elected representatives if they were to propose and support legislation to address global warming. According to the poll results this should include substantive, effective measures to constrain further greenhouse gas emission. It may be inferred that actions should also include plans to construct infrastructure projects that would increase the resilience of the nation against extreme weather and climate events.
Historical Background
The United States has never developed a national policy to combat global warming by enactment of laws in the Congress. The Kyoto Protocol, negotiated under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, included only developed (i.e., already industrialized) countries of the world. Kyoto set modest goals of reducing greenhouse gas emission rates for the covered nations; it remained in effect until the end of 2012. Each covered nation had to ratify the Protocol in its national legislature in order for that nation to be governed by its terms. Being a foreign treaty, it was considered only in the U. S. Senate, which unanimously voted against ratification in 1997.
Within the U. S. national legislation was first proposed as the Climate Stewardship Act by Senators McCain, Lieberman and others in 2003. It proposed a cap-and-trade market-based system to lower greenhouse gases. It failed to gain passage. Later versions, brought forth in 2005 and 2007, likewise did not pass Congress.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act was put forth by Representatives Waxman and Markey in 2009. It also envisioned market-based emission limits based on a cap-and-trade system. It passed the House of Representatives, by 219-212, the first time any global warming legislation was approved in either branch of Congress. The Act failed to gain approval in the Senate, however.
In reaction to the absence of enacted laws to address global warming, President Obama has taken executive actions to implement important, significant policies. He has acted to double the average fuel efficiency of motor vehicles in two stages, first increasing to 36.6 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2017 and to 54.5 mpg by 2025.
Likewise, the President has acted to limit greenhouse gas emission rates from existing large-scale electric power plants by proposing constraints that would require them to become more efficient. The goal is to reduce CO2emissions from electricity generation by 30% below the levels emitted in 2005 by the year 2030. A similar earlier proposal covers only newly-constructed electricity generating plants.
More comprehensively, the President’s National Climate Plan of 2013 lays out a comprehensive set of initiatives intending to lower rates of emission of greenhouse gases, increase efficiency of energy usage and develop projects that would strengthen the resilience of the U. S. economy to the effects of extreme weather and climate events.
Details
The Pew Research Center (Pew) is an established opinion research organization that gathers information on the attitudes of the public on a wide range of issues. It professes to be nonpartisan and does not engage in policy development. After probing the political attitudes of a large number of Americans Pew typed respondents into seven groups. These range from Steadfast Conservatives (12% of the adult population) and Business Conservatives (10%), both of which tend strongly to associate with Republicans, to Solid Liberals (15%), associated with Democrats. Four groups in between these (each comprising 12-15% of the population have complex attitudes relating to political issues; they are distributed relatively evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
Pew released a poll on global warming and many other political issues on June 26, 2014, based on results from 10,013 respondents. They found that 61% of those surveyed think warming is occurring, while 35% think there is “no solid evidence of warming” (percentages presented here and below may not total to 100% because of rounding errors and omission of small groups). Among those thinking there is no solid evidence, those believing it “just is not happening” and those believing they “don’t know enough yet” are each 17% of all respondents. Among those thinking warming is happening, 40% of the poll respondents think it is “caused by human activity” and 18% think it is “caused by natural patterns”.
On deeper study of respondents to this question 75% and 71% of the two conservative types identified by Pew think there is “no solid evidence of warming”. Among the remaining types between 61% and 91% of each type think warming is happening; with 91% of Solid Liberals thinking so. 78% of Solid Liberals ascribe warming to human activity.
Pew examined attitudes concerning environmental policy and its effect on jobs. For the poll population at large, 56% believe “stricter enviro(nmental) laws are worth the cost, while 39% say “stricter enviro(nmental) laws cost too many jobs. 85% of Steadfast Conservatives and 84% of Business Conservatives believe laws are too costly, whereas among the remaining types between 47% and 93% think stricter laws are worth the cost. For this question also the Solid Liberal type is the one expressing the 93% result.
Pew further queried attitudes concerning development of fossil fuel versus alternative energy sources. 65% of all respondents want to “develop wind, solar, (and) hydrogen alternatives”, whereas 28% want to “expand oil, coal and natural gas”. 66% of Steadfast Conservatives and 64% of Business Conservatives want to expand fossil fuel development, whereas 64-95% of the remaining types preferred to develop alternative energy. Again, Solid Liberals were the type with the highest percent, 95%.
The Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (here, CCC) jointly produce polls surveying the public’s attitudes on global warming. In a report released Jan. 13, 2015, CCCcollated results from six surveys taken over three years, from March 2012 to October 2014. Its conclusion is encapsulated in the title of the report: “Not All Republicans Think Alike About Global Warming”. The six surveys provided 5,513 registered voters, of whom 2,330 were Republicans or leaning toward the Republican party.
Almost two-thirds (66%) of registered voters think global warming is happening; including 44% of the 2,330 Republicans.
Seven out of 10 (70%) of registered voters support, either strongly or somewhat, a policy of regulating carbon dioxide, a principal greenhouse gas that is produced when fossil fuels are burned, as a pollutant; this position includes a majority (56%) of all Republicans.
Almost two-thirds (64%) of registered voters support, strongly or somewhat, a policy of setting strict carbon dioxide emission limits on existing coal-fired power plants in order to reduce global warming and improve public health; slightly less than half (44%) of all Republicans supported this position.
Three-quarters (75%) of registered voters, including almost two-thirds (64%) of Republicans, supported, strongly or somewhat, providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels.
Republicans surveyed by CCCidentified themselves as being in one of four groups: Liberal Republicans (4.5%), Moderate Republicans (23%), Conservative Republicans (55%), and Tea Party Republicans (18%; Tea Party Republicans are generally considered to be far right-wing and/or libertarian in political outlook). Support for the four positions mentioned above was highest, always more than half, among Liberal Republicans and Moderate Republicans (variously ranging between about 60% and about three-quarters) of each these two groups. Support by Conservative Republicans for these policies ranged between 38% and 63%; Tea Party Republican support ranged between 23% and 46%.
The New York Times, Stanford University and Resources for the Future (NSR) conducted a poll of 1,006 adults in the U. S. on global warming, in the period January 7-22, 2015. The survey broke out results for the 103 Hispanic respondents, in view of the perceived importance of this group of voters in the 2016 presidential election. Hispanics (H) felt more personally affected by harms brought about by global warming than the 738 non-Hispanic whites (NHW). A large majority of Hispanics felt that the issue is highly important to them, and a similar proportion believe the U.S. government should take action to counter global warming.
The NSR poll found that more Hispanics identify themselves as Democrats or Independents, compared to non-Hispanic whites. The Times report surmises that Hispanics feel more personally affected by global warming than other groups because they are poorer and live in areas adjacent to sources of greenhouse gas and other forms of pollution. It notes that Gabriel Sanchez, a political scientist at the University of New Mexico believes “Latinos are actually among the most concerned about the environment, particularly global warming….To ignore the environment [as an issue important for Latinos] is to ignore something that a large section of the Latino population sees as important.”
Because of the small sample size of the Hispanic (H) group in the NSR poll, the margin of error for its answers is ±12%, while that for Non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) is ±4%.
The poll found that if nothing is done to curb global warming, 50% of NHWs and 57% of Hs think it would hurt them personally either a great deal, a lot, or a moderate amount. Global warming is considered to be either extremely important, very important or somewhat important among 63% of NHWs and 79% of Hs. 70% of NHWs and 78% of Hs think the U. S.government should do either a great deal, a lot/quite a bit, or a moderate amount/some about global warming.
-
Type of Oil Car in West Virginia Fire, Derailment May Be Rolling for Years
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Snyder
Oil tank cars like those that ruptured in a train derailment in rural West Virginia on Feb. 16, sending a massive fireball into the sky and forcing evacuation of nearby homes, could be rolling through U.S. cities for years to come.
In drafting tougher standards after a series of disasters last year, U.S. regulators initially called for a two-year phaseout of tankers that now carry oil. The deadline was eased after tank car owners said there wasn't enough manufacturing capacity to upgrade or replace the fleet that quickly.
The revised version sent this month to the White House for review extends the deadline for as long as a decade for the type of cars that caught fire in West Virginia, according to three people familiar with the rule. The same cars, known as CPC-1232s, were involved in fires this week in Ontario and last year in Lynchburg, Va. (32 DEN A-8, 2/18/15).
“This is just yet another example of the total lack of safety in moving crude in increasing volumes by rail,” Matt Krogh, a campaign director for Forest Ethics, an environmental group based in San Francisco and Bellingham, Washington, said in an interview.
Executives from the Railway Supply Institute, a trade and lobbying group, warned regulators during a December meeting that a deadline for upgrades that is too aggressive would force producers to put more of their crude in trucks, which carries it own risks, or put the brakes on oil production.
Oil Boom
“The option is we don't have it, or we use highways,” Tom Simpson, president of the Washington-based institute that represents companies that own tank cars like GATX Corp. in Chicago, said in an interview.
The West Virginia spill involving a CSX Corp. train and a similar accident two days earlier in Ontario again highlight a dangerous side effect of America's oil boom. In 2011, about 700,000 barrels of oil were hauled by trains every day. That had more than doubled to about 1.6 million barrels last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which tracks and analyzes data.
The increase in turn has led to more accidents, the worst of which was a July 2013 derailment of an unattended train in Quebec that killed 47 people. That disaster and near misses in the U.S. are prompting regulators to seek to update safety rules.
But a lobbying push by tank car owners appears to be paying off.
July Draft
A draft oil-train safety rule released by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in July said cars carrying the most volatile oil should be replaced or upgraded with new safety features within two years. The enhancements include steel jackets, new thermal protections and tougher valves (142 DEN A-17, 7/24/14).
A new draft, which hasn't been published, would prioritize changes to older cars known as DOT-111s that are thought to be the most prone to puncture. The CPC-1232s, an upgraded tank car the industry has made since 2011, could remain on the rails for as long as 10 years if they have an extra steel jacket for protection.
Safety advocates said the explosions of oil trains hauling crude in CPC-1232s shows that regulators need to stick with aggressive phaseout of all the cars on the tracks now.
The CPC-1232s are a “marginal improvement at best,” said Krogh, with Forest Ethics.
Canadian Fire
The CSX train derailment southeast of Charleston, West Virginia's capital—which is still under investigation—was the second in North America in less than 48 hours. An eastbound Canadian National Railway Co. train with 100 rail cars carrying diluted bitumen extracted from oil sands of Alberta came off the tracks in a rural wooded area near Gogama, Ontario, with some bursting into flames.
Shipping costs could increase $13.6 billion under the revision regulators released in July, or 300 million barrels will be left undelivered if tank cars were forced from the tracks for repair, according to slides presented by rail industry executives at the December meeting.
The draft rule sent to the White House calls for a shell 9/16th of an inch thick, rather than current 7/16th standard, and requires electronically controlled brakes that can stop cars simultaneously and may help prevent derailments.
Oil companies and railroads have argued that the brakes are too expensive and don't offer much safety benefit.
Simpson of the Railway Supply Institute said his group supports a holistic approach to safety that will require new features for tank cars like the 9/16ths shell, but also focuses on preventing derailments in the first place.
Brigham McCown, a former administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, said the West Virginia spill shows the proposed rule may place too much emphasis on tank-car design.
“You could make tank cars resemble Army tanks and it still isn't necessarily going to stop accidents,” McCown, a transportation consultant, said.
More money needs to be invested in improving rail tracks, he said. “This is not a crude oil issue,” McCown said. “This is an infrastructure issue.”
-
Retailers, Manufacturers Win Extension On Non-Air Transport of Lithium Batteries
Feb 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Retailers and battery manufacturers will have six additional months to address information, technology, business process and training challenges in implementing portions of a final rule on lithium cells and batteries as it applies to surface transportation and certain other modes of transport, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Several major trade groups, including PRBA-the Rechargeable Battery Association and the Retail Industry Leaders Association, told the agency their members wouldn't be able to comply by the Feb. 6 effective date of the rule, which could affect the transport of “tens of thousands of consumer products” and require training for “hundreds of thousands of employees,” PHMSA said in a notice to be published in the Federal Register at an unspecified date.
The regulated entities largely cited problems with implementing the surface transportation requirements of the rule that, in part, harmonizes related U.S. air transport requirements with international standards. PHMSA said in the notice that it will grant the extension through Aug. 7 for compliance with all parts of the rule that don't relate to transport by air.
“PHMSA believes that maintaining the Feb. 6, 2015, compliance date for air transport is appropriate and important for aviation safety,” the notice that was signed Feb. 13 said.
The final rule that was published in the Federal Register August 2014 harmonizes certain provisions of the Hazardous Materials Regulations with the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, the United Nations Model Regulations and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (79 Fed. Reg. 46,011; 151 DEN A-16, 8/6/14).
It also boosts hazard communications and packaging requirements for lithium batteries transported by air, adds requirements for transportation of lithium batteries that are damaged, defective or recalled and includes separate shipping descriptions for both lithium metal batteries and lithium ion batteries.
PHMSA estimated that the rule will cost between $7.4 million and $15 million over 10 years and that it will result in safety benefits from the rule's various risk-reduction efforts.
-
Derailment Complicates Regulators’ Rule-Making Task
Feb 18, 2015 | Roll Call
By Tom Curry
Monday’s derailment in West Virginia of a CSX train carrying crude oil occurred at a politically sensitive point as the Obama administration is working on a long-awaited proposed regulation on tank cars that carry oil and ethanol.
Just two weeks ago, at a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing on the pending tank car rule, members voiced frustration about the uncertainty that the administration has created by its slowness in issuing the rule.
The derailment “is just another example of why the federal government must act,” House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking Democrat Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon said Wednesday. “The federal government should not delay further — it must issue the new rules for safer rail tank cars as soon as possible.”
A crucial part of that regulation will be the standard for cars’ ability to remain intact in the event of a derailment or collision.
The CSX train’s tank cars were a newer, more robust model, known as the CPC-1232, which the industry voluntarily adopted in 2011, not the older and more widely used DOT-111 tank cars.
In 2013, the railroad industry called on the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to adopt a standard more stringent than the CPC-1232.
Last August, PHMSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking which includes what’s called the “Option 2” design for tank cars, which among other things would mandate tank car wall thickness of 9/16 inch, instead of the 7/16 inch, the current industry standard.
Greg Saxton, the chief engineer of rail car manufacturer Greenbrier, told the Feb. 3 House hearing that his company fully supports Option 2 for new tank cars built after Oct. 1 of this year and that “the urgency for a final rule is apparent.”
An assessment Tuesday by ClearView Energy Partners, an independent policy analysis firm in Washington, noted that “practically speaking, it may turn out that 1/16” to 1/8” of additional shell thickness would not have prevented” the fires that broke out after the derailment,
But the accident “may leave DOT less room to be pragmatic on its shell design. In the continued absence of agreement among the principal industrial stakeholder groups … OMB officials may be thinking about video footage of explosions in West Virginia when evaluating cost-benefit options.”
The surge in shipments of oil by rail, from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to about 500,000 carloads last year, has not only raised safety concerns, but has clogged rail traffic for other goods such as agricultural commodities.
The ClearView Energy Partners assessment said that for farm state lawmakers such as South Dakota Sen. John Thune, who chairs the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, “network throughput limitations associated with lower speeds for crude cargoes appear to rank ahead of tank car design issues.”
PHMSA is weighing a speed limit of as low as 30 miles per hour for some oil trains. That could slow traffic throughout the rail network.
Currently the railroad industry has a 50-mph speed limit for trains carrying 20 or more carloads of crude, with a 40-mph speed limit for trains with the older DOT-111 tank cars when passing through “high threat urban areas” designated by the Department of Homeland Security.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested