Preview Newsletter

NI - ACC PM 9/30/2015

Industry and Association News

(ACC Blog) New Study Outlines a More Targeted Offense to Tackle ‘Ocean Plastic’
Sep 30, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell

Strong, lightweight plastics are amazing materials that contribute to sustainability by helping to reduce energy use, waste and greenhouse gas emissions.
(ACC Mentioned) Ocean Conservancy Releases Report on Plastic Waste in the World’s Oceans
Sep 30, 2015 | Renewable Energy From Waste

The Ocean Conservancy, Washington, has launched “Stemming the Tide: Land-Based Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean,” which it describes as a “first-of-its-kind, solutions-oriented report.”

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) BPA Studies Raise Concerns for Baby Girls
Sep 30, 2015 | East Bay Express
By Brian Bienkowski

Two recent studies linked low birth weights in baby girls to their mothers' exposure to the ubiquitous toxic chemical used in food containers.
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Alternatives and Hazards Debated
Sep 30, 2015 | Worcester Business Journal

Legislation that would require the disclosure, reduction or replacement of toxic chemicals in consumer goods was panned Tuesday by industry groups who said it imposes a burden without improving safety, while supporters of the bills shared emotional testimony urging lawmakers to take action they said would protect the public.
Senators Near Deal to Pass TSCA Overhaul
Sep 30, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode and Jenny Hopkinson

Senators have nearly reached a long-sought deal that could clear the way for an update to federal oversight of dangerous chemicals, according to participants in the negotiations.
Developing Countries, NGOs Call for Unep to Publish EDCs List
Sep 30, 2015 | Chemical Watch

Fourteen developing groups and two NGOs have tabled a draft Resolution at ICCM4 – this week’s UN chemicals summit – urging the UN Environment Programme (Unep) to draw up and publish a list of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and "potential EDCs".
Childhood Cancer: More Evidence Points To Chemical Exposure
Sep 30, 2015 | Enviromental Working Group
By Curt DellaValle

September was national Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, reminding Americans of the sobering facts about this terrible disease:Almost 16,000 American children and adolescents are diagnosed with cancer every year.

Chemical Security News

Broad Safety Problems Found at Texas DuPont Plant Where 4 Workers Died
Sep 30, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Alison Sider

Federal investigators found broad safety problems at a DuPont Co. plant where four workers died last year from exposure to a toxic gas, including poor building design and an inadequate warning system, according to a report released Wednesday by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board.

Energy and Environment News

GOP Defeats Host of Dem Proposals to Sweeping House Package
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee today defeated a slew of Democratic proposals for revising a comprehensive energy package as bipartisan relations continued to fizzle along with the bill's chances.
Court Rejects Latest Salvo from EPA Foes
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender

Federal judges have rebuffed the latest pre-emptive legal strike against U.S. EPA's landmark greenhouse gas standards for power plants.
EPA Final Rule Brings Fence-Line Refinery Monitoring
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jenny Mandel

Federal and industry analysts presented warring cost estimates for a final rule issued yesterday to monitor emissions from refineries and reduce pollution from flares, storage tanks, pressure relief devices and certain coking operations.
States Face Federal ESPS Plan If They Miss 2016 Deadline, McCabe Warns
Sep 30, 2015 | InsideEPA

Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe is warning that states that fail to meet a September 2016 deadline for submitting “initial” compliance plans under EPA's greenhouse gas controls for existing power plants will face a federal plan soon thereafter, which she said is consistent with the agency's statutory obligations.
State Officials Caution Against 'Just Saying No' to EPA
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden

States will gain nothing by refusing to draft their own carbon-cutting plans for U.S. EPA's power plant rules, the groups representing state energy and air officials told congressional staffers yesterday.
Carbon-Trading Options -- and Questions -- Swirl in Ga.
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz

As Georgia continues to consider using a market-based approach to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, it's clear that those who would have to create such a market still have a lot of questions.
Utilities Turn Up the Heat on Missouri AG over EPA Rule
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire (in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
By Jacob Barker

Utilities are pressuring Attorney General and Missouri gubernatorial candidate Chris Koster to join the legal fight against U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
California District Aims To Build Support For Plan To Overhaul Clean Air Act
Sep 30, 2015 | InsideEPA

Officials with California's San Joaquin Valley air district authorizing staff to try and build public support for their five-point plan for how Congress should overhaul and relax the federal Clean Air Act, though environmentalists say the plan failed to undergo a necessary public vetting process and will weaken air pollution protections.
New Regulations on Smog Remain as Divisive as Ever
Sep 30, 2015 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport

In August 2011, as President Obama prepared to unveil a major new environmental regulation on smog, his political advisers issued a warning: The rule would affect power plants and factories throughout the Midwest, slowing the economy in states like Ohio that would be crucial to the president’s re-election.
Manufacturers, Mayors Spar on Ozone Rule
Sep 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

The industry group leading the charge against a new federal standard for ozone pollution is taking its case to U.S. mayors pushing for a strong one.
The Ozone Rules That No One Will Like
Sep 30, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz

Environmentalists have been burned by the Obama administration before on smog regulations. Now they’re worried that it’s about to happen again.

Transportation News

Citing Safety Concerns, Towns Challenge Federal Crude-By-Rail Rule
Sep 30, 2015 | The Fuse
By Paul Ruiz

On October 1, the Department of Transportation (DOT) will implement stricter safety standards for America’s crude-oil transporting railcars.
OMB Starts Review Of EPA Ozone Transport Rule
Sep 30, 2015 | InsideEPA

he White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) has started its review of a proposed EPA rule to curb interstate transport of ozone-forming emissions that aims to help states attain the agency's 2008 ozone standard, while the agency is poised to issue a decision under an Oct. 1 judicial deadline on tightening the standard.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Blog) New Study Outlines a More Targeted Offense to Tackle ‘Ocean Plastic’

Sep 30, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters

By Steve Russell

Strong, lightweight plastics are amazing materials that contribute to sustainability by helping to reduce energy use, waste and greenhouse gas emissions. But when plastics end up as ocean litter, their full sustainability benefits aren’t realized. No one wants to see trash of any kind in our environment. Plastics makers realize that ocean litter is a major, global problem and are committed to providing solutions. That’s why we’re pleased to partner in the global release of the Ocean Conservancy’s Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean, a first-of-its-kind analysis conducted with the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment, that evaluates specific land-based solutions for plastic waste in the ocean.
Pinpointing the Origins of Waste
Recent research by Dr. Jenna Jembeck published inScience Magazine estimated that roughly 8 million tons of plastic enters the ocean each year and that 57% of it originates in five countries (China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand). These are rapidly developing economies (a good thing!) in areas where waste management infrastructure hasn’t yet caught up to a growing population’s ability to consume more goods. Similar factors could easily give rise to these conditions in other regions (e.g., Brazil, India or countries in Africa). Stemming the Tide builds on these findings by highlighting solutions to contain waste—in essence to stop the “leakage” at the source. Solutions like, containing landfill waste, stopping illegal dumping, increasing recycling, and incorporating energy recovery technologies, such as gasification and pyrolysis, are featured as possibilities for change. From the plastics industry’s perspective, Stemming the Tide is a welcome resource that helps us understand and prioritize solutions.
Global Plastics Industry In Action
In fact ACC’s Plastics Division has been working on solutions to marine debris for some time. In 2011 we developed and helped launch the Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, which has been signed by over 60 companies in 34 countries—through which more than 185 projects have been planned, initiated, or completed. Some of our work in the United States includes providing recycling bins on beaches and in state parks, sponsoring marine debris research, promoting recycling and the recovery of energy from post-use plastics, and encouraging best practices for handling raw materials.
Working Together For Progress
In a video address released Wednesday, Catherine Novelli, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment, acknowledged the important role that plastics play in our society today and, she also expressed confidence that by “working together we can create meaningful solutions” to keeping plastics out of our oceans. We couldn’t agree more, and we’re looking forward to taking the results of this data-driven work and putting the strategies into action. Please watch Under Secretary Novelli’s complete address below and check out www.marinedebrissolutions.org for more on the plastics industry’s work on ocean litter.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Ocean Conservancy Releases Report on Plastic Waste in the World’s Oceans

Sep 30, 2015 | Renewable Energy From Waste

The Ocean Conservancy, Washington, has launched “Stemming the Tide: Land-Based Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean,” which it describes as a “first-of-its-kind, solutions-oriented report.” Created by the Ocean Conservancy in partnership with the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment, the report outlines specific land-based solutions for ocean plastic waste, starting with eliminating plastic waste leakage in China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand.
“Today’s report, for the first time, outlines a specific path forward for the reduction, and ultimate elimination, of plastic waste in the oceans,” says Andreas Merkl, CEO of Ocean Conservancy. “The report’s findings confirm what many have long thought—that ocean plastic solutions actually begin on land. It will take a coordinated effort of industry, NGOs (nongovernment organizations) and government to solve this growing economic and environmental problem.”
Eight million metric tons of plastic leak into the world’s ocean every year, and the amounts continue to grow, according to Ocean Conservancy. Without concerted global action, there could be 1 ton of plastic for every 3 tons of fish by 2025, leading to massive environmental, economic and health issues, the organization says.
With at least 80 percent of ocean plastic originating from land-based sources, the report’s findings propose a four-point solution to cutting leakage by 45 percent in the next 10 years, dramatically reducing ocean plastic waste by 2025 with the ultimate goal of eradicating the issue by 2035. The report estimates that total costs for implementing these solutions could be contained at $5 billion annually, with significant returns to the global economy.
The solutions proposed in the report include:Closing areas of leakage within collection systema by optimizing transport systems to eliminate illegal dumping and closing or improving dump sites near waterways.Increasing waste-collection rates by expanding collection service. Stopping the growth of leaked plastics in absolute metric tons would require that the weighted average collection rate in the five focus countries be doubled from roughly 40 percent to nearly 80 percent. Using a variety of waste-to-fuel (e.g., gasification) or waste-to-energy (e.g., incineration with energy recovery) technologies to treat waste in areas with high waste density. Manually sorting high-value plastic scrap for recycling and converting much of the remainder into refuse-derived fuel (RDF).
“Considering this is a global environmental challenge impacting sanitation and health, land values, important sources of global protein and the growth of the consumer goods and packaging industries, an estimated $5 billion scale of intervention makes this one of the most solvable of the environmental challenges we collectively face,” says Steven Swartz, an expert principal in McKinsey’s Center for Business and Environment.
“Stemming the Tide” underscores the role of industry in driving solutions and catalyzing public and private investment to solve the problem of ocean plastic leakage.
“We’re committed to working toward a future of a plastic-free ocean,” says Jeff Wooster, global sustainability director, Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics, a partner on the report. “Companies don’t make plastic with the intent of it ending up in the ocean, and we acknowledge the strong role industry must play in order to help eliminate ocean plastic waste by 2035.”
In the short and medium term, the report calls for accelerated development of waste collection and plugging of postcollection leakage, followed by the development and roll-out of commercially viable treatment options. In the long term, the report identifies the critical need for innovations in recovery and treatment technologies, development of new materials and product designs that better facilitate reuse or recycling.
The report further emphasizes the need for all approaches and solutions to be tailored at the regional level, specifically in the five priority countries identified, which account for half of all plastic leakage globally. While countries have made major improvements in curbing plastic leakage, greater global support is needed to scale results in the priority countries, Ocean Conservancy says.
“The issue of plastic waste in our oceans is having drastic consequences on the livelihoods and health of the people of Dagupan,” says Belen Fernandez, mayor of the city of Dagupan, Philippines. “Our town has had a dump site on our beach for over 50 years. We’re working hard to close the dump and increase the capacity of waste management in Dagupan. Addressing the problem of ocean plastic will have real benefits for not just the environment but [also] for our citizens by improving their quality of life. I hope our city and our work will become a model for what’s possible around the world.”
The report states that the next 10 years will be critical to effectively solve the problem of ocean plastic. To achieve success, the report calls for a concerted global response driven by an international coalition of companies, governments and NGOs that will catalyze commitments from political leadership, provide local “proofs of concept,” provide waste management technology support and prioritize the ocean plastic waste issue as part of the global policy agenda on the ocean and the environment.
The report is a signature initiative of the Trash Free Seas Alliance, an effort of Ocean Conservancy to unite industry, science and conservation leaders who share a common goal for a healthy ocean free of trash. The report was made possible through the support of numerous partners, including The Dow Chemical Co., The Coca-Cola Co., the American Chemistry Council, REDISA and World Wildlife Fund, as well as funders Adessium Foundation, 11th Hour Racing, Hollomon Price Foundation, Forrest C. & Frances H. Lattner Foundation and Mariposa Foundation.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) BPA Studies Raise Concerns for Baby Girls

Sep 30, 2015 | East Bay Express

By Brian Bienkowski

Two recent studies linked low birth weights in baby girls to their mothers' exposure to the ubiquitous toxic chemical used in food containers.
Girls born to mothers with high levels of BPA in their systems during the first trimester of pregnancy weigh less at birth than babies with lower exposure, according to a new study released last week. The study adds to evidence that fetal exposure to the ubiquitous chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) may contribute to fetal developmental problems. Low birth weights are linked to a host of health problems later in life, such as obesity, diabetes, infertility, and heart disease.
Researchers tested mothers' blood during their first trimester and at delivery for BPA, and tested umbilical cord blood after delivery. They tested for both BPA and "conjugated BPA," the form BPA takes after the body processes it. Bottom line: more BPA in women's blood meant babies weighed less. For every doubling in free, or unconjugated, BPA in the mothers' first-term blood, babies weighed, on average, 6.5 ounces less. The research was published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
Similarly, for every doubling of free-BPA in the woman's blood at birth, babies weighed on average 3 ounces less. "Having small babies at birth is a risk factor for a whole bunch of different things," said Laura Vandenberg, assistant professor of environmental health at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst who was not involved in the study.
Another recent study from China found BPA levels in mothers' urine was linked to low birth weights. That study also found a much stronger association with baby girls.
Unfortunately for pregnant women, BPA — used to make polycarbonate plastic and found in some food cans and paper receipts — is found in most people. Earlier this year, California mandated warning labels for products made with BPA. And in 2011, the state banned BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, but the chemical is still widely used in food containers. In fact, even the most diligent mothers-to-be may find it challenging to avoid contact with BPA.
The strong link between fetal exposure to BPA during the first trimester and birth weights makes sense, said Vasantha Padmanabhan, senior author of the study and professor of pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, molecular and integrative physiology, and environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan. "When you think about development, early in the pregnancy is a critical time — when fetuses are most sensitive to insults such as stress, environmental chemicals — that's why we looked at the first trimester," she said.
About 8 percent of babies born in the United States suffer from low birth weights, considered less than 5.5 pounds, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Other possible contributors to low birth weights include smoking or drinking alcohol during pregnancy, mothers' lack of weight gain, mothers' age, and stress.
The University of Michigan study doesn't prove BPA caused low birth weights. But it could play a role, as the chemical mimics hormones and can disrupt endocrine systems. Even though BPA clears from the body quickly, scientists suspect it could bind to receptors or could be stored in fat for release later. Proper functioning of these receptors is critical to organ development and function.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, said the study provides "no meaningful information on the safety of BPA." The council has defended BPA as safe as used in food packaging. Steve Hentges, a representative of the council, called into question using blood to measure BPA exposure. He also suggested that BPA from another source contaminated the blood samples.
Padmanabhan said the study and BPA measurements "represent a true life scenario," because blood was drawn with a researcher present to ensure no plastic contact.
The researchers did not find a link between BPA levels and baby boys' weights. It's not clear why the exposure was only linked to lower birth weights in girls, but the work suggests that females might be more susceptible to BPA exposure before birth.
In the recent Chinese study, which ran from 2012 to 2014, researchers selected 452 mother-infant pairs from Wuhan, the most populous city in Central China. They collected urine samples from the mothers at delivery and measured for BPA. Using birth weight data obtained from medical records, the researchers then evaluated the relationship between urinary BPA levels and low birth weight.
They found that mothers of newborns with lower birth weights had significantly higher BPA levels in their urine than the control mothers, according to the study published in Environment International. They also found that the association between low birth weight and higher BPA levels was more pronounced among baby girls, which also suggested that female babies might be more susceptible to BPA than males.
The Chinese study also didn't prove BPA caused the low birth weights. But in 2013, findings from a Dutch study suggested that BPA exposure at levels commonly found in people may slow fetal growth. In addition, a 2014 study linked high BPA levels in the placenta to lower birth weights.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Alternatives and Hazards Debated

Sep 30, 2015 | Worcester Business Journal

Legislation that would require the disclosure, reduction or replacement of toxic chemicals in consumer goods was panned Tuesday by industry groups who said it imposes a burden without improving safety, while supporters of the bills shared emotional testimony urging lawmakers to take action they said would protect the public.
Sponsored by Sen. Kenneth Donnelly and Rep. Jay Kaufman, a bill titled "An Act for Healthy Families and Businesses" (H 696/S 397) would establish a process to identify toxic chemicals in consumer products, noting that safer alternatives exist to many chemicals that have been linked to chronic diseases.
Among the bill's supporters was Laura Spark, a Boston mother who said that her sister's death from cancer prompted a fear of losing her children as well, causing her to avoid products containing chemicals like BPA.
A component of some plastics and resins, BPA has been found by the FDA to be safe at very low levels, though some studies have linked it to a variety of adverse health effects. Spark said she didn't have the information available to know that BPA was in sippy cups, baby bottles and jugs of bottled water she had been using with her daughters.
"I would not have bothered with any of those things had I known that they contained chemicals linked to breast cancer, but I didn't know," Spark said.
In 2010, the state Public Health Council voted to ban the use of bisphenol-A in baby bottles and cups. Health activists at the time applauded the council's vote but said the measure was "inadequate" and called on the state to regulate the use of BPA in infant formula and baby food packaging, as well as reusable food and beverage containers.
Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat, and Donnelly, an Arlington Democrat, also put forth a bill (H 697) that would require manufacturers to notify the Department of Environmental Protection of toxic chemicals in children's products.
Another bill from Sen. Marc Pacheco, a Taunton Democrat, creates a committee that would recommend funding mechanisms to support development and assessment of substitutes for toxic chemicals (S 453).
The toxic chemical bills drew criticism from trade groups, who said that chemicals in question are often safe at low doses and their existing products do not pose a danger. David Garriepy of the Toy Industry Association made the comparison to salt, where a little can be useful in cooking but excessive quantities become harmful.
"Just because it has certain toxic traits does not mean it is toxic," Garriepy said.
Sen. Anne Gobi, the committee's co-chair, brought up that the bills had been filed repeatedly in the past, while European countries have passed their own regulations dealing with toxic chemicals.
"We hear about what's being done in European nations, where companies have been able to acquiesce to their concerns," Gobi said after hearing testimony from the American Cleaning Institute. "It always comes back to, if you're willing to do it in Europe, why aren't you willing to do it here?"
In response, Jacob Cassady, the institute's associate director for legislative affairs, told Gobi his group's member companies "comply with the laws where the laws are."
Representatives from the Toy Industry Association and American Chemistry Council pointed to several existing federal laws that regulate their products and forbid harmful toxic substances.
"You heard the word toxic thrown around a lot," said Stephen Rosario of the American Chemistry Council. "It's a very highly charged word, but in this space, what we really need to be looking at is hazard and exposure. That is what gets you to safety and what these bills don't look at."
Margo Golden, president of the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition's board of directors, asked the committee to consider costs beyond what would be borne by retailers who had to comply with new regulations.
"Please also remember the cost to society of toxic chemical exposures," said Golden, who has been living with metastatic breast cancer. "The cost to society is devastating to the economy, the cost of cancer -- for example, the cost of my chemotherapy each month is $7,000."
Speaking on behalf of the Can Manufacturers Institute, epidemiologist Julie Goodman said BPA has been widely studied, and the body of scientific evidence does not show exposure at a normal rate causes adverse effects.
But others called for at least disclosure of chemical content, calling it a piece of information that can empower consumers to make their own choices.
"You can't manage what you can't measure," said Elizabeth Saunders, Massachusetts director for Clean Water Action. "We may have the next DDT or asbestos or lead sitting in our homes, and we probably do, in the form of flame retardants in our furniture or additives to plastic."

Return to headline | Return to top
Senators Near Deal to Pass TSCA Overhaul

Sep 30, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Darren Goode and Jenny Hopkinson

Senators have nearly reached a long-sought deal that could clear the way for an update to federal oversight of dangerous chemicals, according to participants in the negotiations.
"We’re closer than we have ever been and just extremely optimistic," said a spokeswoman for Sen. Tom Udall, who is cosponsoring a bill with Sen. David Vitter to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.
Asked whether the TSCA bill would be headed to the Senate floor soon, Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe said, “I am hopeful that is true, and I think you are going to hear that suspicion validated very soon.”
Environment committee ranking member Barbara Boxer has opposed Udall-Vitter bill over concerns that it would preempt state-level chemical regulations, but if she came on board it would substantially boost the bill's chances. The California Democrat told Bloomberg BNA Tuesday that a deal was "close."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in recent days and weeks has singled out TSCA reform as a bipartisan bill that could be brought up soon. The Senate today passed a stopgap funding bill and plans to next move to a full-year spending bill for military construction and the Veterans' Administration.
The Udall-Vitter bill passed the Senate environment panel 15-5 in April and is named after the late-Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who made TSCA reform a legacy issue in his later years.
A narrower House TSCA-reform bill passed 398-1 in June.

Return to headline | Return to top
Developing Countries, NGOs Call for Unep to Publish EDCs List

Sep 30, 2015 | Chemical Watch

Fourteen developing groups and two NGOs have tabled a draft Resolution at ICCM4 – this week’s UN chemicals summit – urging the UN Environment Programme (Unep) to draw up and publish a list of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and "potential EDCs".
The suggestion is opposed by the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), which has more than 1,000 member companies and organisations in 95 countries (25 September 2015).
EDCs are a key topic at the conference, which has been convened to assess progress towards the UN target of achieving sound chemicals management globally by 2020.
On Monday, international science organisation the Endocrine Society published a scientific review which it said demonstrates that the evidence that some chemicals disrupt hormones, and thus cause a range of serious health problems "is more definitive than ever before” (CW 29 September 2015).
But ICCA says more research is needed to better understand "whether, how and to what effect" chemicals interact with the hormone system. It also says "rigorous reviews" have failed to prove the hypothesis that harmful effects can be caused by low exposure levels (CW 30 September 2015).
The draft Resolution says Unep should produce overview reports giving examples of "existing and potential EDCs" in:pesticides;textiles;children’s products;building products; and electrical and electronic products.
It should also identify potential health effects, exposure routes and "gaps in existing regulatory policy".

Return to headline | Return to top
Childhood Cancer: More Evidence Points To Chemical Exposure

Sep 30, 2015 | Enviromental Working Group

By Curt DellaValle

September was national Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, reminding Americans of the sobering facts about this terrible disease:Almost 16,000 American children and adolescents are diagnosed with cancer every year.The rate of new childhood cancer cases, including leukemia, has steadily increased over the last 40 years.Cancer kills more Americans under age 20 than any other disease.Advances in treatment have greatly increased the odds of survival, but death still claims almost one in five childhood cancer patients.

What causes childhood cancers is not fully understood, making prevention difficult. But as scientists and doctors seek answers for the steady rise of childhood cancer rates, more and more evidence points to environmental factors.
Children are particularly susceptible to exposure to harmful chemicals – in their homes, at school, in their food and many other pathways. Because they are smaller, children are more highly exposed for their weight than adults. Children’s bodies also are undergoing critical stages of development.
Numerous studies have shown links between childhood cancers and exposure to chemicals such as pesticides, benzene and arsenic. EWG has found that not only are these substances widespread in a child’s living environment, they can also be passed on from mother to child during pregnancy and through breastfeeding. (Despite this, the health benefits of breastfeeding greatly exceed the risk of chemical exposure.) These prenatal and early life exposures occur during the most vulnerable period of a child’s development.
Now new research shows that environmental exposures can change how our genes are expressed – not genetic mutations, but whether genes are turned on or off and how they are read. These changes in gene expression, known as epigenetic changes, can also be passed on to future generations. This is not the legacy we want for our children – but it’s a future U.S. chemical law does little to head off.
There are more than 80,000 chemicals on the market today. The great majority has never been tested for safety and new chemicals are continually being put on the market without safety tests. This broken system is the opposite of how chemicals are regulated in Europe, where manufacturers must prove a chemical is safe before introducing it to commerce. Reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which has not been updated since it became law in 1976, must prioritize protection of public health, especially during critical developmental periods.
In the meantime, there are steps that parents and all of us can take to reduce exposure to pesticides around the home and harmful chemicals in our personal care products and the household items we use. With more consumer concern, stronger chemical laws and continued advances in treatment, the day may come when Childhood Cancer Awareness is a time to mark progress toward prevention instead of lamenting the grim reality of the disease.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Broad Safety Problems Found at Texas DuPont Plant Where 4 Workers Died

Sep 30, 2015 | Wall Street Journal

By Alison Sider

Federal investigators found broad safety problems at a DuPont Co. plant where four workers died last year from exposure to a toxic gas, including poor building design and an inadequate warning system, according to a report released Wednesday by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board.

Access to full text unavailable - subscription required.
Story can be found here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/broad-safety-problems-found-at-texas-dupont-plant-where-4-workers-died-1443627453

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

GOP Defeats Host of Dem Proposals to Sweeping House Package

Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Hannah Northey

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee today defeated a slew of Democratic proposals for revising a comprehensive energy package as bipartisan relations continued to fizzle along with the bill's chances.
Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) repeatedly said he was hopeful the package would make it to President Obama's desk despite opposition from top Democrats on the committee.
"If it somehow gets stalled, I will come back to it," Upton said. "Let's just try and get this done."
But Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) shot back, saying the bill is not headed to the president's desk. He expressed concern again with a manager's amendment Upton unveiled yesterday to H.R. 8, the "North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015," with a host of changes addressing exports of domestic gas, the nation's power markets and grid reliability (Greenwire, Sept. 29).
"What the committee is doing with the substitute today is going in the direct opposite direction if you're looking to get the president to sign the bill," Pallone said.
Bipartisan efforts to move the bill forward appeared to wane weeks ago after the committee delayed a markup of the bill, with top Republicans outlining sticking points. Those divisions were on full display today as Pallone and other Democrats opposed proposals from their Republican colleagues.
At publication time, the panel was still debating the more than 40 amendments filed to the bill, the majority of which are sponsored by Democrats.Grid reliability
The committee today voted 27-22 to defeat language Pallone proposed to scrap a provision in the bill that would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the country's grid operators to analyze the effects of complying with any proposed or final federal rule costing more than $1 billion and affecting generating units.
Those rules would include environmental rules such as the Clean Power Plan, which has become a target for Republicans. Under the bill, FERC and system operators would need to complete an independent review of how a rule would affect reliability, the nation's energy mix, wholesale markets, and infrastructure like transmission and gas pipelines.
Pallone argued that U.S. EPA's rules had not caused reliability issues and shouldn't be the target of the energy bill.
But Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who yesterday announced plans to retire at the end of the 114th Congress, argued the language was critical to securing the country's energy supplies. Whitfield said the section was one of four that caused bipartisan collaboration on the bill to fail.
EPA, he added, has been active in an unprecedented way because of Obama's climate goals, and the final bill should look at reliability.
"FERC has come up here and testified on these regulations -- from EPA and other agencies -- and said EPA particularly doesn't talk to them about the impact on reliability of these rules," Whitfield said.Capacity markets
Republicans defeated 26-22 an amendment Democratic Rep. Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced to scrap language in the bill that would require FERC to study whether the country's capacity markets are ensuring that sufficient generation is built.
Kennedy argued that language in the manager's amendment requiring the FERC study would do much more, possibly entering new data into the filing process at FERC and requiring grid operators to make changes before such markets are fully understood. Capacity prices in New England, Kennedy said, have surged from $1 billion to $4 billion in recent years without significant new construction. He said the language requiring the study was too vague and could do more harm than good.
Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) supported Kennedy's amendment and called for additional oversight hearings on capacity markets, noting that the American Public Power Association opposed the original language and agreed the FERC "study" could force grid operators to make changes based on what they find. Welch also said the language was skewed toward fuels that Republicans favor.
"The definition is clearly skewed to favor coal and nuclear resources," he said.
House Republicans, on the other hand, argued that they had significantly watered down the language to appease Democrats and that it was critical to touch on reliability in the final energy bill.
The committee also defeated 27-22 an amendment from Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) that would have added an impact analysis to the original study the bill calls for, which he said would allow grid operators to comment on any problems with adopting the energy bill's definition of reliability.
Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), who voted against Tonko's amendment, said the committee should have had more time and warned the issue is critical because nuclear reactors competing with cheap natural gas are retiring. That, in turn, could degrade his state's ability to meet new climate goals under the Clean Power Plan. Doyle said many Democrats are sensitive to the issue of baseload generation but had little time to digest more than 100 pages of amendments added within the past 24 hours.
"If this bill has any chance of becoming law, and as it's written right now it doesn't, sometime between now and floor time ... we need to sit down" and discuss reliability, Doyle said.Consumer-side technologies
The committee approved 28-21 an amendment from Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) that would require state utility regulators to evaluate -- and make public within 90 days -- whether any subsidies for consumer-side technologies such as rooftop solar or electric vehicle charging stations are providing benefits for consumers.
Pompeo argued that ratepayers deserve to know what benefits they are receiving. "Rooftop solar and energy charging stations are fine," Pompeo said, adding that "we just need to be honest" with ratepayers about the costs.
But Pallone said the amendment would hinder the development of a technology that cuts carbon emissions.
"I think we need to encourage and support the solar industry," he said.Hydropower
The committee approved by voice vote a bipartisan amendment that Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) introduced to bolster hydropower, but only after Pallone voiced his opposition.
McMorris Rodgers and McNerney argued that federal licensing of hydro projects is taking too long even though they provide valuable, carbon-free power. McNerney said the language reflected compromise on both sides of the aisle that stands to make licensing move faster.
The amendment, a result of months of negotiations, would direct FERC to consult with agencies and tribes in developing a schedule for all federal approvals of nonfederal hydropower, and would authorize the U.S. courts of appeals to grant limited extensions of time as may be requested by agencies and tribes. The bill would also, among other things, expedite the licensing process for closed-loop pumped storage projects and establish an expedited FERC license amendment approval process for increasing hydropower capacity or efficiency.
But Pallone voiced his objection to the amendment, saying the language would give too much authority to FERC and other agencies while overlooking critical environmental protections.
"The problem is the language in this amendment has not been the subject of hearings or even circulated in the public prior to this hearing," he said, adding that farmers', conservationists' and other stakeholders' interests would be trampled. "This is a massive expansion of federal authority."Strategic Petroleum Reserve
The committee rejected a Pallone amendment that would have increased authorized spending levels to modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and for a grant program to boost the resiliency of electric infrastructure.
Pallone said increasing the funds may help eventually sway the White House toward signing the bill.
Upton said that Pallone's plan "was not a bad amendment" but that he was unable to support the proposed levels at the time.
"I'll let you know the door is definitely not shut," he told Pallone.

Return to headline | Return to top
Court Rejects Latest Salvo from EPA Foes

Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Robin Bravender

Federal judges have rebuffed the latest pre-emptive legal strike against U.S. EPA's landmark greenhouse gas standards for power plants.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit yesterday denied requests from states and industries to reconsider the court's decision allowing the Obama administration to move ahead with its high-profile, contentious power plant regulations.
In another blow to EPA's opponents, judges also rejected a procedural maneuver that appeared to be aimed at keeping the same three Republican-appointed judges overseeing legal challenges to the rule.
In short orders issued yesterday, the court rejected requests for a rehearing en banc -- before all of the circuit's judges -- after a three-judge panel decided in June that the court wouldn't rule on the legality of the standards until they were finalized. The court rarely grants such rehearings, and the request was seen as a long shot (Greenwire, June 9).
The EPA rule has since been finalized but hasn't yet been published in the Federal Register, which will trigger a timeline for challenging the rule in court.
The appeals court judges also rejected requests to effectively put the legal challenges to EPA's proposed rule on ice until the final rule is published. EPA's challengers, including more than a dozen states led by West Virginia, said they plan to eventually challenge the final rule, and that keeping state and industry cases alive would save "substantial resources" for the court and the parties involved and allow for a speedier resolution.
That request, however, was widely viewed as an attempt by challengers to retain the three judges involved in the challenges to EPA's proposed rule. Brett Kavanaugh, Thomas Griffith and Karen Henderson were appointed by Republican presidents, and Kavanaugh in particular has a track record of ruling against EPA in high-profile cases (Greenwire, Aug. 14).
The court said in separate short orders yesterday that the challengers' request for a "stay of the mandate" in the case was denied.
Attorneys representing EPA told the court last month that despite petitioners' arguments that they wanted to "consolidate their planned future challenges to the final rule with these challenges to the proposed rule," they had offered "no legitimate basis for departing from established jurisdictional and judicial review principles in this manner."
The administration urged the court to dismiss the case, warning that linking challenges to EPA's final rule and previous court proceedings would "only invite all manner of premature challenges to proposed agency rules with the aim of gaining some perceived tactical advantage."
The court also last month denied states' "emergency motion" to consolidate another court challenge to EPA's power plant rule with the challenge to the proposal -- another effort to keep the three-judge panel overseeing the issue (Greenwire, Aug. 20).

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Final Rule Brings Fence-Line Refinery Monitoring

Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Jenny Mandel

Federal and industry analysts presented warring cost estimates for a final rule issued yesterday to monitor emissions from refineries and reduce pollution from flares, storage tanks, pressure relief devices and certain coking operations.
Under the new rule, issued yesterday by U.S. EPA in compliance with a court-ordered deadline of today, refiners will be required to monitor benzene concentrations at multiple points along the fence line surrounding their facilities.
Other provisions require monitoring of flares and pressure release devices and the use of at least three pollution prevention measures for those emission sources, with any emission events triggering review and corrective actions.
In a call with reporters, EPA described the rule as a groundbreaking success in involving disadvantaged fence-line communities in a regulatory action and implementing real-time monitoring of an important air pollutant.
"These updated Clean Air Act standards will lower the cancer risk from petroleum refineries for more than 1.4 million people and are a substantial step forward in EPA's work to protect the health of vulnerable communities located near these facilities," said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, adding that the reduction translates to a 15 to 20 percent decline in cancer incidence associated with refinery emissions.
"This rule delivers on EPA's commitment to environmental justice by reducing toxic air pollutants that impact families living near refineries by requiring, for the first time ever in an EPA air rule, monitoring of emissions at the fence line and corrective action if standards are exceeded," she added.
EPA stressed the environmental justice components of the rule, noting that the 6.1 million people living within 3 miles of a petroleum refinery are disproportionately likely to be poor and members of a minority group.Industry cautiously receptive
While downplaying concessions to industry, EPA said some changes from the draft rule included rewarding sites with consistently low benzene emissions with relaxed monitoring requirements (Greenwire, Oct. 30, 2014).
The final rule also offers refiners greater flexibility in the technologies used to monitor emissions than the draft rule. EPA also replaced a requirement for additional flares with a requirement that refiners analyze flaring and unanticipated pressure release events and implement work practice changes.
EPA estimates a capital cost for the new rule of about $283 million, with an annualized cost of $63 million, and calculates that the final standards will have a negligible impact on the consumer prices for petroleum products.
In a statement, the American Petroleum Institute offered its own, far greater cost estimate.
"EPA has made substantial improvements in the final refinery sector rule over the proposal, but EPA's new regulations on refineries could still cost up to $1 billion," said Bob Greco, API downstream group director.
"EPA analyses, supported by extensive industry monitoring data, show that air emissions from refineries are already at safe levels," Greco added, though he lauded the "collaborative efforts by API and the EPA [that] led to final regulations that are more cost-effective than the proposal."
Still to come is the establishment of a data disclosure system for the emissions regime. EPA said that refinery fence-line communities had called on the agency to administer a disclosure database to be hosted on its website, and officials yesterday said that has yet to be built.
The agency says that when the rule is fully implemented in 2018, it will reduce emissions of benzene, toluene and xylene by about 1,300 tons per year and volatile organic compound emissions by 17,000 tons per year.

Return to headline | Return to top
States Face Federal ESPS Plan If They Miss 2016 Deadline, McCabe Warns

Sep 30, 2015 | InsideEPA

Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe is warning that states that fail to meet a September 2016 deadline for submitting “initial” compliance plans under EPA's greenhouse gas controls for existing power plants will face a federal plan soon thereafter, which she said is consistent with the agency's statutory obligations.
“Following the requirements of the Clean Air Act, if a state does not submit a plan as required, that would trigger the obligation for EPA to do a federal plan,” McCabe said in response to a question from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) during a Sept. 29 Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee hearing.
McCabe's statement underscore's EPA's deadlines in the final existing source performance standards (ESPS), but it might nevertheless provide fresh fodder for critics seeking to build support for legislative or judicial efforts to block EPA's rule.
Specifically, the statement could be used in future court filings arguing a court should stay implementation of the rule because it would result in near-term harm to states -- though EPA and its allies argue that the burden imposed by the “initial” plans is minimal and does not exceed the legal bar for such a delay.
McCabe was responding to a query from Capito on what would occur if state governors refuse to submit initial pollution control plans for the ESPS.
“I know you are well aware that there are many states that are considering, many governors are considering not even submitting a state implementation plan at all,” Capito said. “So are you saying then if they don't submit any kind of implementation plan in 2016, they would be subject to the federal implementation plan?”
EPA in its final ESPS says state compliance plans are due by September 2016. But it also allows states to submit an “initial” plan that includes a request until 2018 to submit final plans -- a deadline extension that many states are expected to seek.
The rule also scaled back the required scope of such plans relative to the proposed ESPS. For example, the final rule says the discussion of plan approaches in the first submission does not “need to be final and/or formalized through a state legislature.” It also said states can identify consideration of more than one approach or “indicate the status of the deliberation of this issue within the state.” And EPA also said states may, are not required to outline, key decisions in the document, including whether the state intends to rely on a rate or mass-based GHG target.
EPA in a Sept. 17 presentation to the annual meeting of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA) adds that if a state becomes subject to a FIP it could later file a state plan to exit the federal plan. It could also submit a partial state plan and “implement a portion of a federal plan.”
But Hunton & Williams attorney Joseph Stanko in a Sept. 18 presentation at the AAPCA conference warns that the initial plans might not simply be a request for more time and could instead be a request “not to be automatically FIPed.”
Stanko also notes language in the ESPS that says EPA issued a proposed FIP so that any federal plans could be promulgated quickly, and that “EPA asserts it can FIP a state 'at any time' and warns that it intends to 'promptly' do so” if states miss the September deadline for initial plans.
He adds that EPA calls the action “ministerial in nature,” which means EPA believes imposing a FIP would not be subject to notice and comment.
Likely Battle
Capito's query and McCabe's response underscore the likelihood of a battle over EPA's imposition of federal implementation plans (FIP) on recalcitrant states as soon as late 2016 -- during the last months of the Obama White House.
Even though EPA has sought to demonstrate flexibility under its rule, it has also said it will impose a FIP on states that refuse to comply. The rule's Sept. 6 deadline would allow less than five months for the Obama administration to impose such plans before it leaves office in January 2017, a potentially tight timeline given that regulatory actions taken in the waning weeks of an administration could be more vulnerable to a legal challenge.
The exchange comes as Capito has been seeking to build support for her legislation -- which is backed by most of the Senate GOP caucus, including EPW Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) -- that contains numerous, overlapping provisions that would would block EPA's ESPS.
After the climate rule is published in the Federal Register, Congress is also expected to vote on whether to block the rule under the Congressional Review Act, though such an action would be vetoed by President Obama.
Capito's question could also be in part an effort to build a record in support of the notion that courts should stay the ESPS because it would result in near-term “irreparable” harm to states.
Industry and state foes of the regulation are awaiting official publication of the rule to file petitions for review of the ESPS, followed by motions asking a court to stay the rule. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently rejected as premature prior attempts from states and industry to block the rule.
The Department of Justice on behalf of EPA cited the preliminary nature of the state plans in support of earlier, successful efforts to block court intervention against its rule, noting in an August brief that the initial plans “are not burdensome,” and that a deadline extension until September 2018 is “easily obtainable.”

Return to headline | Return to top
State Officials Caution Against 'Just Saying No' to EPA

Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

By Emily Holden

States will gain nothing by refusing to draft their own carbon-cutting plans for U.S. EPA's power plant rules, the groups representing state energy and air officials told congressional staffers yesterday.
At least half of the states are weighing challenging the Clean Power Plan in court, but many of them are already reaching out to the public and beginning the planning process among agencies, according to the executive directors of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and National Association of State Energy Officials. A few states, including Oklahoma and Kentucky, are poised to follow Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's advice to "just say no" to writing state compliance plans.
But "even states that don't particularly care for the Clean Power Plan are going to work on plans," NARUC Executive Director Chuck Gray said.
NACAA Executive Director Bill Becker told the Capitol Hill audience at a briefing by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute that electric utilities are telling state officials they don't want their states to forgo writing a plan and get stuck with EPA's federal version.
"It's by definition going to be less flexible than a state program, and by being less flexible it will be more costly," Becker said. "There is nothing to be gained by implementing -- or by being subject to -- a federal plan, other than calling attention to oneself."
Not submitting a plan would also give EPA federal enforceability over carbon cuts, threatening state autonomy, Becker said.
He suggested that states at least use EPA's federal plan as a model that they can adapt to meet their own specific needs. NACAA is also working on a model plan that will be more expansive than EPA's proposed federal plan and will be published by the end of the year, he said.
NACAA members are responsible for implementing federal Clean Air Act regulations. NARUC's electric regulators must approve utility plans that could affect bills for ratepayers. And NASEO's officials are mostly appointed by governors and tasked with spearheading state energy and economic development plans.
The three groups said they're working together more than ever, even though they "hardly knew each other" a few years ago, according to Becker (ClimateWire, Nov. 26, 2014).
They also commended EPA for its outreach on the Clean Power Plan.Perils and promise of 'choice'
Joe Goffman, senior counsel for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, ran through a list of changes the agency made to the rule after hearing from states and power companies to ease difficult interim goals and allow states to trade compliance credits with one another without entering formal agreements.
"This, folks, is what choice looks like," Goffman said, pointing to a PowerPoint slide with a complex flowchart of all the different types of plans states can choose.
States are thinking through key decisions about whether to work with other states, how quickly to submit a plan and whether to pick a rate-based or mass-based goal, to reduce the power fleet rate of emissions or cap CO2 at a specific level, among many other issues.
Several have already started holding listening sessions and stakeholder meetings (ClimateWire, Sept. 28).
NASEO Executive Director David Terry said his main advice to states is not to predetermine which path to take.
Many states are still analyzing the 1,560-page rule, and NASEO recently launched a service for states to submit questions for the organization to ask EPA and share responses with members.
Becker said that while about a dozen states got tougher goals under the final Clean Power Plan than in the draft rule, about 30 of them saw requirements eased. He said many states are already on track to achieve EPA's standards, although "a lot more work needs to be done by a bunch of states."
That said, Becker said many states still have legitimate concerns about EPA's schedule for submitting a plan. States must submit a plan or request a two-year extension by September 2016. That could be difficult in states whose legislatures meet every other year, he said.
Regulators also have limited budgets for working on Clean Power Plan blueprints, and Congress may not approve supplementary funding requested by the Obama administration, Becker added. And states are disappointed they won't receive credit for action to reduce carbon emissions before 2012, he noted.
While cap and trade may be a politically loaded concept, Becker said state officials should listen to members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic that are touting the benefits of their system.
"If this program was called 'peanut butter and jelly' and not 'cap and trade,' it would take off like gangbusters," he said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Carbon-Trading Options -- and Questions -- Swirl in Ga.

Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Kristi E. Swartz

As Georgia continues to consider using a market-based approach to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, it's clear that those who would have to create such a market still have a lot of questions.
The state already intends to ask for a two-year extension when it files an initial plan on how it will meet EPA's carbon-reduction goals, said Karen Hays, Air Protection Branch chief of the state's Environmental Protection Division. At a town hall meeting about the EPA rule Monday, she also said Georgia will develop a flexible state plan that allows for interstate trading of carbon emissions (EnergyWire, Sept. 29).
Georgia must cut its power-sector carbon emissions rate 34 percent from 2012 levels by 2030 to meet targets set by the Clean Power Plan. The state's goals roughly fall in line with others in the Southeast, and the region is home to major electric companies that cross state lines.
"It provides more regulatory certainty, particularly in the Southeast where you have a number of large utilities that cover many state borders, they would be looking to be able to do the same thing across all state borders, of course," said Katie Southworth, a consultant with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
But that doesn't mean that the logistics are easy.
"If states have to work together, they usually have to make compromises," she said.
Georgia first has to decide whether it wants to pursue a mass-based plan or a rate-based one.
A rate-based plan would require the power fleet to adhere to an average amount of carbon per unit of power produced. A mass-based plan would cap the total tons of carbon the power sector could emit each year.Unintended consequences
Participants at a small discussion focused on regional cooperation voiced concerns about setting up a regional market and then being able to change course if there were unintended consequences.
"You've got to structure this thing correctly to get the benefits," said Tracy Hawkins, Georgia Power Co.'s environmental affairs general manager. "I think you've got to be able to opt in and opt out."
Georgia Power is owned by Atlanta-based Southern Co., which also operates electric companies in neighboring Alabama, Florida and Mississippi. The company's wholesale unit, Southern Power, has operations all over the country, adding another layer of complexity.
"This could get complicated very quickly," she said.
Ken Mitchell, with EPA's Region 4, based in Atlanta, said the trading options go beyond a geographic region. But there are limits as well.
"If you wanted to trade with, let's say, Iowa ... they have to have similar instruments for trading," he said. "If you create a regional approach that's part of the Southeast, you're increasing that pool with your neighbors, and there's positive benefits to doing that."
There is another option that doesn't require regional cooperation, Mitchell said. The "trading ready" program allows states that meet certain basic criteria to trade emission credits with other states that have met those same specifications.
"If you're going to trade wind power, for example, you have to make sure what you are trading is equivalent," he said.'Big hill to climb' in the Southeast
Chief among challenges in the Southeast is that some states already have said they will sue to fight the Clean Power Plan. And state legislatures have considered various laws on the path they will take toward compliance.
Both of those make it difficult politically for the region to work together.
Mitchell suggested state officials talk with members of the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. This is in part because when state officials, regulators and utilities started to form the regional carbon market 10 years ago, they had the same concerns as many critics of the proposed EPA rule.
"We are incentivizing trading, and then we give you options for what you pick depending upon what you believe is best for your needs," Mitchell said. "So you can have this grand bargain with your neighbors, for example, or you can stick to Georgia and make yourself 'trading ready,' and you can trade with Washington state, or New Hampshire ... or whomever you need to without entering into that complicated legal binding."
Georgia Public Service Commission Chairman Chuck Eaton said the basic challenge goes back to the fact that each state, including its regulators, is accustomed to doing things one way. There's apprehension over making a mistake that nobody thought about in the planning process.
"I think if we can make it work, it seems like a big hill to climb, but a regional approach may be the way to go," he said.
For more information on Georgia and the Clean Power Plan, visit E&E's Power Plan Hub.

Return to headline | Return to top
Utilities Turn Up the Heat on Missouri AG over EPA Rule

Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire (in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

By Jacob Barker

Utilities are pressuring Attorney General and Missouri gubernatorial candidate Chris Koster to join the legal fight against U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
They sent the Democratic attorney general a letter Monday outlying why he should join 16 other states that are vowing to fight the carbon regulations in court.
"One clear challenge to EPA's [Clean Power Plan] is that it has significantly overreached its authority granted under the Clean Air Act," the letter said.
Utilities behind it include Ameren Missouri, Kansas City Power & Light, Empire District Electric Co. and several smaller state utilities and energy co-ops.
Koster still hasn't released a decision.
In response to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch inquiry, Koster's office wrote, "We appreciate the input from the power companies and other interested parties, and take seriously comments from all Missouri stakeholders."
Missouri's carbon emissions were supposed to decrease to 21 percent under the Clean Power Plan's draft, but that was hiked to 37 percent when EPA issued the final rule. The state burns coal for 80 percent of its electricity, and utilities are estimating it will cost the state $6 billion to reach the EPA benchmarks by 2030.
Natural Resources Defense Council energy economist Ashok Gupta argues for people to stand behind the regulations because "investment that's driven by the Clean Power Plan trumps whatever rate impacts there are."
If Koster does sign on, he will be one of two Democratic attorneys general to do so (Jacob Barker, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 29)

Return to headline | Return to top
California District Aims To Build Support For Plan To Overhaul Clean Air Act

Sep 30, 2015 | InsideEPA

Officials with California's San Joaquin Valley air district authorizing staff to try and build public support for their five-point plan for how Congress should overhaul and relax the federal Clean Air Act, though environmentalists say the plan failed to undergo a necessary public vetting process and will weaken air pollution protections.
Further complicating the district's push is opposition to the plan from California's Air Resources Board (CARB), which must approve each state district's air law compliance plans. "The Clean Air Act has been the driver behind the region's air quality progress," a CARB spokesman says. "For one of only two regions in the country with air quality labeled extreme by EPA, to call for a weakening of air quality law is counterproductive."
Nevertheless, the San Joaquin Valley district's board at a Sept. 17 meeting authorized its staff to try and build public backing for the plan by approving the distribution to local newspapers of opinion/editorial pieces justifying the Clean Air Act changes that would be signed by all the district's board members. However, two of the board members' signatures will not be included in the newspaper pieces because they opposed the item at the board's meeting, says a source.
District officials hope that the reform push could gain bipartisan support in Congress soon, according to a district source. While district officials have discussed the proposal with the entire California congressional delegation in the House, no single lawmaker has been chosen to sponsor a bill, the source says.
The San Joaquin Valley air district initially floated its plan, "2015 Federal Clean Air Act Modernization Proposal," earlier this year. The plan aims to resolve a number of "unintended consequences" from various provisions of the law and its 1990 amendments.
For example, the district proposes that when EPA publishes a new national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants such as ozone or fine particulate matter (PM2.5), the old standard should be subsumed. "States should be allowed to develop a single [NAAQS] attainment plan that harmonizes increments of progress and other milestones without allowing for any rollback or backsliding," the plan states.
The district points out that various regions throughout the nation are currently subject to multiple iterations of standards for a single pollutant. For example, there are currently four pending standards for ozone and four pending standards for PM2.5, the plan notes. Each of the standards requires a separate attainment plan, which leads to multiple overlapping requirements and deadlines. "This in turn results in a great deal of confusion, costly bureaucracy, and duplicative regulations, all without corresponding public health benefits."
Pollution Controls
The Clean Air Act should also be amended to ensure that EPA, when establishing deadlines and milestones to meet pollution standards, requires control measures that "lead to the most expeditious attainment of health based standards while taking into account technological and economic feasibility," the plan says.
The problem with the current law is that new technologies to meet increasingly stringent pollution standards "in many cases are not yet commercially available or even conceived," the district claims. "The formula-based deadlines and milestones that were prescribed in the act 25 years ago now lead to mandates that are impossible to meet."
EPA's air law deadlines and milestones should also consider background pollution concentrations and the region's geography, topography and meteorology that affect pollutant formation and dispersion, the district plan contends.
The third major change outlined in the district's plan would be to amend the law to give greater weight to pollutants that have greater impact on achieving attainment and improving public health, when EPA establishes thresholds for reasonable further progress or rate of progress -- ways to assess states' success in cutting air pollution.
In evaluating reasonably available control technology , EPA should value measures that reduce precursors with more impact on ozone formation higher in importance than measures that may reduce greater amounts of less-potent ozone precursors, the district argues.
For example, nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission reductions have been demonstrated to be approximately 20 times more effective than volatile organic compound (VOC) reductions in reducing the formation of ozone in the San Joaquin Valley, the district argues. "We therefore recommend that in demonstrating Reasonable Further Progress, EPA allow for an alternative approach that can demonstrate equivalent reductions in ozone concentrations as compared to the straight requirement of 3 percent per year reduction of VOCs and/or NOx," the plan states.
The district also recommends that Congress eliminate the requirement for "contingency measures" for reducing air pollution in areas classified as "extreme" NAAQS non-attainment by EPA; and to allow states to take credit for all transportation control measures and strategies and not punish areas that have implemented such measures and achieved "early" emission reductions.
Environmentalists' Opposition
Environmentalists and CARB are opposing the district's plan, with the advocates charging that the district is advancing it without proper public review and comment, including taking trips to Washington D.C. earlier this year to pitch the plan to lawmakers.
"The proposal seeks to eliminate minimum requirements under the Clean Air Act and suggests giving the air district the authority to determine it's own path to clean air," says Dolores Weller, director of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, in a Sept. 16 press release. "If the goal is clean air, the district needs to focus on meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act. These amendments would make things easier for polluters, but won't give us clean air."
Weller also contends that the district failed to follow proper public review processes to advance the plan. "The problem is the process was all wrong," she says.
The air district staff and a few board members traveled to Washington, D.C., earlier this month “lobbying on the principles of this proposal. The district's defense is that it has been online for months. The board has loosely talked about making 'common sense' changes to clean air act since January but there was no board meeting where they approved the specific proposal,” she adds.
Weller points out that the district air basin has seen an increase in PM pollution and is currently in serious non-attainment of the federal standard.
The environmental coalition includes more than 70 community, medical, public health, environmental and environmental justice organizations, she says.
The CARB spokesman meanwhile argues the Clean Air Act is helping the region improve its air quality, noting that the district "now has ozone levels meeting the 1-hour standard with days exceeding the 1-hour standard falling from 45 in 1990 to just 1 in 2014."
Further, the "most important part of the Clean Air Act is a mandate that health-based standards be achieved by a specific deadline," the spokesman adds. "For San Joaquin Valley, that is within 20 years."
The district's proposed amendments "would eliminate that promise of clean air and replace it with a vague direction to achieve clean air when practicable," the spokesman adds.

Return to headline | Return to top
New Regulations on Smog Remain as Divisive as Ever

Sep 30, 2015 | New York Times

By Coral Davenport

In August 2011, as President Obama prepared to unveil a major new environmental regulation on smog, his political advisers issued a warning: The rule would affect power plants and factories throughout the Midwest, slowing the economy in states like Ohio that would be crucial to the president’s re-election.
In a move that enraged environmentalists, Mr. Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to delay what industry groups were calling the most expensive regulation in history.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEMany Conservative Republicans Believe Climate Change Is a Real ThreatSEPT. 28, 2015Limited Progress Seen Even as More Nations Step Up on ClimateSEPT. 28, 2015Senate Democrats Offer Climate Change Bill Aimed Not at Success Now, but in 2016SEPT. 22, 2015U.S. and Chinese Climate Change Negotiators to Meet in Los AngelesSEPT. 15, 2015
Four years later, Mr. Obama has no more re-election worries, and environmentalists have won a court-ordered deadline of Thursday for the E.P.A. to release the smog rule. But the regulation remains as divisive as ever. Over the past month, as the agency and White House senior officials have worked to complete it, the nation’s most powerful business groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable and American Petroleum Institute — have united on an all-fronts lobbying and advertising campaign to ensure that the rule, when it comes this week, is as weak as possible.
“The costs of doing this are not going to be absorbed by a magic sponge,” said Jay Timmons, the chief executive of the manufacturers group, which has been joined by dozens of mayors and governors, including many Democrats. “The impact is going to be largest on manufacturing. The tighter the standard, the more localities are impacted.”
On the other side are environmental and public health groups just as invested in a strict ozone rule.
“This is a battle royale,” said Paul Billings, a vice president at the American Lung Association, which is leading a media and lobbying blitz aimed at urging the Obama administration to issue the toughest rule possible. “This is a chance for the president to right a wrong, to fix a mistake.”
At stake is the Clean Air Act standard for ozone, the technical name for the smoggy substance that often forms on hot, sunny days when chemical emissions from power plants, factories and vehicles mix in the air. It is produced by chemical emissions from power plants and factories. Lung doctors have cited ozone as a major threat to public health, particularly among children and older adults. The American Lung Association compares breathing ozone to “getting a sunburn on your lungs.”
But manufacturers say the high cost of installing ozone control equipment could kneecap American manufacturing and threaten jobs across the country.
The national standard for ozone was last set in 2008 by the Bush administration at a level of 75 parts per billion, above the range of 60 to 70 parts per billion recommended by the E.P.A.’s scientific advisory panel at the time. Environmental and public health groups challenged the Bush standard in court, saying it would endanger people’s health and had been tainted by political interference. Smog levels have declined sharply over the last 40 years, but each incremental improvement comes at a significant cost to business and government.
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
In November, the Obama administration released a draft proposal of an updated ozone regulation, which would lower the current threshold for ozone pollution to 65 to 70 parts per billion. That range is less stringent than the standard of 60 parts per billion sought by environmental groups, but the environmental agency’s proposal also sought public comment on a 60 parts-per-billion plan, keeping open the possibility that the final rule could be stricter.
Now, in the final days before the rule’s release, industry groups are pushing for a new standard of 70 parts per billion or higher, while health and environmental groups want it as low as 60 parts per billion. Both sides say that every notch on that scale can make a big difference.
“There are significant health benefits as the standard is tightened,” Mr. Billings said.
An analysis in the E.P.A.’s draft proposal found that an ozone standard of 70 parts per billion would prevent 325,000 cases of childhood asthma and 1,440 premature deaths. A standard of 65 parts per billion would prevent about a million cases of asthma and 4,300 deaths. And a standard of 60 parts per billion would prevent 1.8 million asthma attacks and 7,900 premature deaths.
But each notch ratchets up the cost to industry as well. A tighter smog standard will require the owners of factories and power plants to install chemical scrubbers and other technology on their smokestacks to remove the chemicals. Scrubbers can cost tens of millions of dollars apiece, and industry groups say that with each degree that the standard is tightened, their costs will soar.
“Cutting 90 percent of pollution is one thing, but cutting 95 percent can be double the cost of getting to 90,” said Howard J. Feldman, the director of regulatory affairs for the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies foroil and gas companies.
Ross Eisenberg, a vice president at the manufacturers association, said that even a change of two parts per billion in the standard could make a difference. “At a standard of 68, there are 40 percent more counties in America that would be in noncompliance than there are with a standard of 70,” he said. “A lot of counties would be dealing with this for the first time.”
A standard of 65 parts per billion, Mr. Eisenberg said, could require the use of pollution control technology that does not exist yet. “That’s when you have to start shutting things down,” he said.
Both sides spent the final days before the rule was to be released in a sustained lobbying push. While the president has committed to putting forth aggressive rules aimed at tackling climate change, which he sees as a legacy issue, he has said almost nothing about the smog rule. That has industry advocates hopeful that their push could once again prevail in the final rule.

Return to headline | Return to top
Manufacturers, Mayors Spar on Ozone Rule

Sep 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

The industry group leading the charge against a new federal standard for ozone pollution is taking its case to U.S. mayors pushing for a strong one.
More than 50 mayors signed a letter last week calling on President Obama to tighten the ozone standard from its current 75 parts per billion limit, something federal regulators are required to do by Thursday.
In their letter, the mayors endorsed pleas from health organizations such as the American Lung Association, which has called for a 60 parts per billion limit, lower than the range regulators are considering for the final rule. The mayors, green groups and health organizations say a stronger limit will help improve public health.
“Clean, healthy air and water are fundamental American rights and we are eager to work with your administration to secure and implement the strongest possible protections from smog pollution,” the mayors wrote in their letter, which was organized by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker (R).
On Wednesday, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) told the mayors they shouldn’t move so quickly to embrace such a standard, saying it would, “threaten that quality of life and would result in devastating economic consequences and job losses for Americans in localities just like the one you represent.”
NAM and other industry groups have hammered the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed ozone standard, warning the cost associated with implementing it could cost more than $1 trillion and lead to job losses. A 60-parts-per-billion standard, the group said, could cost $270 billion per year and put 2.9 million jobs at risk (environmental groups have disputed NAM’s research on the rule).
Instead, NAM president and CEO Jay Timmons said mayors and manufacturers should focus on meeting the current standards rather than embracing new ones.
“We know that progress will continue as investments underway and laws already on the books will drive improvements over the next decade and beyond,” he wrote in a letter to the mayors.
“We cannot risk hobbling our economy further, and diverting crucial financial resources away from developing the very technologies we need to make further improvements.”

Return to headline | Return to top
The Ozone Rules That No One Will Like

Sep 30, 2015 | National Journal

By Jason Plautz

Environmentalists have been burned by the Obama administration before on smog regulations. Now they’re worried that it’s about to happen again.
The Environmental Protection Agency is under a court order to finalize a rule tightening standards for ground-level ozone by Oct. 1. That’s the same air-quality rule that was pulled by the White House in 2011 over economic concerns, a move that left the environmental community incensed.
Deep into a second term where President Obama has been aggressive on environmental issues, the ozone rule won’t be yanked again. But environmentalists are now girding themselves for another disappointment: that the standard won’t be tight enough.
Sources familiar with the discussions say that the EPA is pushing to lower the ozone standard of 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb, the high end of the 65-70 ppb range that the agency proposed last fall.
The White House could lower the final standard down to 68 ppb, a seemingly minor tweak, but one that could require dramatically more pollution control. With days to go before a decision comes out, environmentalists are making the case that 70 ppb just won’t be enough, even as they prepare for it.
A 70 ppb standard “would be a betrayal of the Clean Air Act’s promise of healthy air and a betrayal of the millions of kids and seniors and asthmatics who will not receive the protection that doctors say they need by such a standard,” said David Baron, a managing attorney for Earthjustice.
Baron said there was a “good likelihood” that his group could sue the EPA if such a standard was issued.ADVERTISEMENT
The ozone standard sets the limit for ozone pollution, or smog, and requires states that violate the level to craft compliance plans. Ozone has been linked to asthma, respiratory damage and a host of other health impacts.
Business and industry groups have long opposed any bid to lower the standard, saying that it would plunge too many areas of the country into nonattainment status. Complying with the rule would require states to craft plans that cut down on pollution from cars and industrial sources, adding up to a rule that opponents say would be the most expensive in history.
Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said that his group had not done an analysis of what would happen under a 70 ppb standard, but that anything below the current standard would be a blow to its members. He did not say whether NAM would consider a challenge over a 70 ppb level, but added, “we’d have to do a lot of work to figure out what this means for our members and what the costs would be.”
MOST READ1
Self-Immolation, Times Two2
Democratic Candidates for Governor Avoiding Ties to Clinton3
Moderates Look to Flex Muscle in Majority-Leader Race4
John Boehner’s Not Done Yet5
Congress Moves Halfway to Averting a Shutdown
SPONSORED: River Giants: Crude Barges Keep Delaware, East Coast Refiners Well-Supplied
“What I do know is that 68 ppb is markedly worse than 70 [ppb],” Eisenberg said. That seemingly small difference, he said, would require new technology to be added to manufacturing sites and that more areas of the country would be out of attainment.
Opponents have pushed hard on purple states and moderate politicians in a bid to turn them against the standard.
But public-health groups say that the country has too long been stuck on a 75 ppb standard that’s insufficient for public health (it was first set under the George W. Bush administration, and greens sued because they felt it was not tough enough). The EPA’s scientific advisory board, which analyzes scientific literature on pollution, said last year that 75 ppb was insufficient for public health, and that vulnerable groups such as children or the elderly would see protection only at 60 ppb.
That’s the level where most of the messaging and lobbying from the Left has centered, even after the EPA didn’t include it in the proposed range that the agency was considering.
They’re used to disappointment on this. Ahead of the 2012 elections, the White House yanked its last review of the ozone standard over concerns that it would damage the economy. The move drove a deep wedge between environmentalists and the White House, and has left them frustrated on ozone.
John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that there’s still hope that, with a few days to go, the White House will lower the proposal, saying it would be “bewildering that administration would set an unprotective level … after having so many years to get this right.”
“The message,” he added, “is that President Obama should do better than EPA’s worst.”

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

Citing Safety Concerns, Towns Challenge Federal Crude-By-Rail Rule

Sep 30, 2015 | The Fuse

By Paul Ruiz

On October 1, the Department of Transportation (DOT) will implement stricter safety standards for America’s crude-oil transporting railcars. The new regulation, which follows devastating derailments in Lac Megantic, Quebec, and Lynchburg, Virginia, will require the phasing-out or retrofitting of industry standard tank cars deemed unfit for the safe transport of crude oil and petroleum products. Now, two suburban Chicago communities have asked a federal appellate court to further review the rules, citing glaring loopholes in the soon-to-be-implemented regulation.
Barrington, Illinois, a community of about 10,000 people 30 miles northwest of Chicago, was among the first municipalities to formally challenge DOT’s rules. Six years ago, five freight trains would travel through the town each day, some of which were carrying hazardous materials, but the frequency quadrupled to 20 per day following the 2007 acquisition of the regional Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railway by railroad giant Canadian National (CN). Two years later, an ethanol train derailment in Cherry Valley, Illinois pushed local officials to call for urgent action from DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the agency responsible for the safe transport of hazardous materials. Barrington’s appeal with the City of Aurora is currently before the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court and represents one of the community challenges to DOT’s rule that highlights the concerns of locally elected officials across the country.
Safety of DOT-111 tank cars
The recent growth in North American oil and gas production is driving a massive increase in the movement of crude by rail. More than 10 percent of daily U.S. oil production now moves on America’s railways, up from one percent five years ago.
The recent growth in North American oil and gas production is driving a massive increase in the movement of crude by rail. More than 10 percent of daily U.S. oil production now moves on America’s railways, up from one percent five years ago. In North Dakota—where production has increased at a breakneck pace since the start of the oil boom—crude-by-rail offers important advantages compared to alternatives such as pipelines. For one, rail is geographically flexible, serving nearly every major refinery in the United States and Canada. Rail enables shippers to move crude using existing infrastructure, rather than constructing costly and fixed-route pipelines. In North Dakota, more than 70 percent of the state’s production moves out of the region by rail. Nevertheless, the heavy use of rail is in some ways a suboptimal response forced by rapid changes in the market. As Energy Trends Insider Robert Rapier told The Fuse earlier this year, “A pipeline infrastructure would be the best-case scenario. We’d still have accidents, but you’re an order of magnitude safer doing it by pipeline.”
But a string of derailments has kept many towns and cities along freight lines on edge. As early as 1991, federal safety officials warned the majority of tank cars in use were prone to puncturing. Standards to improve these cars, however, largely stalled until May of this year when transportation officials formalized the rule restricting the number of DOT-111 tank cars that can traverse U.S. railways. Mile-long trains, called “high-hazard flammable trains,” or HHFTs, are designated as continuous blocks of 20 or more tank cars loaded with flammable liquids, or 35 or more cars loaded with flammable liquids throughout the train. “Trains can have 34 cars of [unimproved] DOT-111s… It’s a hole large enough to drive a freight train through,” Barrington village president Karen Darch told The Fuse.
Barrington and Aurora are particularly concerned that DOT’s rule is too narrow because it exclusively applies to HHFTs. Legacy DOT-111s, which frequently travel on trains of 50-to-120 cars, are capable of carrying 50,000 to 90,000 barrels of oil in a single journey. Shippers use them because they have lower per unit costs than manifest trains carrying a mix of materials. A widely-cited 1991 National Transportation Safety Board report found 54 percent of DOT-111s were involved in accidents that released materials, far higher than for other models. The department’s new rules require trains to be equipped with thicker steel jackets, sturdier head shields, and top-fitting protections that could reduce the incidence of accidental spills by half. Retrofits of older DOT-111s could see reductions of as much as 75 percent.
The cost of retrofitting cars to post-2011 standards can be high, as much as $20,000 to $40,000 per car, and could cost one billion dollars to upgrade industry-wide.
The railroad industry says upgrades to legacy cars can be expensive. Most trains have a service life of 35 years, and until 2011, they were manufactured according to older standards. According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the cost of retrofitting cars to post-2011 standards can be high, as much as $20,000 to $40,000 per car, and could cost one billion dollars to upgrade industry-wide. “The goal is for these improvements to be implemented as aggressively as possible, without curbing the industry’s ability to serve energy sector customers and support North American progress toward energy independence,” an AAR spokesman told the trade publication Railway Age. “Lots of accidents have occurred with far fewer than 20 trains, so…there’s lots of vulnerability,” Darch said, reacting to AAR’s appeal of the rules.
Braking, thermal insulation, and local notification
Many state governments and municipalities are closely monitoring progress on electronically controlled pneumatic brakes (ECP), which have the potential to reduce the number of cars punctured in an accident, decrease the chance of a pile-up, and give train operators a chance to stop quickly if they see an obstacle on the tracks. DOT’s rules now require ECP to be installed on crude-carrying trains by 2021, but some in the railroad industry warn that the technology can be expensive, costing roughly $10,000 per tank car.
Many state governments and municipalities are closely monitoring progress on electronically controlled pneumatic brakes (ECP), which have the potential to reduce the number of cars punctured in an accident.
Thermal insulation and pressure relief valves must be installed on new and retrofitted tank cars to protect against heat and flames, allowing first responders to control burns. Industry groups encouraged federal regulators to adopt a higher standard so that tank cars can survive in a pool of fire for up to 800 minutes. However, DOT kept a 100-minute standard, saying tests at the 100-minute mark should be “used as a benchmark for adequate performance.” Barrington and Aurora say that emergency responders have a better chance to control a disaster if a rupture to a train car can make it through 800 minutes in such a scenario. “First, we’d like you to keep it on the tracks. But if you can’t do that, then we would like you to keep the stuff in the car,” Darch said.
Concerns about the combustibility of Bakken crude, in particular, forced federal officials to issue a safety alert in May 2014 requiring railroads to notify state emergency response commissions and tribal authorities when long trains carrying petroleum were passing through communities. Trains were limited to urban speed limits under certain conditions. But the emergency alert missed the majority of the trains carrying crude oil, leaving some local officials still worried about the presence of long unit trains filled with petroleum in their communities.
In the May 2015 regulation, DOT excluded a provision that would have required railroads to notify towns of incoming crude oil-carrying trains. Some railroads have instead rolled out a mobile application equipping first responders with the details of what train cars are carrying. Railroads need only to provide a point of contact for information relating to the routing of hazardous materials, and in the event of an accident requiring emergency response, they only have to carry a paper manifest of the trains’ contents. Following the Cherry Valley derailment, a federal safety investigation revealed the train crew was one mile away from emergency responders, who took two hours to obtain the paper manifest.
“No one can predict where a derailment or a problem may occur,” Aurora mayor Tom Weisner told The Fuse, whose town is party to the federal appeal. “We may have all the foam in stock in the world, but it’s got to get to the site. It’s got to be applied. And how long it takes to get to that site and what happens or transpires in the meantime is very hard to predict… As well trained as [emergency responders] are, it’s very difficult for any government to honestly tell people that there’s nothing to worry about.”

Return to headline | Return to top
OMB Starts Review Of EPA Ozone Transport Rule

Sep 30, 2015 | InsideEPA

he White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) has started its review of a proposed EPA rule to curb interstate transport of ozone-forming emissions that aims to help states attain the agency's 2008 ozone standard, while the agency is poised to issue a decision under an Oct. 1 judicial deadline on tightening the standard.
EPA on Sept. 29 sent the “backstop” rule for mandatory OMB pre-publication review and plans to publish the proposal in December, with a final rule slated for release in August 2016. The rule would set requirements for states to curb emissions to meet the 2008 ozone air standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb).
The rule would replace the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), EPA's transport rule designed to meet the 1997 ozone air limit expressed as 84 ppb and the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 15 micrograms per cubic meter. CSAPR has survived a Supreme Court challenge, but state emissions “budgets,” or pollution allowances, have been remanded to EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for revision, after the D.C. Circuit found EPA was demanding excessive pollution cuts from some states.
Because CSAPR only addresses the older 1997 ozone standard, a successor rule is required to implement the 2008 ozone standard. The Clean Air Act requires states to craft “good neighbor” plans to stop their emissions that interfere with downwind states' NAAQS attainment, but EPA is working on a rule that would regulate states directly as a “backstop” in the event they fail to produce an acceptable plan.
The pending ozone transport rule will not address interstate PM2.5 pollution because those emissions have declined nationally, nor will it address EPA's imminent rule to revise the ozone standard.
EPA has proposed to tighten the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb down to a limit within the range of 65 to 70 ppb. Its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee backs a standard in the range of 60 to 70 ppb, while advocates want a 60 ppb NAAQS and industry opposes any change.
If EPA issues such a tougher standard, interstate ozone transport will become a much bigger issue once more, as many more areas of the country would find themselves in nonattainment with the limit.
While most areas are meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and most will soon meet the 2008 standard, with a standard of 70 ppb or less in place many more parts of the country would once again face ozone transport issues, sources say, which could potentially spur EPA to craft another rule to help curb ozone air transport.

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested